I picked up this story from Virtual China, which picked it up from Roland.  It is about a Chinese fellow who re-posted a story on a web site (the story had already been posted elsewhere on the web; the guy in question merely re-posted it on a different site) critical of a pharmaceutical company in China (it allegedly had close ties to the government and engaged in fraud).  The company in question went after the man who re-posted the story, charged him with libel and had him arrested and detained for nine months.

    Others who have discussed this sad tale have focused on the freedom of speech issues involved: how can a person who re-posts an already publicly available story be responsible for the content of the original story?

     I want to focus on something else.  Apparently the company made several demands of the man when negotiating an out of court settlement:

[the company] made three extraordinary demands of him: that his parents travel across
the country to apologize in person to [the company]; that he personally
admit fault on the Internet; and that he compensate them with 100,000
RMB for their expenses!

 It’s that first demand that kills me.  The company is obviously pulling a quasi-Confucian thing here.  Calling on the parents to come and apologize can only serve to humiliate the son.  Perhaps the company leaders think there is something viruous in this; that it demonstrates the greater morality of their claim.  The parents, who are putatively responsible for the moral upbringing of the son, are made to admit his guilt for him, which, in the twisted minds of the company people, should somehow highlight their own virtue and righteousness.

     My only response here is to call it for what it is: bullshit. 

     There is no way in heaven that Confucius would condone such a demand.  Gratuitous humiliation of others, especially of elders, should not be used to prove your own moral superiority.  If their claim is true and virtuous, the company should not have to engage in such crass action.  If they were truly exmplars of Confucian virtue, they would let the actions of their company speak for themselves.  If the story is libelous, it will fall away under fair-minded scrutiny.

The Master said: "The noble-minded stand above the fray with dignity…(15.22)

     The company is not following a true Confucian Way.  It is grand-standing and embarrassing people for its own profit.  It is using Confucius in a most un-Confucian manner.  Or, in the old language of socialism, waving a Confucian flag to defeat Confucius.  The company is just plain wrong in this and it needs to be called on the carpet for it.