After reading this post: The Retrial Case of Super Racer, Highlighting the Dark Side of Foshan Judiciary, I felt deeply uncomfortable. Judges, as neutral arbitrators, are constrained by the Judges Law and the Code of Judicial Ethics, which limit their freedom of speech. They cannot respond to public criticism of their rulings, nor can they publicly express their views or attitudes towards their own or others’ cases.

Therefore, on the internet, it is rare to see judges responding to various case-related criticisms. In fact, due to their rigorous training, judges have developed a method of sifting through and discarding various criticisms. However, public criticism of cases can easily undermine the trust of the general public in the courts and judges. Spreading rumors is simple, but debunking them is far more difficult. Moreover, baseless rumors and insults against judges, due to the special nature of the judicial role, are extremely hard to refute unless they rise to the level of criminal behavior.

Criticism of judicial rulings should not be based solely on the current moral standards of the internet. Instead, it should be grounded in facts and evidence, presenting one’s views and evidence truthfully.

I believe many have seen Akira Kurosawa’s film Rashomon. Based on different factual bases and experiential judgments, individuals can arrive at entirely different conclusions. What judges can do is to use the law as the standard, combined with the extensive factual evidence provided by both parties, to clarify the legal relationships involved in the case and make a ruling accordingly.

Long ago, I saw Super Racer posting some personal value judgments about this case on this forum. However, I have never seen the evidence provided by the opposing party, nor have I seen the factual basis of the evidence provided by Super Racer for this case (there might have been some, but I don’t recall). It seems that everyone, to some extent, has been swayed by Super Racer’s value judgments, engaging in baseless discussions.

Additionally, the post contains statements like, “Since my wrongful case involves two other cases, if this case is overturned, it means the other two cases can also be overturned.” As an observer, based on common value judgments, I can only remain noncommittal. This external justification requires more evidence to support it; otherwise, it remains an unsubstantiated claim.

Losing a case is a normal occurrence. In Foshan, there are likely at least 100,000 cases annually, with a significant number of losing parties. Undoubtedly, among this vast number of cases, there will inevitably be some misjudgments or even wrongful rulings. However, in this case, since I have only seen Super Racer’s side of the story and the headache-inducing content of the 20-plus-page judgment, I cannot currently determine whether the case is a wrongful or erroneous judgment. Based on my fundamental trust in the court and judges, I have reason to believe in the correctness and authority of the judgment. Criticism and questioning of court rulings should be legal and evidence-based, conducted through reasonable means. Although China’s various petition and stability maintenance systems do not seem very reliable in reality, publicly cursing and insulting courts and judges only adds unnecessary distress.