Core Viewpoint - The newly revised Public Security Administration Punishment Law, effective from January 1 next year, establishes the legitimacy of self-defense measures for citizens against unlawful acts, marking a significant shift in the legal landscape regarding self-defense [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Changes - The new law explicitly allows citizens to take defensive actions to protect themselves or others, ensuring that those who act in self-defense are exempt from administrative penalties [1][2]. - The law outlines five specific scenarios that clarify the legality of self-defense, define the limits of defense, and establish the burden of proof, thereby providing a solid legal foundation for citizens to act in self-defense [2][3]. Group 2: Social Implications - The revision addresses the previous ambiguity in recognizing self-defense in public security cases, which often led to a culture of fear where victims hesitated to defend themselves due to potential legal repercussions [2][3]. - The change is expected to enhance public safety and restore confidence in the legal system, allowing individuals to distinguish right from wrong and promoting social justice [2][3].

Core Viewpoint - The revised Public Security Administration Punishment Law, effective from January 1 next year, emphasizes the legitimacy of self-defense, introducing a new Article 19 that clarifies the conditions under which individuals can take defensive actions against unlawful infringements without facing penalties [1][2]. Summary by Sections Article 19 Introduction - The new Article 19 states that actions taken to prevent ongoing unlawful infringements that result in damage are not considered violations of public security management and thus are not punishable. However, if the defensive actions exceed necessary limits and cause significant damage, penalties may apply but should be mitigated [1][3]. Legal Continuity and Philosophy - The addition of Article 19 is seen as a continuation and unification of legal provisions regarding self-defense, reflecting the principle that "the law cannot yield to unlawful acts." This principle asserts that every individual has the right to defend their rights against infringement [2][4]. Social Implications - The revision has garnered attention due to past cases where victims faced penalties for defending themselves, leading to a culture of fear in exercising self-defense. The new law aims to provide a solid legal foundation for citizens to protect their rights within reasonable limits, thereby enhancing social justice awareness [2][3]. Conditions for Self-Defense - Article 19 includes conditions that encourage self-defense while also cautioning against excessive responses. It specifies that if the aggressor has ceased their actions, continued retaliation by the victim would be inappropriate, emphasizing the need for proportionality in self-defense [3][4]. Legislative Purpose - The overarching legislative purpose of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law is to protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, organizations, and other entities. The revised Article 19 provides legal grounds for citizens to assert their rights in the face of unlawful actions [4].

Core Viewpoint - The case of a restaurant owner in Zibo, Shandong, who was involved in a mutual fight with a drunken customer, highlights the complexities of self-defense laws in China, emphasizing the need for a clearer understanding and application of the principle that "the law should not yield to unlawful acts" [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Principles - The principle of "the law should not yield to unlawful acts" is well-known but often faces challenges in specific cases, leading to prolonged judicial processes [1]. - The concept of self-defense should apply universally, regardless of the severity of the incident, and individuals should not be expected to rationally assess the appropriate level of response during an unlawful attack [2][3]. Group 2: Judicial Practice - There is an urgent need to activate self-defense provisions in both criminal and administrative law, particularly in common public disturbances that may not involve severe criminal implications [3]. - The handling of minor cases requires enhanced professional competence among law enforcement to avoid simplistic resolutions like "both sides are at fault," ensuring that self-defense claims are properly recognized from the outset [3].