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 Points - The revised Public Security Administration Punishment Law clarifies citizens' rights to take defensive measures against unlawful acts, providing a solid legal backing for self-defense actions and encouraging citizens to protect their rights within reasonable limits [1][2] - The new law, effective from January 1 next year, introduces Article 19, which states that actions taken to prevent ongoing unlawful harm that result in damage will not be considered violations of public security management and will not incur penalties [1][3] - The law emphasizes the principle that "the law cannot yield to unlawful acts," reflecting a commitment to uphold justice and protect citizens' rights [2][3] Summary by Sections Legal Framework - The addition of Article 19 in the revised law is a continuation and unification of existing legal provisions regarding self-defense, aligning with the Criminal Law's Article 20, which also recognizes legitimate self-defense actions [1][2] - The law aims to protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations, providing a legal basis for citizens to assert their rights [3] Social Implications - The revised law addresses past issues where victims of unlawful acts hesitated to defend themselves due to fears of being penalized for mutual fighting, thus reinforcing the right to self-defense [2] - The law encourages citizens to bravely uphold their rights while also reminding them to exercise moderation in their defensive actions, as excessive responses may still lead to penalties [3]

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].