Sharing a short video of a bowl of "Toad Soup" resulted in a sky high fine of 450000 yuan. This incident has sparked one-sided criticism online. Linyi officials also responded to social concerns in a timely manner and announced a higher-level investigation. On July 15th, the joint investigation team of Linyi City issued a notice stating that in the nationwide attention grabbing incident of "restaurants being fined 450000 yuan for releasing food videos", the Lanshan District Market Supervision Administration was revoked of its original administrative penalty by the municipal bureau due to insufficient evidence of punishment and improper enforcement procedures; Five relevant staff members, including the then Party Secretary Qi Moujin, have been suspended from their duties. We will continue to investigate this incident and handle it seriously in accordance with regulations, discipline, and the law based on the investigation results. From the content of this notice, it can be seen that it is open and straightforward, pointing directly to the core loophole of law enforcement - arbitrarily identifying "illegal advertising" based solely on a sharing video without commercial identification, deviating from the law enforcement concept of "evidence is king", and constitutes hasty factual determination; Failure to organize a hearing as required after the parties have submitted an application for a hearing; After making the decision not to impose penalties, the written "Decision not to Impose Administrative Penalties" was not delivered within the prescribed time limit. These programs are out of order and expose the arbitrary exercise of power. Previously, both parties had different opinions on whether the "Decision on Not Imposing Administrative Penalties" had been delivered. The announcement not only cleared the shop owner's name, but also confirmed that the law enforcement department continued to confuse the public with "already delivered" after the incident was exposed, attempting to get away with it. This indicates that at least for a period of time after the incident, the improper enforcers did not truly reflect. This also confirms the necessity of a higher-level investigation. Now the truth is revealed. This delayed conclusion also highlights the legitimacy of Ms. Zhang's resolute resistance against improper law enforcement. From receiving a fine of 450000 yuan in March, deleting the video and promising to cooperate, to submitting a hearing application in May but failing, until reluctantly resorting to court, the path of an ordinary business operator's legal rights protection is precisely the simplest adherence of citizens to procedural justice. The continuous questioning of the "sky high fine" in the public opinion field has become a supervisory mirror for correcting law enforcement deviations with heteronomy. When the market supervision department quietly revoked the punishment in May but failed to inform the parties in a timely manner in accordance with the law, it was the transmission of public opinion pressure, which promoted the escalation of the investigation and allowed the public to see the truth of the incident. The swift and decisive promotion investigation and accountability launched by Linyi City is worthy of recognition. The establishment of a cross departmental joint investigation team, the invitation of experts to participate, and the immediate suspension of five responsible persons demonstrate the determination to rectify the situation. But we must also be aware that suspending the relevant responsible persons is only the starting point of the aftermath of the incident, not the end point of accountability. If the subsequent investigation is carried out lightly due to the cooling of public opinion, or if the problem is only attributed to "individual personnel errors", it is tantamount to using formal accountability to cover up systemic loopholes. What the public expects is that after the "revocation of punishment" and "suspension of relevant personnel", there will also be corresponding institutional repairs to deep-seated issues such as disregard for evidence rules and hearing rights, rather than a crisis public relations response to public opinion. Looking at this case, from the release of the video in February to the release of the accountability announcement in July, the five month fluctuation of public opinion exposed two major problems in grassroots law enforcement: one is the habitual thinking of "emphasizing results over procedures". Some law enforcement personnel prioritize "efficient investigation" over procedural legitimacy, resulting in the legitimate rights of administrative counterparties becoming mere formalities; The second is the misplacement of the position of "emphasizing power over rights". When small and micro operators face strong law enforcement agencies, their rights to information, statement and defense are repeatedly suppressed, ultimately evolving into law enforcement chaos such as "door cracks and fines". These accumulated problems cannot be cured by a single accountability. The authority of the rule of law and the fairness of individual cases not only reside in the manifestation of substantive justice, but also are rooted in the details of procedural justice. The Guiding Opinions of the State Council on Further Standardizing and Supervising the Setting and Implementation of Fines emphasizes the principle of "no punishment for first-time offenders and minor exemptions", which is also a cautious upgrade of the law enforcement concept based on the warning and experience summary of several cases of "sky high fines". To ensure fair law enforcement, rigorous investigation and evidence collection, as well as standardized procedures, are indispensable. Otherwise, even the best laws that are close to people's livelihoods and the most well intentioned policies may become a shield for abuse of power during implementation. It should be noted that law enforcement officers who can patiently listen to statements and defenses, organize hearings seriously, and deliver documents in accordance with the law are far more capable of building a solid foundation for law enforcement credibility than "revoking punishment" afterwards. Now, the revocation of the "sky high fine" and the suspension of five law enforcement officers have pressed the pause button for this controversy, but the real breakthrough is still in the future - joint investigation is only a temporary action of the investigative agency, and legal accountability still needs to return to the rule of law and normalcy. Can this case be used as an opportunity to reconstruct the standards of grassroots law enforcement procedures, so that the "unity of rights and responsibilities" runs through subsequent accountability? These have become the focus of a new round of public opinion supervision, and the local response will determine the ultimate outcome of this accountability: whether it is a turning point of law based administration and strict law enforcement, or another round of technical response to "extinguishing public opinion". And when the tide of public opinion recedes, the weight of responsibility can still accurately fall on the balance of the rule of law: it will not be exacerbated by public anger, nor will it be eliminated by forgetting. Only in this way can the misunderstood "toad soup" truly showcase the fireworks carried by the common people - it should have risen freely under the protection of the rule of law, rather than trembling in fear of power loss. (New Society)