An expert on human rights research has described accusations regarding China's freedom of speech contained in an annual report issued by Human Rights Watch as "gratuitous."

Human Rights Watch on Thursday published "World Report 2013," a report on human rights in which it accused China of making poor progress on human rights in the last decade.

According to an article publicized on Monday by Liu Jie, director of the human rights research center under the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, this year's report uses fictitious examples to conclude that China has continued to violate domestic and international legal guarantees of freedom of press and expression.

The report also stated that Sina Weibo, China's biggest microblogging site, "gives 300 million subscribers space to express opinions and discontent to an extent previously unavailable."

"These contradictory assessments prove that China has always held a supportive and open attitude in terms of freedom of expression instead of the other way around," Liu said.

Setting legal curbs on online expression is a common practice in the world today, according to Liu.

Liu described the accusations lodged in the report as "lame arguments" that are used by those who believe themselves to be moral judges, Liu said, adding that they also constitute a "political conspiracy."

China has made progress in ensuring freedom of expression in recent years, Liu said.

The Chinese government published its National Human Rights Action Plan of China (2012-2015) in June 2012, vowing to take effective measures to ensure that all channels of self-expression are unblocked and that citizens' freedom of speech and right to be heard are protected in accordance with the law.

The action plan also calls for strengthening institutional guarantees to ensure journalists' right to be informed, gather materials and publish information, as well as criticize and supervise.

Chinese netizens have been able to voice opinions concerning state affairs, as well as supervise and report on government agencies and officials, via the Internet, Liu said.

"Many corruption scandals and rights-infringement cases were first exposed by Internet users, arousing government attention," Liu said.

"In fact, freedom of speech has always had legal and even political boundaries," Liu said.

Pressure that has been put on Western media to write politically correct articles represents a typical example of self-restraint limiting freedom of expression, Liu said.

Legal limits on the freedom of expression have been in place for a long time, Liu said, citing a 1925 US Supreme Court decision in which the Court made it clear that "The freedom of speech and of the press which is secured by the Constitution, does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish..."

The case strengthened the "clear and present danger" doctrine, which determines under what circumstances limits can be placed on freedom of expression.

The case established a legal principle to which the US courts would be held when criminalizing speech or other form of expression, Liu said.

Online scams, identity theft and libel have made the public realize that it is necessary to use legislation to curb irresponsible expression, he said.

The top legislature approved rules on December 28, 2012 to enhance the protection of personal information online.

The legislation, which was based on an extensive consensus, demonstrates China's respect for freedom of expression, Liu said.