An online rumor, after days of speculation, has finally been authenticated. China's broadcast watchdog in a directive sent late September demands TV stations and other media outlets must cease broadcasting material featuring stars who have used drugs, visited prostitutes or been engaged in other law-breaking activities. These people are also not allowed to participate in any event organized by these outlets.

There is a major reason why the regulator chose to reaffirm its requirements at this moment so strongly. Recent months have seen frequent headline-grabbing scandals, in which stars soured their reputation for notoriety after committing illegal and immoral activities, which, according to the directive, "have harmed the image of the entertainment industry and made negative impacts on society, especially on young people." This directive could serve as a severe warning as well as punishment to these people.

However, to media outlets, this directive is more like an order instead of a guideline, which is why it has raised a public debate about whether it can take real effect as policymakers expect.

So far, quite a lot of people believe it is a draconian regulation that gives few opportunities to the tainted stars to mend their ways and rehabilitate their reputation.

What's more, it deprives these celebrities of some legal rights. This screen blackout order, given by a government organ, is in conflict with Chinese laws, which clearly state that the legitimate rights of lawbreakers, such as labor rights, must be protected.

Besides, the ban is also suspected to be a violation of the basic rules and of the market economy. The entertainment industry, as part of China's growing market economy, should be managed under the guidance of market principles. The future of these tainted celebrities who have stardom is mainly subject to two elements: the law and the market.

Although out of a desire to steer social ethics, the government has to become involved when these scandals make negative impacts on society.

It must be fully aware of its boundaries and avoid direct and harsh administrative intervention.

It might be a better idea for the regulator to replace such order-like "directives" with suggestions and guidelines, drawing a framework, especially a bottom line for its subordinate media outlets.

In this case, a merciless ban can hardly produce results as effectively as a proposal that asks media outlets to interact with these stars prudently. Not only will it be more feasible and acceptable, it could inspire the entire entertainment industry to act above the bottom line.

Letting the market and rule of law assume their responsibilities should be the guiding principle on which a government organ makes its own policies.