Voluntas provided informative material that was distributed to bystanders during the action (Interview 4),as well as a small budget for activists'travel and food expenses. The activists supporting Kim Lee during her final court hearing were backed by a coalition of all three organizations,each providing different resources.In contrast to the Injured Brides event,the Kim Lee action was suggested to ADV organizations by independent activists who were followers of organization A and Kim Lee's Weibo account (Interview 7).Through this common interest,the independent activists formed a coalition with Organization A,and Organization A began to champion the action (Interview 8).Organization A again utilized its network to find additional activists and contributed media resources and expertise in performance art advocacy (Interview 7).Organization B again provided a small budget for activists'expenses,media-related resources,and informative material on DV,as well as citizens'rights expertise2 during the action itself.Organization C provided accommodation,access to its network of women's rights experts and an additional space to plan the event (Interview 8). The communication between organizations A,B,and C was institutionalized, since employees of all three organizations were members of the same formal women's rights networks and frequently worked together on diverse projects, ranging from gender discrimination lawsuits to conferences and workshops.The offices of organizations A and B were located in the same building,providing the infrastructure for easy informal exchange.This combination of institutionalized communication and geographic proximity led to strong networks that could be easily maintained and actions that could be easily coordinated.The independent activists may not have been official members of any of the three organizations,but they were members of their informal networks. The organizations were very careful not to appear as initiators of the actions so that they could not be held responsible for initiating public disturbance.Their most notable strategy to avoid this was to inform media and state representatives that they were attending the event as individual supporters of the cause rather than representatives of their organizations(Interviews 4,6,and 7).The activists were not necessarily members of the organizations;however,they were at least members of the organization's networks: We know each other through Weibo,we were all followers of the account of organization A/B.I posted a comment on DV and people were starting to discuss it.Afterwards we knew each other.It was very simple,we met as friends of friends or simply because we had the same interest.(...)Later I simply suggested that who wants to join in the activity should come and meet up.(Interview 8,translation by author) While the actions were not initiated and coordinated by the organizations,they were at least supported by them. Crznsexertise refers here to the knowledge and expertise of activists regarding the rights of activists who hold public events,as well as the difference between permitted and forbidden citizen activities. 2Springerprovided informative material that was distributed to bystanders during the action (Interview 4), as well as a small budget for activists’ travel and food expenses. The activists supporting Kim Lee during her final court hearing were backed by a coalition of all three organizations, each providing different resources. In contrast to the Injured Brides event, the Kim Lee action was suggested to ADV organizations by independent activists who were followers of organization A and Kim Lee’s Weibo account (Interview 7). Through this common interest, the independent activists formed a coalition with Organization A, and Organization A began to champion the action (Interview 8). Organization A again utilized its network to find additional activists and contributed media resources and expertise in performance art advocacy (Interview 7). Organization B again provided a small budget for activists’ expenses, media-related resources, and informative material on DV, as well as citizens’ rights expertise21 during the action itself. Organization C provided accommodation, access to its network of women’s rights experts and an additional space to plan the event (Interview 8). The communication between organizations A, B, and C was institutionalized, since employees of all three organizations were members of the same formal women’s rights networks and frequently worked together on diverse projects, ranging from gender discrimination lawsuits to conferences and workshops. The offices of organizations A and B were located in the same building, providing the infrastructure for easy informal exchange. This combination of institutionalized communication and geographic proximity led to strong networks that could be easily maintained and actions that could be easily coordinated. The independent activists may not have been official members of any of the three organizations, but they were members of their informal networks. The organizations were very careful not to appear as initiators of the actions so that they could not be held responsible for initiating public disturbance. Their most notable strategy to avoid this was to inform media and state representatives that they were attending the event as individual supporters of the cause rather than representatives of their organizations (Interviews 4, 6, and 7). The activists were not necessarily members of the organizations; however, they were at least members of the organization’s networks: We know each other through Weibo, we were all followers of the account of organization A/B. I posted a comment on DV and people were starting to discuss it. Afterwards we knew each other. It was very simple, we met as friends of friends or simply because we had the same interest. (…) Later I simply suggested that who wants to join in the activity should come and meet up. (Interview 8, translation by author) While the actions were not initiated and coordinated by the organizations, they were at least supported by them. 21 Citizens’ rights expertise refers here to the knowledge and expertise of activists regarding the rights of activists who hold public events, as well as the difference between permitted and forbidden citizen activities. Voluntas 123