Investigating the 20 sample cases that constitute the crime of advocating terrorism and extremism, it can be seen that such crimes have obvious characteristics of networking of criminal means, vagueness of judicial regulation scope and inconsistence of refereeing standards. Therefore, judicial interpretation should be formulated as soon as possible to scientifically define the meaning of this crime, correct the scope of criminal law regulation, improve the point of attack, and unify the refereeing scale. Judicial treatment of network advocating terrorism and extremism cases should adhere to the judicial idea of strict control and proper handling, the criminal policy of tempering justice with mercy, and the basic position of administrative disenchantment of basic illegal facts judgment. The specific sanction path is that the definition of criminalization of advocating terrorism and extremism should be carried out around the protection purpose of this crime, focusing on punishing "effectively publicizing" behaviors; quantitative restriction should follow the principle of proportionality and the principle of suiting punishment to crime and responsibility; except for individual cases, in principle, probation should be applied as the main way, with the key to the substantive judgment of applying probation lying in the consideration of "does not harm the society again"; network information tools such as mobile phones and computers have many uses, and should not be confiscated in principle. Different from traditional crimes, terrorist crimes must highlight their characteristics of preventive strikes. However, the legal bottom line of criminal law in punishing crimes must also be abided by, so that the scope and intensity of punishments can be in line with public expectations, to avoid excessive reaction.