Thai Gov't Sets Up Site For Snitching On Royals' Critics

An anonymous reader writes "In a move that would make the old eastern German Stasi green with envy, the Thai government has modernized a system that allows citizens to snitch on fellow citizens. 'Internet users are being urged to show their loyalty to the king by contributing to a new website called protecttheking.net, which has been set up by a parliamentary committee. On the site's front page it is described as a means for Thai people to show their loyalty to the king by protecting him from what it calls misunderstandings about him. It calls on all citizens to inform on anyone suspected of insulting or criticising the monarchy.' An large unknown population of political prisoners are currently being held for 3 to 15 years in Thai prisons for being interpreted as insulting the monarchy."

Comments

writeinjackthompson

[bconway]

Sorry, had to be said.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[iYk6]

I was thinking of writing in myself. Anonymously, of course.

"I am here to report myself, who frequently claims that the king has inappropriate sexual relations with monkeys. My name is Anonymous."

Re:writeinjackthompson

[palegray.net]

Screw the anonymous part, I'll use my real name. I can be fairly creative when it comes to visuals, too.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[ajs]

I think it would be much more amusing to have a bot keep submitting the name of the King of Thailand.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[im_thatoneguy]

I saw that link and went to it like a moth to flame.

Of course I'm going to report anonymously because I do like going to Thailand. But Anything to help overload and confuse their servers.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[palegray.net]

Advise as many folks as possible at the State Department of your next trip, post a bunch of blog entries about your plans, call your Senator to let him/her know you'll be taking lots of pictures and keeping detailed notes on your trip, and once everything is confirmed as "high visibility" go ahead and post your thoughts on the new site. Be sure to call a couple of CNN anchors to let them know about all the steps you've taken, and dare Thai officials to do a goddamned thing about your online activities once you get there.

Worst case scenario: you get detained for a couple of days, get international exposure from human rights groups and major media outlets, and sell a book deal on the whole charade. I'd do it myself, but frankly I'm too busy with other pursuits.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[supernova_hq]

And yet your comment is bland and uncreative.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[im_thatoneguy]

I didn't see any time to relax on the beach in all that. Was that before or after the political imprisonment?

Re:writeinjackthompson

[palegray.net]

After, including the rubber stamp apology from those who detained you temporarily. In case you honestly believe it won't work out (assuming you took all the prerequisite steps I mentioned), might I recommend Costa Rica for beach lounging? It certainly has a certain allure to it, and if you're not otherwise engaged (read: married) there are certainly other benefits to the social atmosphere. Personal taste may vary, of course.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[drsquare]

OK you should do that, tell us how you got on when you're released in ten years.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[Ash Vince]

You do realise you are subject to other countries laws right? And other countries can pass whatever laws they choose.

It is quite possible the law Thailand has against insulting their monarch applies to people in other countries. Thailand could then apply to extradite you to their country to face trial. In this case extradition would be unlikely but if you are stupid enough to rock up in their country of you own accord there is nothing the US State department can do apart from provide you a lawyer.

A good example is Spain. According to Spanish law if you kill a Spanish citizen then that is a crime under their law even if you committed the offence in a country where murder was legal. This also applies to torture. Their are currently investigating whether to prosecute certain members of the US military who were involved in Guantanamo Bay. If successful this would make it awkward for the people involved to travel to anywhere in Europe since they may then be extradited to Spain to face trial.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[M-RES]

Sounds great... I think the Thai authorities might actually reserve you a room at one of their top hotels - the legendary Bangkok Hilton (you'll have to share the room of course - with about 20 other 'guests') ;p

Re:writeinjackthompson

[palegray.net]

Right. I'm gonna get extradited to Thailand from the U.S. for a free speech issue. That's pretty funny, man.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[PhxBlue]

"I am here to report myself, who frequently claims that the king has inappropriate sexual relations with monkeys. My name is Anonymous."

Is that you, Tom Cruise?

Re:writeinjackthompson

[psychodelicacy]

"And they wouldn't even be doing anything bad if they punished you as the law says!"

So, as long as something is enshrined in law, it's okay? And therefore all the people who saved Jews from the Nazis deserved capital punishment because they knew they were breaking the law?

Here's a tip: breaking laws that breach human rights is a very, very good thing to do. Breaking laws which protect children from being raped is a very, very bad thing to do.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[psychodelicacy]

"You do realise you are subject to other countries laws right? And other countries can pass whatever laws they choose."

Yes, they can pass whatever laws they choose; and when those laws are oppressive and specifically deny people certain human rights, challenging them in any way possible is an action which has integrity and validity.

Let's say a country passes a law under which member of a particular racial group are all subject to execution by the state. Anyone caught sheltering or providing help to any member of that racial group will be prosecuted for it. So if some American guy decides to go to that country and smuggle out as many children from that group as possible in order to save their lives, you would condemn him for breaking the law? You would say he deserves to be executed or imprisoned for life for what he did?

In the end, it's attitudes like yours that allow totalitarian and anti-democratic regimes to flourish. Of course we need to abide by the law, but only inasmuch as the law itself does not impinge upon our human rights or the human rights of others. To uphold the value of a law that does otherwise is to uphold the legitimacy of despotism.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[jacquie_mt99]

Advise as many folks as possible at the State Department of your next trip, post a bunch of blog entries about your plans, call your Senator to let him/her know you'll be taking lots of pictures and keeping detailed notes on your trip, and once everything is confirmed as "high visibility" go ahead and post your thoughts on the new site. Be sure to call a couple of CNN anchors to let them know about all the steps you've taken, and dare Thai officials to do a goddamned thing about your online activities once you get there. Worst case scenario: you get detained for a couple of days, get international exposure from human rights groups and major media outlets, and sell a book deal on the whole charade. I'd do it myself, but frankly I'm too busy with other pursuits.

I currently live in Thailand and would advise against these actions strongly. The Thai government is not at all concerned with their public image abroad. If they were concerned, would they let their airport get overrun shut down by people without even a weapon? Would they so publicly censor and detain people for breaking this "law"? They're more concerned with preserving their culture than stepping into this century.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[jasen666]

I'm kind of seeing the worst case scenario being I end up on the missing persons list, and the Thai government claims no knowledge of where I went, but think I was last seen with some drug smugglers and hookers.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[Lunzo]

An Australian author was arrested under this law while on holiday in Thailand. He'd included a couple of paragraphs talking about the Thai royal family in his latest novel. To my knowledge he wasn't negative about the Thai royals. He got sentenced to 15 years in jail.

He did get released under a presidential (or possibly royal?) pardon a few months later. Mind you, if you were to deliberately set out to be provocative then there's no guarantee that you would be released in the same manner.

I think there are more important issues than protesting a freedom of speech law in a country that up until now you probably had no interest in. I certainly wouldn't be risking 15 years in jail just for the rights of Thai people to talk about their royal family.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[BoothbyTCD]

People forget that legality and morality are not necessarily parallel concepts. In a way it is understandable, because most of our laws are fairly just. But people like simple concepts and simple situations, and they would rather not contemplate the possibility that morality might require one to do something illegal. I wish more people were made to read Thoreau.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[Ash Vince]

No, as I said in my post you clearly did not read properly I said it as highly unlikely. I said you would be pretty stupid to go to Thailand yourself after doing something that may be against their law.

Learn to read, you will find it helps you in later life.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[Ash Vince]

So if some American guy decides to go to that country and smuggle out as many children from that group as possible in order to save their lives, you would condemn him for breaking the law? You would say he deserves to be executed or imprisoned for life for what he did?

Of course not. I would suggest that for him to back there afterwards on holiday would be pretty stupid and the US state department could do nothing about said country imprisoning him.

I am not arguing for this plainly ridiculous Thai law. I was just pointing out that the original poster who talked about going to Thailand to cause a load of bad PR for the Thai government when he was arrested was being naive if he thought the US state department would rescue him.

Remember: No matter how ridiculous another countries laws are, you are still bound by them if you visit.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[palegray.net]

You can disagree with me all I like... I really don't care. Learn to effectively communicate in a reasonably polite fashion, you will find it helps you later in life.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[Ash Vince]

In the end, it's attitudes like yours that allow totalitarian and anti-democratic regimes to flourish.

Why do you say that? All I was doing was pointing out the correct legal status of the matter. This does mean I agree with the plainly ridiculous laws in question.

Re:writeinjackthompson

[Ash Vince]

Sorry, that should have read:

This does NOT mean I agree with the plainly ridiculous laws in question.

Ants

[Man On Pink Corner]

Those people really are nothing but ants.

That, and their king has a fugly wife and a really dumb-looking hat.

Re:Ants

[jagilbertvt]

I would inform them of your insults, but apparently their site is slashdotted.

Re:Ants

[StarkRG]

Only on slashdot would such a post be modded insightful. Not that I disagree.

Re:Ants

[Daengbo]

As much as this news makes me cry for the people of Thailand, your racists insults being modded "5, Informative" is almost equally saddening for Slashdot.

Remember that though the Thai people love their king, this website is neither the king's nor the people's -- it's simply the ultra-conservative loyalists who have political power right now.

Re:Ants

[Man On Pink Corner]

How is it racist? I didn't say anything about anyone's race, only their culture, which is broken.

Re:Ants

[Anonymous Coward]

Their political system may be broken in some areas, but as a well traveled person who has been to many places and met many people, I think I can speak for just about everyone else on the planet when I say that American Pop culture takes the word "broken" to a whole new level.

Thai culture is respectful, organized, civilized and actually facilitates positive social interactions. American culture by comparison is narcissistic, wasteful, artificial and contributes nothing to the social experience other than fomenting greed and conflict.

But I'm guessing you've not only not traveled to Thailand, you probably haven't even left your country. Don't be calling other cultures "broken" if your level of ignorance is so great that you don't even know the difference between a "culture" and a "political landscape".

Re:Ants

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not racist. Americans don't see Thais as a race, only a nationality.

It's really no more racist than insulting Canadians.

Besides, the Thai king was born a US citizen, in Cambridge MA. If he's never renounced his citizenship, he still is. And we certainly reserve the right to insult our own citizens.

Re:Ants

[Ashriel]

American culture by comparison is...

We have culture? Who knew?

Re:Ants

[Ihmhi]

Insult the Queen Mum in the middle of Piccadilly Circus and see how far you can run before getting your teeth kicked in.

The places where it's a crime, though? That has to change.

Re:Ants

[Dog-Cow]

Anyone who loves a king that has made it illegal to not love him is a fucking piece of shit and deserves to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

Re:Ants

[Dog-Cow]

The difference is that the British actually respect the Queen. Who the hell could respect a king who feels so insecure that he requires a law to get any?

Re:Ants

[Daengbo]

The king has no political power to make any laws. He is merely a figurehead. This law was made by politicians during the ratification of the constitution and is included therein. In fact, the king himself has called repeatedly for he law to be repealed and pardons (his only real power) those convicted of it.

Considering this and your other comment, I'd say you don't know much about Thai politics. Is that correct?

Re:Ants

[Daengbo]

If you had followed the news recently, you'd find that's not actually true. A couple of elections have been overturned since the coup.

Re:Ants

[Ihmhi]

Who says its his idea?

A typical court is going to have the leader - king, queen, etc. - and a whole bunch of staff. Retainers, advisors, etc. It could be his head advisor that is saying, "But it has to be this way! We must protect the honor of the King!", to which he would reluctantly agree to get the guy to shut the Hell up.

Re:Ants

[drinkypoo]

Remember that though the Thai people love their king, this website is neither the king's nor the people's -- it's simply the ultra-conservative loyalists who have political power right now.

If he's the King, then he has to take responsibility. That's what being King means. If he doesn't do anything, why is he written into the law?

The people also must take responsibility. Sorry, but every man and woman in the USA bears a share of responsibility for every heinous act by our nation. That's how it works. Actually, I lied. I'm not sorry.

Re:Ants

[M-RES]

Make that 'had' and you're on the right track. Now you just have corporate brand power ;D

Re:Ants

[schon]

And it speaks volumes about *your* culture that you believe that freedom of expression is something that *doesn't* need to be protected.

When something is offensive (like your post), sometimes insults are appropriate, fuckwad.

Re:Ants

[M-RES]

F**k the Queen Mum. I'd sing it loud and proud on the tube - and I know damn well nobody would kick my teeth in, because the majority of British people think our monarchy is irrelevant. :D

Re:Ants

[AlecC]

I don't think that any of this is the King's doing. It is the major parties which have made hyper-loyalty to the King a kind of shibboleth. A bit like the McCarthy era in the US, when it almost became UnAmerican to admit to having a left hand. You protest your loyalty to the King loud and long to prove your patriotism, then when anybody accuses you of thinks like taking bribes, you call them unpatriotic. So there is a huge "more respectful than thou" campaign going on - but none of it supported in any way by the King himself.

Re:Ants

[AlecC]

Constitutional monarchs are figureheads - as responsible for the laws passed by the parliaments of their countries as the flag is. In the UK at least, the Queen reigns but does not rule: her role is entirely ceremonial (well, almost: in certain very obscure circumstances she can be a tie breaker). Monarchies today are not what they were in the thirteenth century.

Re:Ants

[drinkypoo]

I don't think you understand what I mean. If you want to call yourself a King then you need to do something kingly, and take responsibility whether it's assigned to you, or not. Otherwise, what kind of King are you? The ineffectual, useless kind they have in Thailand. The kind that only causes problems, as we are now seeing. The king that would abdicate, had he any honor whatsoever. If he doesn't want people to be incarcerated over him, there's only one thing to do.

Re:Ants

[AlecC]

You have a very mediaeval understanding of the word "King". Sure, that is the way they used to be. But democracy has, quite correctly, slid all the power over to elected institutions. Walter Bagehot wrote an influential book on the British Constitution in which he distinguished the Efficient from the Dignified parts of government. The Efficient part does the work, but every country needs a Dignified pare. This includes flags, soldiers in archaic uniforms, lots of saluting, bugle calls and running around. Constitutional monarchies have left the monarch as entirely part of the Dignified part of government, representing the country without having to do anything much. This leaves everybody free to criticize the politicians without attacking their symbolic head.

It is, in my opinion, a (minor) defect of the US constitution that the President is the head of both Efficient and Dignified sides of the government. This means that he has to waste time with, for example, pinning on medals. And on the other side, those receiving medals may not be best pleased to get them from a politician they may abhor.

The concept of a King never was what the fairy tales imagined, and has moved on a long way since the King was a position of power. It is now purely a symbolic position.

Re:Ants

[Kelbear]

Whether or not the King supports the law against insulting Thai royalty, he is the King.

He has the power to effect change, so he has the associated responsibility. It would take as little as a public statement that he's ok with insults. "Hear me, my people! Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me! So chill out and let those people out of jail mmkay?"

Re:Ants

[jacquie_mt99]

I live in Thailand. Their culture needs some serious restructuring. I don't know what part of it is organized and civilized, but I will agree that there are parts of it that are deeply rooted in respect. But, the prevailing attitude is that if something isn't "fun" they shouldn't do it. You can imagine how often then students study and how fast garbage gets cleaned up. I said earlier that the Thai people are more concerned with preserving their culture than stepping into this century and modernizing a little bit. It's too bad, because I think if they let down their guard a little, the best parts of their culture could stay and they could stop using bamboo scaffolding to build apartment complexes.

Re:Ants

[jacquie_mt99]

It's true, the government is the one behind maintaining and enforcing this law. This is all on the heels of suggestions by Noam Chomsky and a subsequent international petition to have Thailand destroy this law. But the Thai people oh so love their king, and the current politicians are in hot enough water as is, so they're appealing to the masses by showing the people that they don't listen to the Westerners and allow free speech, they protect their king and his family.

Re:Ants

[Poingggg]

Anyone who loves a king that has made it illegal to not love him is a fucking piece of shit and deserves to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

Should that apply to overly religious zealots too?
(GD&R)

(Go on, mod me flamebait, but it was the first thought occuring to me!)

Re:Ants

[belmolis]

What makes you think that there is anything wrong with using bamboo scaffolding? Bamboo is strong, light, and flexible. Bamboo scaffolding is easy and quick to put up. When you're done with it, it is biodegradable and you don't need to expend a lot of effort to transport it elsewhere. I'm not aware of any evidence that there are safety issues with it.

Re:Ants

[sycodon]

What does their culture have to do with an autocratic government?

Re:Ants

[gwait]

Indeed, it's also used in Hong Kong to build skyscrapers. An amazing site to see an incredibly tall building construction site with bamboo all the way up.

An example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/76504836@N00/209169446

Makes far more sense than using steel, for many different reasons..

Re:Ants

[Dahan]

It would take as little as a public statement that he's ok with insults. "Hear me, my people! Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me! So chill out and let those people out of jail mmkay?"

He basically did that, but it didn't seem to have helped any. See his 2005 birthday speech, where he says, "If you say that the King cannot be criticised, it suggests that the King is not human ... If we hold that the King cannot be criticised or violated, then the King ends up in a difficult situation." and "If they get sent to prison, I pardon them. If they don't go to prison, I wonâ(TM)t sue them, because those who violate the King and are punished are not the ones who are in trouble. It would be the King who was in trouble. It is strange, but the lawyers like to send people to prison (for allegedly violating the King)."

The lawmakers have their own reason for keeping the lèse majesté law—it's a great weapon against their political enemies. See for example, the case of Giles Ungpakorn, who wrote a book criticizing the 2006 military coup.

Re:Ants

[Threni]

"Those people really are nothing but ants."

You compared the Thai people to ants. If you were talking about Thai culture, and you had a functioning grasp of English, you'd not have used "Those people" to talk about it.

Re:Ants

[khellendros1984]

Apparently, the king himself doesn't like the non-insult laws. It's a political thing kept strong by a different group that's not directly related to him, and not under his control.

Re:Ants

[khellendros1984]

These days, the Thai king is essentially a figurehead. It's like the British royalty; almost all of the power is out of his hands.

Re:Ants

[jacquie_mt99]

It's the *way* they use it here. It's only one-wide and they don't bother to put up any safety railings or walking platforms or even to tie themselves off anywhere. It's more the standing on it with bare feet 20 m above that I see safety issues with. The bamboo scaffolding here looks nothing like this flickr link. Nothing.

Re:Ants

[rtb61]

Well then they can always demonstrate their integrity and walk away or, as is more likely the truth, simply continue to prevaricate to try and assuage the other lesser race of Thais, the non-royals. Personally I wouldn't believe the yarn for a second, either behave like a normal human being or be treated like the stuck up, overrated, anti-democratic, venal, self serving archaic throwback to times of inhumane monarchical rule, when literally millions had to die all over the world to break monarchical rule and force the resurgence of democracy.

Re:Ants

[Hurricane78]

Thai culture is respectful, organized, civilized and actually facilitates positive social interactions. American culture by comparison is narcissistic, wasteful, artificial and contributes nothing to the social experience other than fomenting greed and conflict.

So you are saying that you did not get laid in the USA, without paying for it or raping someone, and therefore had to travel to Thailand to get yourself a 12 year old "bride" there? ;)

Sorry, had to... that was too easy. ^^

Oh, and by the way: About the "artificial" thing... I say the chance that your bride is really a guy, is 50/50. ^^

Re:Ants

[Mr. Slippery]

The Efficient part does the work, but every country needs a Dignified pare. This includes flags, soldiers in archaic uniforms, lots of saluting, bugle calls and running around.

No, actually, that's exactly what countries need to get rid of, all that nationalist, dominance-hierarchy bullshit.

Slashdotted?

[CrazyJim1]

Anyone else actually try and go to the website? I did and I got nothing.

Re:Slashdotted?

[MichaelSmith]

Maybe they have a pf rule in to block non-Thais.

Re:Slashdotted?

[iYk6]

I attempted to ping protecttheking.net, and got "ping: unknown host protecttheking.net". Perhaps they haven't set up the nameservers, or that info hasn't propogated yet.

Re:Slashdotted?

[quickOnTheUptake]

ping www.protecttheking.net PING www.protecttheking.net (61.19.218.138) 56(84) bytes of data. ^C --- www.protecttheking.net ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 2999ms www?

Re:Slashdotted?

[Keen Anthony]

Would the site respond at all in that case? I just get read errors after a while.

But maybe it is for the best as I have it on good authority that His Majesty isn't actually quite "the Great" at all, that most of his $35 billion fortune is in fact Monopoly money, that he molests dead farm animals in the pale moonlight while "Twilight Time" by The Platters plays gently on his Zune, and that the queen is a whore and the prince holds the money. LÃse majesté crimes are fun!

Re:Slashdotted?

[nathan.fulton]

I'm thinking that maybe the only DNS servers that point to the correct IP address are the ones in the country, because the IP address site currently resolved to is parked -- which isn't something any government would likely do with an official server.

Re:Slashdotted?

[itsthebin]

from a TRUE connection in bangkok it comes back after a while with a blank page with firefox

Re:Slashdotted?

[MichaelSmith]

Heres a hint: if you need a quick way out of Thailand, confess to a sex crime in the USA. It will get you extradited no worries.

Re:Slashdotted?

[CyberPhart]

Yes, I tried to go there and report myself for thinking that the king's hat looks like an open bowling bag, (see pic in article) but alas, I couldn't.

Re:Slashdotted?

[societyofrobots]

Its working now.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wants to help me flood it with fake comments?

Re:So...

[Chuck Chunder]

I do.
Tell me your name and I'll start straight away.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

me

Re:So...

[jgtg32a]

Do you know Thai by chance?

I get the feeling that they are going to ignore anything written in English.

Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Report every government official (from diplomats to police), every relative of a government official, and everyone related to the king.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly what needs to happen. We'll need some thai translators though to make it harder for them to sift through.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

If enough people make false reports, they'll have to set up a site to report people who report people.

Re:Fair enough

[bitt3n]

report the king for being an insult to himself.

Re:Fair enough

[MobiusPoint]

I seriously doubt that people would be able to make reports anonymously. Make false reports and suddenly you'd find yourself in prison.

Re:Fair enough

[Roarkk]

This is exactly what needs to happen. We'll need some thai translators though to make it harder for them to sift through.

It's highly unlikely that you'll get one.

What most of the people posting here don't understand is the loyalty that Thais have towards their king. Note that this is personal loyalty, not loyalty to the monarchy in general.

King Bhumibol has brought incredible change to Thailand during his reign, including improvements from irrigation to public restrooms (my personal favorite). In the recent ousting of the Thai prime minister, supporters of the PM wore pink to support the king. The opposition wore yellow to support the king. Notice a pattern here? Good luck with your translator. Let me know how that works out for you :-)

Re:Fair enough

[Dahan]

It's highly unlikely that you'll get one.

I'd translate. Just because Thais love the king doesn't mean that Thais love the lèse-majesté law. Even the king himself disagrees with the law.

Their country, their loss!

[syousef]

Their government try to sell the country as a tourist destination. Well you know what, if I have tourist dollars to spend you can bet I won't be visiting a country where I can go to jail just for criticising someone.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Glad I've booked my Australia-UK flight on Singapore Airlines. I've been Thai Airways before, but no more. Too much risk of being offloaded at Bangkok for "insulting" their king during the flight or being stranded at their airport for weeks as the government falls apart.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Lehk228]

if you go to foreign countries and publicly insult their leaders you are kind of a douche bag.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Douche bag, sure; but that doesn't make 3-15 years any more civilized.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[guyminuslife]

If you take visitors into your country and jail them for speaking their minds, you probably deserve whatever it is they said about you.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[conureman]

Spring in Alberta, mmmmm.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[linzeal]

Why, is this some form of etiquette? All kings and queens should be beheaded in this day and age, be them British or Thai.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[HappyEngineer]

So you're only allowed to criticize politicians of your own country? Or are you saying that you should only criticize politicians in countries that you never intend to visit?

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Toonol]

Or are you saying that you should only criticize politicians in countries that you never intend to visit?

That really may be the most sensible option...

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Daengbo]

Thailand has effectively had its economy destroyed in the last year. First, a group of people closed down the airport for weeks and caused the tourism industry to lose 50%. Later, the export economy failed because of the economic downturn worldwide. Millions of people have lst their jobs in the last year.

When you add the political unrest happening their now, the high unemployment is sure to cause some real problems in Thailand over the next year or two.

I wouldn't make any Thai travel plans for the foreseeable future.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[terjeber]

Well, I am not so sure anyone in the US can criticize though (don't know if parent is or not). I mean, it is bad enough that a government jails you for your opinions, but it is worse when your government murders you, no matter what the reason.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[terjeber]

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
- Denis Diderot

Re:Their country, their loss!

[4181]

I wouldn't make any Thai travel plans for the foreseeable future.

One small advantage of traveling now is that in an effort to encourage tourism the government has waived all tourist visa fees through 4 June. Last week I received a 60 day visa (extendable to 90) that would normally have cost me 110 Ringgits.

Note that when arriving by air, citizens of 40-some visa-exempt countries receive a 30 day visa on arrival -- always free -- but many wishing to stay longer used to make a "visa run" to a neighboring country such as Myanmar or Malaysia to get another 30 days. Just this year they started giving only 15 days at the border crossings, making advance visas more attractive.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Jaysyn]

Were are talking about a country that executes drug users. They are fucking barbaric & I personally hope there whole government dies in a revolution.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[PinkyDead]

That's it! I'm reporting you.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[megrims]

If you were to meet a stranger about the town in the morning, felt pity for him and so invited him into your home for breakfast, offering freely to him both welcome and refreshment. If you did these things, and he responded to your kindness by groping your wife and insulting your father, do you then invite him back into your home for dinner?

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Ragzouken]

What's wrong with the British Queen?

Re:Their country, their loss!

[drinkypoo]

As minimal as my impact is, I have stopped purchasing Thai food items. A lot of seafood comes from Thailand for example - don't buy it. When you go to a seafood restaurant and order shrimp, ask where they come from and don't buy them if they come from Thailand (don't mention Thailand, make them tell you, of course. This goes without saying but I don't want people coming back and hassling me. more than usual.)

Boycott works under capitalisms. They need to realize that they are part of a capitalist world that doesn't give a fuck about their inbred king. Let's help them.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[GbrDead]

Her fascist regime.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[drsquare]

I'd rather all the politicians were executed first, Bush has done far more damage to this world than the British queen ever will.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Raenex]

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Even then man won't be free. For example, see Stalin. And I have to say, murdering all the kings and priests doesn't sound like a very "free" thing to do.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[terjeber]

Stalin was a priest, his religion was socialism. Most "ism's" end up as religions sooner or later, capitalism typically being an exception since its basic tenets are not compatible with religious notions. Capitalism is pragmatic in its nature, religion, socialism and others are dogmatic.

And I have to say, murdering all the kings and priests

Look into the concept of poetic imagery. It should have been obvious that someone who speaks against capital punishment wasn't being literal. Remember, "irony" does not mean that you can stick a magnet to it.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Raenex]

Stalin was a priest, his religion was socialism.

That's just changing the meaning of religion to suit your argument. The fact is any idea or person in power can be abused or blind men's thinking, capitalism being no exception.

Look into the concept of poetic imagery.

There's a very fine line between "poetic imagery" and incitement to violence, so fine that it can amount to the emperor's new clothes.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Jaysyn]

There = their. Oops

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Asic Eng]

Well the summary talks about "insulting or criticizing". I think the political role of the king in Thai society has a lot to do with the economical and political problems Thailand is currently facing. I don't think voicing that opinion to a democratically-minded Thai would make me a douche bag - however it seems that it would make me a criminal.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Belial6]

It's kind of funny. For all of the complaining about the US that people like to do, I hear US citizens complaining about the huge number of people that come here and insult our leaders.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[terjeber]

That's just changing the meaning of religion to suit your argument.

Actually, not really. Religion is a dogmatic set of beliefs that either are not supported by observation or even some times that is contradicted by observed realities. As such, socialism fits the bill.

There's a very fine line between "poetic imagery" and incitement to violence

No, there isn't, and if quoting a philosopher who died in 1784 is incitement to violence in your world, you need to get out more.

it can amount to the emperor's new clothes.

That is a horrible mixing of metaphors, and as such can only be accomplished in a humorist sense by someone like Monty Python. You are clearly not MP, so you are clearly not trying to be funny. That would mean that you are actually dense enough to think that your metaphor was hitting some kind of mark. Please read up on what the emperors new clothes is about, you have clearly misunderstood it.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Raenex]

Actually, not really. Religion is a dogmatic set of beliefs that either are not supported by observation or even some times that is contradicted by observed realities. As such, socialism fits the bill.

Completely intellectually dishonest. Religion has to do with the supernatural. The people who argued for socialism and communism appealed to logic, practical benefits, and observed realties, the same as people who argue for capitalism.

if quoting a philosopher who died in 1784 is incitement to violence in your world, you need to get out more.

What does the date have anything to do with it, or the fact that he was a philosopher? No philosophers from earlier in history have advocated violence?

Please read up on what the emperors new clothes is about, you have clearly misunderstood it.

I know what it's about. Clothes so fine you can't see them, when in fact they don't exist. Of course people knew they didn't exist, yet everybody said how fine they were, just like that "poetic imagery" you are calling on. How is that not appropriate to what I was saying?

Re:Their country, their loss!

[linzeal]

No, this is what religion means. You are using an argument that was popular in the McCarthy era when fighting the godless commies wasn't enough they insinuated that socialists revered Marx as like a God and worshiped Lenin in some perverse personality cult. Yes, some of the top people carrying out the orders in Russia worshiped Lenin but most of the country hated him but were afraid to speak their minds.

Socialism != Totalitarianism or Religion

Re:Their country, their loss!

[terjeber]

Religion has to do with the supernatural.

Actually, no, it doesn't. Zen, for example, doesn't deal at all with the supernatural. Are you saying that Buddhism is not a religion?

The people who argued for socialism and communism appealed to logic

Not really, no. The tenets behind socialism is an ideal not observed in reality. You can not have socialism if you can not make most people sacrifice personal gain for the common good. This is a behavior that is so rare that basing an ideology on it is absurd.

What does the date have anything to do with it, or the fact that he was a philosopher?

Only the fact that you clearly didn't know who he was or anything at all about him. Also, a reminder to you to get out more. If you think that someone who argues against capital punishment would actually argue for killing kings and/or priests then you should have pointed out that there was an inconsistency in logic, not that it was bad to kill kings or priests. The fact that you would think that someone who argues against capital punishment as such would argue for killing anyone is odd, to put it mildly.

I know what it's about. Clothes so fine you can't see them

As I said, you really need to read more about the emperors new clothes, you see, other than on an utterly superficial level, the "story" has nothing at all to do with clothes. Do you, for example, think that the concept of "The Elephant in the Room" has anything to do with very large mammals with oddly shaped noses? As I said, you need to read up on this a lot more, come back and tell us why the story of the emperors new clothes is essentially covered by the elephant in the room.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[terjeber]

I always love it when I can say things like "The Oxford Dictionary is wrong". In this case it is. Well, actually, it is not. Here is what the short version of the Oxford says:

1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Nope, that is not true since it puts a significant portion of Buddhism on the outside of religion. I don't know anyone who would claim that Buddhism is not a religion, even though, for example, Zen, has no concept of the supernatural.

2 a particular system of faith and worship.

Ah, again, much of Buddhism is not covered, as is the case with other religions that are not systematic but rather more individual.

3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

OK, this seems broad enough to cover most religions, but again, not all, I would argue that some followers of Buddhism are not "devoted" in the true sense. On the other hand, number 3 here fully covers socialism.

they insinuated that socialists revered Marx as like a God and worshiped Lenin in some perverse personality cult

I would argue they did. Embalming him and putting him on display where thousands and thousands of people paraded past every year. Definitely a personality cult.

Socialism != Totalitarianism or Religion

In theory socialism can be implemented when, and only when, you alter the human brain significantly. Altruism is something the vast majority of humans can do only in very limited amounts to a very limited audience. Socialism is based on absolute altruism all the time. Since humans will not do this voluntarily, socialism has to resort to totalitarianism. No other options.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[tolkienfan]

While you can use the word religion in that sense, you used it to suggest Stalin was a priest. Dickwad

Re:Their country, their loss!

[BoothbyTCD]

Man, slashdot would be a quiet place if that were true. How would everyone wail and gnash their teeth about the US then?

Re:Their country, their loss!

[terjeber]

you used it to suggest Stalin was a priest. Dickwad

Dickwad, interesting comment from a brainless moron. I didn't "suggest" any such thing, I stated it plain and clear. If socialism was a religion, and you just agreed that that was a valid use of the word religion, then Stalin was a priest in that religion. I didn't try to insinuate that he was a priest in a Christian sect or other form of superstition of some kind. On the other hand, he did go to Seminary and was educated as a priest. "Sadly" for him he was kicked out of school just before his finals, not because he didn't like what he learned, but either because he was unable to pay tuition or because the school thought him a rebel. Both reasons are quoted in litterature.

It is typically considered that Stalin did learn a lot from going to Seminary in Tbilisi, and that his totalitarian bent was strongly influenced by his time at school. Orthodox Christian dogma and totalitarianism go together like Laurel and Hardy.

But I digress. A priest in his religion he was, and a moron you clearly are.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Raenex]

Actually, no, it doesn't. Zen, for example, doesn't deal at all with the supernatural. Are you saying that Buddhism is not a religion?

The word "supernatural" is straight from the dictionary. If you read up on Buddhism you'll see there are many supernatural aspects. Zen just happens to be the most unlike a religion and more like a philosophy, though even Zen has a few appeals to traditional Buddhist supernatural concepts.

That you are equating political arguments to religions shows your intellectual dishonesty. You had to reach for the most "unlike a religion" religion to try and back up your point, and still failed.

The tenets behind socialism is an ideal not observed in reality.

Just because you don't agree with the viewpoints doesn't make the argument religion. The argument is based on looking at specific realities such as class struggles. There is no appeal to the supernatural. You may find fault with the conclusions, or argue with the premises, but at no time does religion come into the picture.

Only the fact that you clearly didn't know who he was or anything at all about him. Also, a reminder to you to get out more.

Seriously, I don't care about the details of some minor philosopher that you quote. What counts is how a message is taken when presented in context. Do you think even 10% of the people are familiar with the philosopher you quoted? Killing kings and priests is pretty common in history. It's a reasonable interpretation that this kind of violence is being condoned in that quote.

The fact that you would think that someone who argues against capital punishment as such would argue for killing anyone is odd, to put it mildly.

Quite recently on Slashdot, and multiple times, I have seen people who purportedly are against capital punishment call for lynch-style justice for political crimes. People who wouldn't execute somebody for being a serial killer but would for election fraud or passing a law in a underhanded way. Fact is people who normally would abhor murder as a means can get riled up over the pet issues.

As I said, you really need to read more about the emperors new clothes, you see, other than on an utterly superficial level, the "story" has nothing at all to do with clothes.

I was only alluding to the fact that the clothes couldn't be seen because they didn't in fact exist. I wasn't trying to draw the deeper moral. Though in fact, I misremembered the story, as I had last read it as a child. I remembered it as the clothes were of such a fine (as in super-thin silk) material, that they couldn't actually be seen. In the actual story, they were magic and could only not be seen by stupid or incompetent people. So I'll concede my analogy was stretched even further by a faulty memory.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[tolkienfan]

I said suggest because it not not a fact, except by your twisted abuse of language. He was not ordained as a priest. You can call him a priest as much as you like - just accept that you are being intellectually dishonest, ie a dickwad.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[terjeber]

Sigh. You really are retarded, are you not? You just said that it was legitimate to use the world "religion" about socialism. Good. Now, what is the leader of a congregation in a religion called? He is called a priest. A priest, high-priest etc is a generic term for the leader of a religion. If socialism is a religion then Stalin, PER DEFINITION MORON, is a priest in that religion.

Now, go read a book on something before you open your mouth and prove for all and everyone that you are in fact as dumb as you seem now.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[terjeber]

The word "supernatural" is straight from the dictionary

Sigh. No, it is not. Not at all in fact. Wasn't it you who quoted the Oxford dictionary on this? ONE of the definitions listed in the Oxford dictionary mentions the supernatural. It can ALSO be used in the following sense: "3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion", and that is a quote. So, no, there doesn't have to be anything supernatural about religion. Try again.

That you are equating political arguments to religions shows your intellectual dishonesty.

That you are still denying it, even after the Oxford dictionary quote, shows your inability to read basic English.

I don't care about the details of some minor philosopher that you quote

I know, and you shouldn't, but you should read things in context and try to figure out what is written. If you do not understand it you should ask an adult for help. I was arguing against capital punishment and you thought the quote should be taken literally even though it, literally, was 100% direct opposite of what I was arguing. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a modicum of reasoning abilities that something was odd. At that point in time the person with a mere modicum of reasoning abilities should have asked for help, the rest of the world would understand, instantly, that the quote was not meant to be taken literally.

I have seen people who purportedly are against capital punishment call for lynch-style justice for political crimes

Given your ability to read, I think this is a problem with your interpretation, not the communication abilities of said writers. Maybe you should read the postings again, but this time with an adult at your side that can explain it to you.

People who wouldn't execute somebody for being a serial killer but would for election fraud or passing a law in a underhanded way

I would love to see a quote like this, and until you produce it I will have to assume that you are either just making it up or simply misunderstanding what you read.

Fact is people who normally would abhor murder as a means can get riled up over the pet issues

Rifled doesn't mean that they actually want to kill someone. If you take everything people say 100% literally you are going to get into serious trouble once your parents let you out of the house. People often doesn't mean literally what they say. You really need to learn when it is obvious that they don't. Don't worry though, it is covered in most high schools outside of Texas.

I was only alluding to the fact that the clothes couldn't be seen because they didn't in fact exist.

And that is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the point of said story. It was a terrible mixing of metaphors. Don't try it again until you understand what such metaphors try to convey.

they were magic and could only not be seen by stupid or incompetent people.

You are still totally misunderstanding the story.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Raenex]

Sigh. No, it is not. Not at all in fact. Wasn't it you who quoted the Oxford dictionary on this?

No, it wasn't me. Oxford is not the only dictionary in existence, and I found the word supernatural in another dictionary. Even so, let's look at Oxford's:

"1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion."

Obviously 1 refers to the supernatural. According to 3 (the LAST in the list), even capitalism falls under this. Anything can, even science (note how some theists like to say scientist have their own religion). It's an incredibly weak argument, and doesn't fit in with your "kings and priests" quote. In fact, you can even say the extreme devotion to anti-religion is itself a religion using this definition.

I know, and you shouldn't, but you should read things in context and try to figure out what is written.

I read up a little about Diderot, and he clearly had the first and second definitions in mind when arguing against religion, not the third. I also note that he was imprisoned for his anti-religious texts. That might make him more inclined to call for violent revolution, even under the guise of "poetic imagery".

I was arguing against capital punishment

I'm sorry, you haven't provided any evidence for this. The post you replied to said "All kings and queens should be beheaded in this day and age, be them British or Thai." And you provided a naked quote of "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." The casual reader is supposed to see this as arguing against capital punishment?! Especially when, throughout history, kings and priests have been murdered in violent overthrow?

Maybe you should read the postings again, but this time with an adult at your side that can explain it to you.

Maybe you should learn to argue honestly, instead of calling an adult a child, or claiming I don't know how to read.

I would love to see a quote like this, and until you produce it I will have to assume that you are either just making it up or simply misunderstanding what you read.

I could do so, but that would require a somewhat significant amount of effort on my part to dig them up. My distinct feeling is that you wouldn't acknowledge them or my argument, given the kind of arguments that I've seen from you so far. If I don't believe the other side is arguing honestly, it is not worth my effort. This will probably be my last reply as is for these very reasons.

And that is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the point of said story.

That the clothes don't, in fact, exist, even when everybody was saying how fine they looked is the whole premise of the story. Without it there is no story. There is a more general lesson about how people will not state the obvious for fear of looking foolish, but that doesn't mean that the device of the clothes themselves can't be referred to. They often are in contemporary usage: http://www.google.com/search?q=emeperor+has+no+clothes

Re:Their country, their loss!

[tolkienfan]

Nice attempt at mischaracterizing my statement. But all you are doing is conflating two different meanings of a single word. Also, you are doing it in full knowledge, hence the claim of intellectual dishonesty. And I'd rather be wrong than dishonest.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[terjeber]

ut all you are doing is conflating two different meanings of a single word.

Absolutely not. It's just you who have some sort of hang-up about the use of the word priest as a generic term for a leader of a religious group. I do not know why, but if you can define socialism as a religion, then Stalin was a priest. Per definition. Now, you can show us that he was not a priest by explaining how you were wrong when you said that socialism could be defined as a religion. Until then you are just a really retarded individual.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[terjeber]

According to 3 (the LAST in the list), even capitalism falls under this.

Depends. For someone like Cheney or Bush, definitely, but primarily because they do not know what capitalism is. Having a "devotion" to something that isn't dogmatic is hard.

Anything can, even science

Actually, no, not really. There are probably devout scientists, but not about science. Science is about not knowing, not about dogma.

In fact, you can even say the extreme devotion to anti-religion is itself a religion using this definition.

I do not know what anti-religion is, but atheism is belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I read up a little about Diderot, and he clearly had the first and second definitions in mind when arguing against religion,

Good for you. Why would you think what Diderot thinks about religion is relevant here? Did I evere say anything at all about what Diderot thought and didn't think?

I was arguing against capital punishment

I'm sorry, you haven't provided any evidence for this.

Sorry about that, thought you'd been part of the entire discussion. Check one of the first posts I made in this discussion here. Easy to miss, I know. Sorry about that.

My distinct feeling is that you wouldn't acknowledge them

You should stop feeling so much. It isn't good for you. If you can show me anyone who would argue, seriously, and literally, for capital punishment for voter irregularities I have no problem acknowledging it. I would also not have a problem acknowledging that the statement came from an individual with severe mental deficiencies.

That the clothes don't, in fact, exist, even when everybody was saying how fine they looked is the whole premise of the story.

Actually, no, they are not. They are incidental. They are a writers tool. The writer is trying to convey a message and that message doesn't have any emperors in it, it doesn't have clothes in it, and it doesn't really have children in it either. That is what you could call poetic imagery. This is a common tool by writers and story tellers.

Without it there is no story.

If that was the case nobody would remember the story. The story could use any number of other metaphors, the clothes and the emperor are incidental to the story.

There is a more general lesson about how people will not state the obvious for fear of looking foolish,

That is a minor part of it. The story definitely is about peer pressure. It has a number of other facets though. See if you can find them. Innocence of children unspoiled is another one. How does the story relate to the more common (and modern) "keeping up with the Jonses", or in this case, flauting it in front of the Jonses even though it isn't worth flauting.

If this was a modern story it might be about an upper middle class Scandinavian woman coming into some money, buying a new expensive diamond ring and all her friends thinking it is tacky and tasteless. In many places in Scandinavia big expensive diamonds are considered tacky and tasteless. In such a modern version the woman is the emperor and her diamond is his clothes. This is why H. C. Andersens works still live on, they are timeless. Even when there are no emperors any more, and no, the dude in Japan doesn't count, an emperor is only an emperor if he has an empire.

Re:Their country, their loss!

[Raenex]

Why would you think what Diderot thinks about religion is relevant here?

This is a "what the fuck" moment for me. This whole argument started based on a quote from Diderot that you posted where he used the word priest. Seriously, I can't argue with you any more if you can't keep track of the most basic premises. Bye.

Hey Thai Gov't

[Maxhrk]

A brave american from here in US want to say,

Thai King, you suck.

(ok i am coward hiding in US somewhere, anyway.)

Re:Hey Thai Gov't

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're not, Maxhrk.

But, I am.

Re:Hey Thai Gov't

[terjeber]

Yeah, and one who should be careful opening his mouth given the fact that his own governments routinely murders people, reason is irrelevant.

As countries move out of the dark ages they first abolish capital punishment (or childish revenge as it really is) and then they give their citizenry free speech. Looking forward to seeing this development some time in the US...

Re:Hey Thai Gov't

[Dog-Cow]

Abolishing the death penalty does nothing but remove justice. It shows that the victim has fewer rights than the perpetrator and that punishments are meaningless.

Re:Hey Thai Gov't

[drinkypoo]

I think it would be a good thing for the world's citizens to mock the King of Thailand at every opportunity. (In my last comment I called him inbred. In this one, I call him a tinpot fascist dictator of a country known mostly for top-notch hookers.) We should make whole websites about his personal inadequacies like his impotent, tiny penis. Maybe he'll just curl up and die of his apparent feelings of insecurity - a secure regent does not need to have laws to stop people whispering about how pathetic he is.

Re:Hey Thai Gov't

[terjeber]

Only an American (and people in "cultures" you really don't want to be compared to) can call murder "justice". Capital punishment is not about dispensing justice it is about revenge. Retribution if you wish. Abolishing capital punishment will make the US a civilized society, it will not do anything whatsoever to the balance of justice.

BTW, I frequently feel that capital punishment should be dispensed. I strongly feel that the perpetrators of 9/11 should be blown to pieces, I also feel that people who molest and/or murder children should be tortured to death slowly. Thankfully my actions are guided by logic and reason, not by emotions. Adults let logic and reason guide their actions, children and people with severe mental deficiencies are primarily driven by emotions. It is time the US grows up and looks into concepts like logic and reason.

Re:Hey Thai Gov't

[Asic Eng]

As countries move out of the dark ages they first abolish capital punishment (or childish revenge as it really is) and then they give their citizenry free speech.

Historically it has been the other way round in most countries - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation Actually I'm not aware of an example for the sequence which you gave I assume you have one in mind? Regardless, though - it's certainly not uncommon to have free speech long before abolishing capital punishment.

Re:Hey Thai Gov't

[terjeber]

Historically it has been the other way round in most countries - see http://en.wikipedia.org/

You are quite right. Wonder why it is taking the US so long. Don't get me wrong. I love the US, I wish I was still living there, but circumstance doesn't allow for that at the moment. Doesn't mean she does everything right though. More than most European countries mind you, but not everything.

Submit some good names

[ArchieBunker]

Either spam it full of garbage or some important people close to the king.

Re:Submit some good names

[Prof.Phreak]

...some important people close to the king.

Those are the ones who likely curse the king most anyway...

well, thailand for one

[superwiz]

can now officially welcome it's new internet-friendly overlords

No way this could be used

[basementman]

No way this could be used to insult the king or anything. I might have to report my neighbor, Thaikingsucksbigcock Smith for some things he told me the other day.

Misunderstandings?

[grapeape]

Sounds like they are more worried that citizens (or I guess its serfs) may understand too much.

The Thai King

[Anonymous Coward]

The Thai King has very little real power but he yields immense moral authority and is very popular. Thailand is legally a constitutional monarchy but in reality the situation is much more complex. They are supposed to be run by an elected gov't (which is usually a little bit corrupt) but that rule is enforced by the military and about every 10-15 years, there is a military coup (often fairly or completely bloodless) that throws out an exceptionally corrupt gov't and reboots.

In some ways, the Thai Gov't kinda reminds me of an unpatched Windows Machine that needs lots of reboots and eventually a disk-wipe to get working again -- but talking about the gov't structure itself doesn't really explain why insulting the King is a big deal.

Again, like I said... the King is a "moral authority". In many ways, he's the Thai equivalent to the Pope although more in the moral sense than religious sense -- he is a man who is loved by the people and is wished to be seen as "good" by most Thai's. Insulting the King (or Queen) is a personal insult to many Thai people and is one of the few things the Thai in general do not tolerate well overall. Insulting the King in Thailand is the equivalent of bad-mouthing the Pope while visiting the Vatican.

That said, I'd rather visit Thailand again anyday than the many countries in the world that are significantly less tolerant.

Re:The Thai King

[Chuck Chunder]

Perhaps he's popular precisely because he doesn't have real power. It's the pricks that do meddle in peoples lives that become unpopular.

The peculiar thing about the USA is that it invents it's own royalty. What else could explain political families like the Bushes, Kennedys etc?

Re:The Thai King

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Once you bring in the jackbooted thugs and the jail time "moral authority" is off the table. At least the papacy hasn't had legal power in quite some time, so the pope confines himself to wearing a dress and giving terrible medical advice.

Re:The Thai King

[Potor]

If you think there is an obvious American opinion to this matter, you are a moron. Travel a bit. Open your mind and your eyes.

The Thai people do love him, which is why it is such a problem to criticize him. They personally hate it when the king is insulted (I speak from experience, having lived and worked in Thailand for over a year). The government constantly use this popular love to pass laws that favour themselves and not the king because they can use such legislation to lock people up on the slightest context.

The king him disfavours the lese majeste laws, and wishes aloud for their abolition.

Re:The Thai King

[MrMista_B]

"Moral"?

Are you joking?

Locking up anyone who criticizes you is /not/ moral.

Re:The Thai King

[Max Littlemore]

Insulting the King in Thailand is the equivalent of bad-mouthing the Pope while visiting the Vatican.

Or shitting on the star spangled banner in front of the white house.

See? Now some of you might get it - a corrupt republic is no better than a monarchy if all you've done is replace the monarch with a flag.

Re:The Thai King

[Daengbo]

First of all, this law applies only to the royal family so that Thais are legally allowed to insult the political system, which they do all the time. I realize that this doesn't mitigate the situation that's going on now, but I wanted to point out the difference since your post implies insulting the government is illegal when it's really not.

The king is in fact, seen by many Thais as the reincarnation of Buddha. Others see only what he has done for the country in his time, which includes keeping the country free from the communist wave that swept through most of SE Asia, continuing development (creating a stronger economy than any other country in the area), and helping the people remain proud even when their government has been shown to be corrupt so many times.

Thais are more than willing to insult the royal family once you get to know them. Even so, very few have any bad will toward their king. They generally see him as a hero.

The les majeste laws are unnecessary and just a tool of the jackboot government.

Re:The Thai King

[Daengbo]

lese majeste

Re:The Thai King

[funkatron]

The flag is a slight improvement. It doesn't make speeches or give orders.

Re:The Thai King

[Dhalka226]

What else could explain political families like the Bushes, Kennedys etc?

Money.

Whether we like it or not, it costs a ton of money to run for major political office. Most of us have heard that line about a congressman needing to raise about $10,000 a month from the day he is elected to mount a re-election campaign. And that's "only" $240,000, to be one of 435. Imagine how much it costs to run for the Senate and be 1 of 100; imagine how much to be president, where you're the only one and at the top of the political food chain. (Or don't imagine: I didn't see, at quick glance, a definitive number for how much he spent, but according to Wikipedia, Obama alone raised $650 million dollars for his presidential campaign.)

These political families have one (or both) of two things going for them: Money, or the ability to quickly raise it. They also have a pseudo-celebrity status that allows them to get some free advertisement, particularly early on, just because of who their family members were. I don't begrudge them that or blame the media; I think it's a story worth mentioning, even if it should die quickly after.

That said, the two examples you gave really are the only two in national politics; there is no "etc." And I wouldn't say that the Bushes were American royalty (I'd argue even more strenuously the suggestion that they ARE). The Kennedy's certainly are, and I think for good reason; whatever you think of their politics, you can't deny the effect that their stories have on the country. From poor immigrant to political power. Two of them assassinated. One crazy and given a lobotomy. Plane explosions, plane crashes, stillborn babies, leg cancer in twelve year old children. I'm not a superstitious type, but check out a book or a show on History channel about the Kennedy Curse; it really is fascinating. For accuracy's sake, though, even after all of that and all of their successes, it wasn't enough to get Caroline Kennedy appointed to Hillary Clinton's senate seat in New York.

Re:The Thai King

[celle]

"Or shitting on the star spangled banner in front of the white house."

Actually you could legally do that. If you get arrested, it won't be for the commentary, just exposing yourself in public and littering. People did use the flag for shorts and underware all through the sixties.

Re:The Thai King

[shutdown -p now]

Insulting the King in Thailand is the equivalent of bad-mouthing the Pope while visiting the Vatican.

But, you do not get imprisoned for bad-mouthing the Pope while visiting the Vatican.

Re:The Thai King

[mjwx]

The Thai King has very little real power but he yields immense moral authority and is very popular. Thailand is legally a constitutional monarchy but in reality the situation is much more complex. They are supposed to be run by an elected gov't (which is usually a little bit corrupt)

That's an understatement. Anyone familiar with Thailand ATM knows that there is a power struggle between the ousted PM Thaksin Shintarawa who is primarily supported by the numerous lower class Thai's and the currently ruling party supported by the Mid/upper class that came to power after forcing out the last PM due to the fact that he was being paid to host a cooking show (it's illegal in Thailand to accept money from a private institution whilst holding the PM's position). There have been several protests from both sides (one is still happening at Thailand's Government House as I type this) including the occupation of the two Bangkok airports last year by protesters that shut down the airports for 2 weeks.

Both sides claim that they have the Kings support (as AC said the king is politically powerless) and this is just another ploy to try to convince other Thai's that the King is on their side. This has little to do with us Farang (Thai word: non-Asian foreigners) althouhg it will certainly be abused by those in power. SE Asia is full of corrupt nations and Thailand is a fine example.

but that rule is enforced by the military and about every 10-15 years, there is a military coup (often fairly or completely bloodless) that throws out an exceptionally corrupt gov't and reboots.

In some ways, the Thai Gov't kinda reminds me of an unpatched Windows Machine that needs lots of reboots and eventually a disk-wipe to get working again -- but talking about the gov't structure itself doesn't really explain why insulting the King is a big deal.

Thailand has had 19 coups since the monarch gave up absolute power in 1932. That's almost the same number of democratic elections the US has had in the same time period.

That said, I'd rather visit Thailand again anyday than the many countries in the world that are significantly less tolerant.

I'd echo that sentiment, having been there a few times I'd definately prefer to go there as opposed to some more hostile nations.

Silly Thais

[techsoldaten]

Silly Thais. The king should be protecting his people, not the other way around.

M

Re:Silly Thais

[belmolis]

This isn't coming from the Palace, it is coming from the military. It's the Thai version going after the opposition for not being sufficiently patriotic. I've read that the King actually doesn't approve of harassing people for lese majeste.

Anyone with a directory of thai politicians?

[Sylvestre]

is there a proxy in Thailand? Could we not all start reporting all of the politicians, one by one, that exist in Thailand?

Can't put them all in jail.

Re:Anyone with a directory of thai politicians?

[sortius_nod]

People don't usually proxy into Thailand, it's the other way around.

Here in the good ole USA

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before someone tries this shit here in America, oh wait they already tried it in Missouri.

Jailed author back on Australian soil - Feb 09

[Eth1csGrad1ent]

If you think they aren't serious, check out the following recent story about a lucky Aussie who supposedly criticised the Thai Royal Family. I say lucky because, after much protest and legal fighting, he was deported after he'd been jailed for 6 years !

http://www.theage.com.au/national/jailed-author-back-on-australian-soil-20090221-8dx7.html
 

Re:Jailed author back on Australian soil - Feb 09

[praksys]

He was sentenced to either 3 or 6 years in prison (the article you linked to gave both numbers). He spent about six months in prison. Still way bad enough.

Re:Jailed author back on Australian soil - Feb 09

[SpottedKuh]

[...] he was deported after he'd been jailed for 6 years

As a quick correction to your post, he was actually jailed for six months. He had been sentenced to six years, but that was reduced to three years because of his guilty plea. He was pardoned about a month after his guilty plea, having spent a total of six months in prison.

Of course, it's still absolutely ridiculous!

(Source)

Re:Jailed author back on Australian soil - Feb 09

[oldhack]

Lesson? Don't go be a dumb ass in a foreign country and get yo ass thrown in the jail.

Thai king's mama so fat she spills over to Australia in Google map.

Re:Jailed author back on Australian soil - Feb 09

[mjwx]

If you think they aren't serious, check out the following recent story about a lucky Aussie who supposedly criticised the Thai Royal Family. I say lucky because, after much protest and legal fighting, he was deported after he'd been jailed for 6 years !

Never mind the fact that he was warned not to go back to Thailand after publishing Verisimiltude (the book where he criticised/Slandered/whatever you like to call it the Thai king). The Thai phrase Som Nam Na (got what you deserves/your own fault, Thai for I told you so) applies here although what he went through wasn't kind (it was still better then what average Thai's get when thrown in an Thai jail) the fact remains he was told by several high ranking people in Australia and Thailand if he went back he's be arrested. It's stupidity on his own part that he went to a country that not only had an arrest warrant out for him but has some of the worlds worst jails.

Ironic thing is, he'd only sold about 7 copies of his book at that time. I'd never heard of Nicolades before he was arrested.

Snitch this

[renegadesx]

Greetings Thai King!

I saw your mother last night, and I hummped her like a little bitch!
Kind Regards,
Grandpa Marsh
South Park, Colorado

After seeing the picture in TFA...

[Landshark17]

My first criticism of the king would involve his taste in hats.

protecttehking.net

[florescent_beige]

So...who's going to register protecttehking.net and put up an nice pie-in-the-king's-face flash game?

Don't look at me I'm the brains of this operation.

Re:protecttehking.net

[n00btastic]

Hehe, I am doing my part by hitting f5 every few seconds!

Re:The Thai King is a...

[Chuck Chunder]

His mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries!

Re:The Thai King is a...

[skabob]

The Thai Fing is a Kink!

Paraphrasing the Wizard of Id. :)

Re:The Thai King is a...

[florescent_beige]

The Thai King's mother is so fat when she gets in an elevator it goes down.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Trust the Computer...

[Banichi]

...the Computer is your Friend.

I wonder if you have to register at the site to use it?

Re:The Thai King is a...

[florescent_beige]

Hey Thai King, is that a hat or the nose cone of a North Korean rocket that landed on your head?

Wow forums

[moniker127]

I'm going to personally inundate the world of warcraft forums with links to that website.

Re:Wow forums

[superwiz]

I'm going to personally inundate the world of warcraft forums with links to that website.

Oh, c'mon. Sure, insulting him will land you in jail, but is that really as bad as having to listen to WoW players' comments?

Find a way to get him addicted to WoW, that would be a punishment indeed. WoW's best service to humanity is keeping the worst of humanity locked up in a Sisyphean task.

Re:Wow forums

[WAG24601G]

WoW's best service to humanity is keeping the worst of humanity locked up in a Sisyphean task.

That, sir, is worthy of a sig. I'll now conveniently ignore the irony-potential of substituting "Slashdot" for "WoW"...

View the Site's contents

[nathan.fulton]

http://www.thekoratpost.com/Protectthekingwebsiteenglishdetails.html

It contains, in part, this: How To Report Tips

Tips â" This link provides a couple of methods on how to report tips in. One method is to mail to P.O. Box 999, Bangkok . Another indicated is to email directly to protecttheking@parliament.go.th As well, there is an in-page form in Thai for users to complete.

Law & Punishment

This page has five separate links under this title, numbered as shown for convenience. The unnumbered links are:

1. Article 2 - Use of Criminal Law

This section is a verbatim lift from Thai Criminal Code Chapter 2, Articles no. 4-7.

Article 6 - Principals and Supporters [of cr= iminal acts, i.e., lÃse majesté]

This section is a verbatim lift from Thai Criminal Code Chapter 6, Articles no. 83-89.

3. Article 7 â" Concurrence of Offenses
This section is a verbati= m lift from Thai Criminal Code Chapter 7, Concurrence of Offenses, Articles no. 90-91.

4. Article 9 â" Statute of Limitations

This section is a verbati= m lift from Thai Criminal Code Chapter 9, Prescription (statute of limitations.), Articles no. 95-101.

5. Part 2 â" Offenses Related to National Security; Article 2, Offenses Against the king, queen, heir to the throne or regent. [Translatorâ(TM)s note: This section is a verbatim lift from the = Thai Criminal Code Book II, Specific Offenses, Title 1, Offenses Relating to The Security of the Kingdom, Articles no. 107-112.

Re:View the Site's contents

[1 a bee]

When repressive governments set up offices and instruments to have citizens spy on each other, what usually happens is that it just becomes a tool for parties to private disputes to hassle each other. It becomes easy to set up a bunch of false witnesses and turn in your adversary to the authorities.

And the government employees who run this racket, soon discover this abuse. And in an effort to separate the "good" reports from the "bad", they become gatekeepers. So now if you want to turn your adversary in, you must spend a bit of money.

And so a mob forms.. me thinks.

Re:View the Site's contents

[Daengbo]

Under the infamous PM Thaksin, the "War on Drugs" gave Thai police the authority to execute drug dealers in the north on the spot with no trial. It became simply a way to consolodate the drug business and/or get rid of trouble makers. The police (corrupt and involved in drug trafficking themselves) killed whomever they wished and planted drugs on the body after.

Now that was a war on drugs. This new affair will end similarly.

Re:The Thai King is a...

[Anonymous Coward]

I fart in his general direction!

Report

[Alsee]

Report: My neighbor was spreading rumors that the King was paranoid and an evil oppressive dictator imprisoning anyone who questioned or insulted him.

-

The Thai King is a spoiled child.

[flerchin]

I learned at 3 years old that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

Apparently the Thai king never did, what a retard.

Re:The Thai King is a spoiled child.

[Killjoy_NL]

This king has (to my knowledge) always pardoned people who were convicted of this crime and he has also tried to get rid of this law.

Re:The Thai King is a spoiled child.

[JoshuaZ]

People do get pardoned eventually. That's after they've been prosecuted, thrown in jail for long periods of time and had their lives ruined. See for example: http://www.theage.com.au/national/jailed-author-back-on-australian-soil-20090221-8dx7.html

There might be an argument if King Bhumibol Adulyadej was pardoning people before the prosecutors got a chance to do anything, but waiting until after prosecution and people are in jail for six months and then pardoning isn't undermining the lese majeste rules. Quite the opposite. Bhumibol gets to looks fairly progressive and open minded for the pardons while still getting revenge and against his critics and generally having a massive chilling effect on people.

Ok, that was calm enough. Now for the obligatory rant: His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej should go fuck himself.

Please someone inform the king he's doing it wrong

[pecosdave]

It's supposed to read:

1. Wear silly hats
2. Arrest people for making fun of silly hat wearer
3. ??????
4. Profit!

Instead the king is pulling a:

1. Wear silly hats
2. Arrest people for making fun of silly hat wearer
3. Ruin lives needlessly
4. ???????

There is no profit!

Awesome -

[bizitch]

I clicked the link for the snitching website - but it didn't work right away - so to be sure - I just clicked the link again - over and over and over and over - but it still didn't work ...

Not what they intended...

[LandownEyes]

Bet they'll be pissed tomorrow when they check the submissions and it's nothing but "First post!!!!1'.

Idiots!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too many people are spouting off and running off at the mouth because they are imposing their cultural views on the Thai people.

The king of Thailand is protected by a set of old laws called Lese Majeste, which essentially means it is a crime to injure the king in any way (including verbally).You may not agree with it, and in fact, the Thai king himself is against these laws, but this is their way.

You should also understand that the Thai people think very highly of the king and he has done a great many things to improve the lives of the everyday man. He is one of the great philanthropists of the 20 & 21st centuries.

Be more respectful of other cultures. Contrary to what most Americans seem to think, you are NOT the highest form of culture the world has ever seen and the rest of the world DO NOT want to be like you. We in the rest of the world have our own ways and, frankly, we've been doing it a lot longer than you lot.

Re:Idiots!

[DMalic]

Translation: Thai King awesome, Thai People dumb.

Re:Idiots!

[Stormwatch]

The king of Thailand is protected by a set of old laws called Lese Majeste, which essentially means it is a crime to injure the king in any way (including verbally).You may not agree with it, and in fact, the Thai king himself is against these laws, but this is their way.

Fuck this multiculturalist bullshit. Lese majeste is nothing except a way to oppress the people. If you can't say your opinion on something, it is as evil as any dictatorship in the world. You see, after reading a bit about the king, I know he does not really deserve to be insulted, but I will insult him anyway, on principle!

So, let's see..... King Bhumibol's breath smells like rotten durian! He has porn magazines hidden inside that ugly ceremonial hat! He listens to Britney Spears all day long! He thinks "Twilight" is the greatest literary work ever! He picks his nose, then eats his own boogers! He smokes oregano! His mother was a hamster! MC Hammer sued him for unauthorized sampling! He doesn't do backups! He can't pull off a hadouken! He won a golden raspberry! He led the Windows ME developement team!

Re:Idiots!

[Man On Pink Corner]

The king of Thailand is protected by a set of old laws called Lese Majeste, which essentially means it is a crime to injure the king in any way (including verbally).You may not agree with it, and in fact, the Thai king himself is against these laws, but this is their way.

And in some parts of Africa a female child may have her clitoris excised to save her from sexual temptation later in life. Now in some less-enlightened quarters, this is considered a bad idea. But hey, what do I know, I'm just an ugly American imposing my cultural views on the world, right?

Cultural relativism is as harmful a mind virus as religion. Some things in the world are broken, and sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending otherwise does not make you morally superior.

Re:Idiots!

[Stormwatch]

And in some parts of Africa a female child may have her clitoris excised to save her from sexual temptation later in life. Now in some less-enlightened quarters, this is considered a bad idea. But hey, what do I know, I'm just an ugly American imposing my cultural views on the world, right?

Well, when it comes to improper use of blades, America is not all that enlightened either... (see sig below)

Re:Idiots!

[Man On Pink Corner]

Well, when it comes to improper use of blades, America is not all that enlightened either...

True enough perhaps, but your point is actually my own: some cultural artifacts are objectively worse than others. Specifically, male circumcision is not as bad a thing as female circumcision. If we removed the glans and not just the foreskin, then the procedures would be comparable.

Arguably they should both be stopped... but I'm not going to take to the streets defending my dearly-departed foreskin or the King of Thailand's hat.

Re:Idiots!

[Stormwatch]

Arguably they should both be stopped... but I'm not going to take to the streets defending my dearly-departed foreskin or the King of Thailand's hat.

Suit yourself, but some people are taking the streets in defense of their dearly-departed foreskins. Check here.

Re:Idiots!

[Man On Pink Corner]

Which is great; more power to 'em.

Re:Idiots!

[SquirrelsUnite]

Too many people are spouting off and running off at the mouth because they are imposing their cultural views on the Thai people.

The king of Thailand is protected by a set of old laws called Lese Majeste, which essentially means it is a crime to injure the king in any way (including verbally).You may not agree with it, and in fact, the Thai king himself is against these laws, but this is their way.

And mocking stupidity is our way. Please respect that.

Re:Idiots!

[Zumbs]

Actually, most monarchies (including the one I live in) have similar laws. The main difference is to which degree these laws are being used to silence political dissidence. In Thailand they are being used heavily to silence criticisms of the current state of affairs. One example is the case of Giles Ji Ungpakorn, who had to flee Thailand because of his book A Coup for Rich. One of the passages that got him charged were:

The major forces behind the 19th September [2006] coup were anti-democratic groups in the military and civilian elite, disgruntled business leaders and neoliberal intellectuals and politicians. The coup was also supported by the monarchy.

Re:Idiots!

[blind biker]

The king of Thailand is protected by a set of old laws called Lese Majeste, which essentially means it is a crime to injure the king in any way (including verbally).You may not agree with it, and in fact, the Thai king himself is against these laws, but this is their way.

And in some parts of Africa a female child may have her clitoris excised to save her from sexual temptation later in life. Now in some less-enlightened quarters, this is considered a bad idea. But hey, what do I know, I'm just an ugly American imposing my cultural views on the world, right?

Cultural relativism is as harmful a mind virus as religion. Some things in the world are broken, and sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending otherwise does not make you morally superior.

I agree with you, but I also think we should prioritize: the systematic mutilation of all girls seems a good point to start fixing the world. The there's the honor killings of women "suspected of having an illegitimate affair" in many Islamic countries. And then the fact that women are forbidden from getting any education in some parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Funny how none of those come up on Slashdot, ever. I guess those are not "stuff that matters".

Re:Idiots!

[blind biker]

Got my tags mixed up, sorry. Here's how I wanted to post:

The king of Thailand is protected by a set of old laws called Lese Majeste, which essentially means it is a crime to injure the king in any way (including verbally).You may not agree with it, and in fact, the Thai king himself is against these laws, but this is their way.

And in some parts of Africa a female child may have her clitoris excised to save her from sexual temptation later in life. Now in some less-enlightened quarters, this is considered a bad idea. But hey, what do I know, I'm just an ugly American imposing my cultural views on the world, right?

Cultural relativism is as harmful a mind virus as religion. Some things in the world are broken, and sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending otherwise does not make you morally superior.

I agree with you, but I also think we should prioritize: the systematic mutilation of all girls seems a good point to start fixing the world. The there's the honor killings of women "suspected of having an illegitimate affair" in many Islamic countries. And then the fact that women are forbidden from getting any education in some parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Funny how none of those come up on Slashdot, ever. I guess those are not "stuff that matters".

Re:Idiots!

[Jaysyn]

As a circumcised male I can't say that I agree with your sig at all.

Does circumcision cause psychological harm?

Many men who are circumcised suffer the same psychological effects found in rape victims. A sense of great loss and feelings of anger, distrust, and grief are common among circumcised men who are aware of the functions that the foreskin performs. Problems with intimacy in adult life, long term post-traumatic stress disorder, and feelings of personal powerlessness are also reported by men when discussing their circumcisions.

That right there is batshit crazy insane.

Re:Idiots!

[Grizzled Old Scout]

The anti-Less Majeste comments have nothing to do with whether America represents some sort of pinnacle of philosophical or political thought. To imprison people, regardless of what country, because of what they say is wrong. Period. I understand the king himself is not in favor of these laws and I understand that the Thai themselves feel positively about their king, but that is irrelevant.

This is about right and wrong. To criticize one's rulers is an inalienable human right.

Re:Idiots!

[Stormwatch]

That right there is batshit crazy insane.

Are you are aware of the functions that the foreskin performs?

Re:Idiots!

[Stormwatch]

Besides making a great wallet that turns into a suitcase when you rub it?

Well, I read about a guy caught trying to sneak heroin bags there... :P

But seriously, a man circumcised as a child who says it's no big deal is like a man born deaf who says music is irrelevant.

i think the russians and french had the right idea

[circletimessquare]

monarchies are a ridiculous anachronism

uk, thailand, japan: follow nepal please, lose your bullshit historical baggage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_monarchy

Rights and freedom based on laws

[mashihabong]

I think people here get wrong idea. You should respect the local law. Many people here try to say it is okay to drive 200 km/h in US just because driving like that in Afghanistan is NOT illegal. I think many people should respect to other cultures. Don't set anything in developed countries as the world standard. I don't think it is the fault of King that someone is found guilty of lese-majeste. It is that person's duty to know the law or at least the culture / special law of where he or she is going. The lese-majeste law has been used for more than 77 years. Saying that the king is suck just because many people violated and found guilty of Thai lese-majeste law is the same as saying that the murdered victim is stupid just because a killer is accidentally there.

Re:Rights and freedom based on laws

[DMalic]

I hereby note that any Thai have full right in my mind to criticize U.S. marijuana laws and say whatever they might wish about the morons who enforce them. When an author is jailed in horrible conditions for a vague negative reference to a crown prince, your country is screwed the fuck up. This is a globalized world, and randomly imprisoning people for worthless crap is no longer going to cut it.

Hmmm, SPAM, that reminds me of something...

[NotQuiteReal]

"Must be a king."
"Why?"
"He hasn't got shit all over him."

Now you can set up a web site to help keep it that way...

"Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!"
"HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!"

A Quick Lesson in Thai politics.

[jrhawk42]

King Bhumibol Adulyadej is actually against the lÃse majesté law. So you're probably asking yourself why is this a problem? It's a problem for two reasons. One is the Thai people for the most part love their King, and insulting him is like insulting the country. Highly conservative groups feel like this is treason and should be treated as such. The other reason the lÃse majesté law is still in effect is that the current Thai government relies on the good name of the king. In their eyes if the King is no longer respected than the government that is supported by the king is no longer respected either. Yea it doesn't make much sense to normal people, but these are politicians we are talking about. I'd also like to point out that the Thai Monarchy is a shining example of how a Monarchy should behave. The Thai's have good reason to love their king.

Re:A Quick Lesson in Thai politics.

[MrMista_B]

Good example of how a Monarchy should be have?

Seriously?

You think Monarchy that locks up anyone who criticizes it, in any way is... a 'good example' of a monarchy?

You're nuts.

Re:A Quick Lesson in Thai politics.

[achurch]

You think Monarchy that locks up anyone who criticizes it, in any way is... a 'good example' of a monarchy?

Perhaps you missed the part where the OP wrote, "King Bhumibol Adulyadej is actually against the lèse majesté law"? It's the government that's at fault here, not the King. And notice that he's not grabbing power from the government to abolish the law himself, either; he's only stating his wishes and hoping that the true seat of power (the government) listens to him.

Re:A Quick Lesson in Thai politics.

[Zumbs]

If the king is against it, can't he just issue a pardon for everyone that is convicted?

Re:A Quick Lesson in Thai politics.

[drinkypoo]

Uh, if the people's votes were counted and the people loved the king the people would do as he asked and repeal the law. Something is wrong with your statement somewhere. Unless this is the kind of scary, abusive love that makes battered women stay with their husbands etc. The King really wants to change, but somehow, he just can't. He tries so hard, though! That's not love, it's fear.

Re:A Quick Lesson in Thai politics.

[drsquare]

You don't have any idea how the Thai government even works. But when has ignorance stopped people making a fool of themselves on the Internet?

Re:A Quick Lesson in Thai politics.

[drinkypoo]

You don't have any idea how the Thai government even works.

All I need to know I learned from Greg Graffin: You Are The Government.

In this case, the Thai people are the government.

Every Man and Woman in America who is not out in the streets protesting bad laws (waving signs is only one form of protest, mind you) shares part of the responsibility for our bad body of laws - myself included.

In this case, how the Thai government works is not interesting.

Re:A Quick Lesson in Thai politics.

[achurch]

Uh, if the people's votes were counted and the people loved the king the people would do as he asked and repeal the law.

I never said anything about the Thai people in my post. If you're under the impression that the people are themselves the government, allow me to point out that Thailand is not a direct democracy.

Re:A Quick Lesson in Thai politics.

[shutdown -p now]

Perhaps you missed the part where the OP wrote, "King Bhumibol Adulyadej is actually against the lèse majesté law"? It's the government that's at fault here, not the King. And notice that he's not grabbing power from the government to abolish the law himself, either; he's only stating his wishes and hoping that the true seat of power (the government) listens to him.

Or maybe he's stating his "wishes" knowing that they'll never be implemented anyway, and he gets off as being liberal as well, especially in face of criticism from the West.

Thai King is far from the figurehead. Yes, officially, he has very little powers; but unofficially, due to all the adoration he receives from common folk, his backing of policies and politicians, even when subtle, can shift the balance of power severely.

Re:i think the russians and french had the right i

[Microlith]

Why should they, if it isn't causing problems? Last I looked, in Japan the monarchy wasn't even politically relevant or a problem.

Last I checked, the king of Thailand was pardoning most people arrested under the law. This is the government abusing their King to silence critics.

Or just idiocy to a phenominal degree,

get real

[speedtux]

King Bhumibol? With a name and a hat like that, one can't help but make fun of you.

Seriously: the EU and US should break off ties with Thailand until the nation gets real about political freedoms and human rights, and tourists should stay away.

Re:get real

[gnasher719]

Seriously: the EU and US should break off ties with Thailand until the nation gets real about political freedoms and human rights, and tourists should stay away.

What bullshit. I don't know everything about the laws of all the countries you mention, but lots of the things written here would be actionable against anyone in most of these countries. And in the USA, freedom of speech only applies as long as you say what people want to hear.

What is the percentage of citizens in prison in the USA and in Thailand?

Re:get real

[Arimus]

Err... Gitmo?

Hardly a beacon of political freedom and human rights.

To the King ...

[ScrewMaster]

An large unknown population of political prisoners are currently being held for 3 to 15 years in Thai prisons for being interpreted as insulting the monarchy.

Two words: grow up.

Thailand's king isn't as backwards as you think

[NewsWatcher]

Well, it looks like it is time to sink the boot into Thais again, and their over-the-top laws in relation to Lese Majesty (criticising the royals).

I agree that people should be free to criticise anyone in a free society, and that locking people up for up to 15 years for something as minor as criticising a royal is ludicrous, here are some facts you may not be aware of:

1. Thailand's king Bhumibol Adulyadej said a few years ago in a birthday speech that the law of lese majesty was outdated and he would pardon anyone found guilty of the crime. He has since kept his word.

2. The crime of lese majesty came about in Thailand because under their constitution it is illegal for the royal family (who are supposed to be above the rest of society) to comment on the day-to-day running of society. They cannot respond to political attacks, nor can they react if people personally attack their character.

3. Because the Thai royals cannot respond to attacks, and take legal action or comment at any defamatory comments about them, the crime of lese majesty was inserted into the country's constitution, as a safeguard against political attacks on the royals.

4. Every time there is a general election the parliament has to vote on whether to can the lese majesty laws. Despite the king saying the laws no longer need to be in existence, the Thai people revere the king, and would vote out of office any politician who voted to abandon the lese majesty laws, hence the laws remain.

People in Thailand do not have the same freedom of speech rights that people in the west do, but to portray the king as some sort of evil ogre who is so sensitive to criticms that he cannot deal with an insult is just ridiculous.

This website will no doubt create a bureaucratic headache for the king, but should not be seen as evidence that Thailand is a dictatorial state.

Re:Thailand's king isn't as backwards as you think

[drinkypoo]

3. Because the Thai royals cannot respond to attacks, and take legal action or comment at any defamatory comments about them, the crime of lese majesty was inserted into the country's constitution, as a safeguard against political attacks on the royals.

The problem is that it doesn't actually work like that. It just looks pathetic and defensive.

4. Every time there is a general election the parliament has to vote on whether to can the lese majesty laws. Despite the king saying the laws no longer need to be in existence, the Thai people revere the king, and would vote out of office any politician who voted to abandon the lese majesty laws, hence the laws remain.

We can't count ballots correctly in the USA, who says they are doing any better in Thailand?

Re:Thailand's king isn't as backwards as you think

[mdmkolbe]

Because the Thai royals cannot respond to attacks, and take legal action or comment at any defamatory comments about them, the crime of lese majesty was inserted into the country's constitution, as a safeguard against political attacks on the royals.

The king doesn't have to respond to attacks, he can just have someone loyal to him respond to the attacks. The law never needed to be in the constitution.

(However, having said that, I can understand how the drafters of their constitution might have thought it might be.)

Re:Thailand's king isn't as backwards as you think

[celle]

"but should not be seen as evidence that Thailand is a dictatorial state."

Actually it is, just the king isn't the dictator. Too bad in some respects, it seems like he'd be a fairly benevolent one.

Even the old East Germany jokes work!

[Opportunist]

Erich Mielke (head of the Stasi) and Erich Honecker (head of the GDR) meet in prison after the fall.

Honecker: "Ya know, secretly, I collected the jokes the people told about me."
Mielke: "Hey, what a coincidence! I collected the people."

Re:i think the russians and french had the right i

[u38cg]

The big problem is that the King can't pardon anyone until someone has been actually sentenced. Rather convenient when *you* set the trial date.

This issue really has nothing to do with monarchy; even in the UK similar laws exist, we're just sensible enough to ignore them most of the time. More to the point, Prime Minister Blair was bad enough. We don't like the idea of President Blair.

Thailand is not the only ...

[Alain Williams]

country to imprison people for reasons that people in other countries think are despicable. Try this for example.

Intent and purpose

[otenki]

I dont think this is what Al Gore had in mind...

I Just Hope that Prince Charles doesn't read this

[Chrisq]

I Just Hope that Prince Charles doesn't read this. He has already said that "when" he is King he wants a presidential role and to take back some of the powers relinquished by the monarchy to parliament. I can well imagine him implementing something like this too.

I'd disagree

[Trepidity]

Although I also oppose the death penalty, I don't think you can do a "no matter what the reason" analysis. How bad an unethical government-imposed penalty is depends not only on its severity, but on how frequently and to whom it's applied.

From that perspective, I think a government imprisoning someone for 15 years for criticizing the head of state, which should not be a crime at all, is worse, by many orders of magnitude, than a government executing someone who's been convicted of murder.

Re:I'd disagree

[terjeber]

I think it is interesting that you find that a government removing the liberty of a a blabbermouth for a limited amount of time is somehow worse than a government murdering (for example) a mentally handicapped person (Texas).

Re:They should be like good Americans and

[Anonymous Coward]

Barry doesn't need a site like that. He has dailykos, CNN, the NYT, NBC, MSNBC, moveon.org, etc. etc. etc..

Wait and watch.

I'm shocked...

[Kindaian]

I overheard "(insert name here of your enemy)" stating something horrible that can't even think of saying!

Not as barbaric as a country that kills kids?

[fantomas]

Only two countries in the World refuse to sign up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and declare their right to execute children as part of their legal processes:

1. Somalia
2. United States of America

Careful who you are calling barbaric, some people might also call executing kids a pretty primitive practice.

Re:Not as barbaric as a country that kills kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

i take it that you haven't had to deal with american children lately...

Re:Not as barbaric as a country that kills kids?

[Jaysyn]

If it makes your misplaced sense of morality feel better, I personally I think most of our politicians should die in a revolution as well.

Re:Not as barbaric as a country that kills kids?

[ak3ldama]

Fuck the UN. Rights aren't granted to people by the government. The UN has a habit of listing out in detail the rights they wish to grant, with clauses that say what may be withheld at discretion later if deemed necessary. A lot of those countries that sign those charters aren't exactly the great havens of personal rights and freedoms that you think they are.

Re:Not as barbaric as a country that kills kids?

[Attila Dimedici]

You post that as if signing a UN document means that a country actually intends to abide by it. Take a look at the current membership of the UN Human Rights Council.
Based on the history of other UN documents (and my knowledge of world history), I'd rather take my chances as a child in the U.S. than in over 50% of the signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Re:Not as barbaric as a country that kills kids?

[Quantum Jim]

Only two countries in the World refuse to sign up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and declare their right to execute children as part of their legal processes:

1. Somalia
2. United States of America

Careful who you are calling barbaric, some people might also call executing kids a pretty primitive practice.

If you are going to call the US barbaric, please use a correct reason. Just because we did not "sign up" (we did sign it in fact, just not ratify it) doesn't mean we don't support most of its ideals. The US Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute children as part of our legal processes. So the US is not executing kids, unlike what you are claiming.

Now there are many reasons why we should ratify it. There are also reasons why we might not be able to ratify it. For example, it could be unconstitutional. So it is not a clear issue and should be debated and considered with much thought. However, using loaded words like "barbaric" and "refuse" is unfair when the issue needs more discussion. So you please refrain from such derogatory and untrue characterizations.

Re:Not as barbaric as a country that kills kids?

[fantomas]

Read my post in context with the parent to which I was responding. Original poster used the term "fucking barbaric" to describe a country that executed drug users and I was suggesting they thought a little more about their posting.

Agreed my language should have been more carefully chosen. I completely agree the issue is more nuanced than a short response can provide however felt it would be mostly lost on the original poster, hence decided to give them a blunt response to get them thinking about what they'd written. Perhaps I shouldn't have jumped back at a troll...

Clearly you are more capable of a more rational debate and it would be more pleasant to have a decent conversation and discuss the issues with you rather than User Jaysyn.The issues are indeed complex.

I'd note though that the State of Texas- a part of the USA - apparently still reserves the right to execute under 18 year olds and President Obama has promised to review the failure to ratify the Convention (Ref.)

regards.

Re:Not as barbaric as a country that kills kids?

[Quantum Jim]

Read my post in context with the parent to which I was responding. Original poster used the term "fucking barbaric" to describe a country that executed drug users and I was suggesting they thought a little more about their posting.

Agreed my language should have been more carefully chosen. I completely agree the issue is more nuanced than a short response can provide however felt it would be mostly lost on the original poster, hence decided to give them a blunt response to get them thinking about what they'd written. Perhaps I shouldn't have jumped back at a troll...

Clearly you are more capable of a more rational debate and it would be more pleasant to have a decent conversation and discuss the issues with you rather than User Jaysyn.The issues are indeed complex.

I'd note though that the State of Texas- a part of the USA - apparently still reserves the right to execute under 18 year olds and President Obama has promised to review the failure to ratify the Convention (Ref.)

regards.

I think that it is very strange to defend a blunt response if it can easily be shown to be incorrect. For example, I could call you "fucking barbaric" for murdering children too, but that would be incorrect and certainly unjustified. At very least, your outburst makes you look very silly to me. The context doesn't compare the US to anyone, and the post doesn't imply the author is from the US at all. So your remark about the US is certainly off-topic and not supported by the context.

Your reference from wikipedia is probably incorrect. The citation in wikipedia for the remark, that Texas reserves the right to execute 17 year olds (Texas's previous limit), does not mention Texas at all! I did a search for texas in that article and got nothing, so (unless my browser is malfunctioning) that wikipedia statement seems baseless to me. So I will edit out that reference from the article.

Furthermore, Texas cannot overrule the US constitution, and the supreme court has already ruled on the matter. There was a case mentioned in the wikipedia article where they tried to overturn the ruling in Alabama, but that went nowhere (and rightfully so). So that reference that you cited can not support your argument in any case whether true or not.

Finally, Obama is a politician. He cares a lot about symbols, as shown by his public reasons for "firing" a CEO. I repeat that: he forced a person to retire from his job because Obama wanted to emphasize a point. Doesn't matter if it was justified for other reasons or not - that was the reason suggested by the man himself. Obama also recently suggested a world without nuclear weapons, though there are many reasons that is currently unrealistic. Obama declared it probably won't happen in his lifetime, in fact! So the point of mentioning that goal was also symbolic. The UN Convention is also a symbol. So Obama's support of ratifying the convention is not surprising, but also not a sign that he thinks it is realistic or even possible in the near future. Of course I could be wrong, but I think this is the likely conclusion.

Re:Not as barbaric as a country that kills kids?

[syousef]

Has it ever occurred to you that I may not be American? I am in fact Australian.

Re:Not as barbaric as a country that kills kids?

[Jaysyn]

Nope. Regardless of what goes on in the U.S., Thailand is still fucking barbaric by any civilized person's standards.

Have a nice day.

We have that in the USA too...

[tjstork]

http://www.epa.gov/tips/

http://www.siia.net/piracy/report.asp?gclid=COCrrZOs3JkCFRwDagodUxSNVg

and so on. In the modern, free west, you can anonymously report anyone for anything. At some point, just having to say how great the king is might actually be a better deal than getting nickle and dimed over every federal regulation.

hitler youth?

[v1]

Hitler Youth, sound familiar to anyone?

Stunned as always, things you'd swear "could never happen again", DO. (for those that missed the connection, one of Hitler Youth's main tennants was snitching on your parents)

Problem with America

[jgtg32a]

This is one of the problems with America, we don't use insults like that at best we just string together fuck with a few other words.

No way.

[feldicus]

I refuse to believe that protecttheking.net was available. To suggest that Elvis fans would have let such a domain sit idle is an affront to white trash the world over.

feldicus

Re:i think the russians and french had the right i

[u38cg]

Strictly speaking, it's common law that has not been practiced for some considerable time. In Scotland you could probably get away with a desutuede defence, but in England, it stands until explicitly overturned by statute.

Re:The Thai King is a...

[mdmkolbe]

I've never understood why smelling of elderberries was a bad thing. Anyone care to explain why that would be an insult? (Off-topic I know.)

Oops

[Belial6]

Oops.. I DONT hear US citizens complaining about the huge number of people that come here and insult our leaders.

Re:And you should follow Godwin's law

[psychodelicacy]

Just keeping out of the way of oppressive laws is certainly one option, but acting so as to expose the unjust nature of those laws is also a valid response and, I would argue, a particularly moral one, too.

Change through democratic process? How is that possible when the mechanisms of democracy have themselves been legislated out of existence?

Yes, it was a Godwinism, but at least it was to the point - plenty of foreign nationals broke Germany's laws in order to save Jews and others from the Nazis. According to your account of things, they should have stayed home.

protect Mike Doogan

[heroine]

It's not like you're any freer to criticize Mike Doogan.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/31/0158249