Slashdot Mirror


15 Years In Jail For Clicking 'Like'

patiwat writes "Thailand has warned Facebook users that they could face 3 to 15 years in jail if they press 'share' or 'like' on images or articles considered unflattering to the Thai monarchy. And it doesn't just apply to Thai subjects: a U.S. citizen was arrested and convicted while visiting Thailand for posting a link to an unauthorized biography of King Bhumibol on his blog. Convictions for virtual lese majeste have sky-rocketed in recent years as efforts to defend the widely revered royal family from criticism have ramped up."

449 comments

  1. Fuck the king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fuck that greasy yellow slope

    1. Re:Fuck the king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ahhh when practiced correctly freedom of speech can bring so much laughter

    2. Re:Fuck the king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Ironically, that comment would be illegal in Australia, the UK and most of Europe.

      At least in Thailand it's only illegal to offend the King.

    3. Re:Fuck the king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear King of Thailand,

      I didnt post this! Somebody hacked my account!

    4. Re:Fuck the king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly where in Europe it is illegal to offend the king/queen. At least in Scandinavia the royal families get their fare share shit starting from the press and continuing to social media.

    5. Re:Fuck the king by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Technically speaking treating the King of Thailand as separate and above the rest of the population and all other people on the planet is the ultimate act of racism. A breed apart superior to all the rest of humanity, let's be honest the only idiots who run around with that attitude are psychopaths and narcissists. Of course generally it is only the psychopaths that try to punish a whole world of people who disagree with that principle. So it would seem the Thai ignoble royal family are psychopathic ass hats to the core and yeah for the subject heading.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:Fuck the king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AND IN MOST OF EUROPE ALSO THEY CUT YOUR HANDS OFF FOR STEALING look at me im a man of the woooooorld

      go back to your trailer, moron

    7. Re:Fuck the king by CmdrPony · · Score: 4, Informative

      That law isn't made by the king or royal family, it's made by the government (and in turn, people). He himself has said that he shouldn't be above criticism, and does parole people punished for that law.

    8. Re:Fuck the king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fucking the king should never be illegal.

    9. Re:Fuck the king by vencs · · Score: 0

      he is just letting you write that on a real wall.. btw, pokes and farming get real too!

    10. Re:Fuck the king by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      If the King were actually revered and if he actually doesn't like the law, he would have it repealed. Logic dictates that he must approve of the law, or that he is actually just a figure-head of the real government. Either way, he's a shit-head child-rapist.

    11. Re:Fuck the king by grumbel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In Germany we have this fine law:

      Defamation of the President of the Federation

      (1) Whosoever publicly defames the President of the Federation, in a meeting or through the dissemination of written material (section 11 (3)) shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.

      (2) In less serious cases the court in its discretion may mitigate the sentence (section 49 (2)) unless the conditions of section 188 are met.

      (3) The penalty shall be imprisonment from six months to five years if the act constitutes an intentional defamation (section 187) or if the offender by the act intentionally supports efforts against the continued existence of the Federal

      Republic of Germany or against its constitutional principles.

      (4) The offence may only be prosecuted upon the authorisation of the President of the Federation.

    12. Re:Fuck the king by timbo234 · · Score: 2

      That's simplification to the point of inaccuracy, in Australia's case at least. For a start the illegality is only when race is involved, you can quite freely come to Australia and say that the prime minister, the Queen, the Governor General (the Queen's representative in Oz) or any other politician is a fuckwit or something like that, and you'll find plenty of people who agree with you completely.

      Secondly, and more importantly, it only becomes a criminal matter if you threaten violence or physically confront someone and harass them:
      "To establish racial vilification of a criminal nature, it is usually necessary to establish a high level of harassment or potential threat. While the distribution of offensive material may form one end of the continuum of behaviours prohibited under state criminal law, generally, incitement to violence, threats to person or property, and so on, are required in order for state or federal criminal provisions to apply."
      http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/cyberracism/vilification.html

      Just posting what GP did would at worst land you in a conciliation process with the above mentioned commission or if that fails a civil court case. And as the link above mentions they handle very few cases about alleged internet discrimination.

      I generally would support having US style free-speech laws in Australia, but the current situation is not as repressive as some Americans on /. seem to imagine.

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    13. Re:Fuck the king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Race would imply all Asians, culture is the word your brain is clambering for.
      Here for example we have many people of Mexican heritage,Hispanic Race, some come from a culture that o.k.s lawbreaking as an acceptable lifestyle these are Wetbacks. Not all Hispanics are Wetbacks, but all wetbacks are Hispanic
      Further we have Negro race members actively contributing to society,separate is a culture of Niggers whose lifestyle is parasitical to everyone and a subculture of Niggers called gangbangers whose lifestyle of crime without work have marked their membership with a lack of intelligence and upperbody strength that make rehabilitation through working on a road crew or picking cotton unlikely.
      I pity the Asian race who are associated regularly with a culture of Greasy Slopes like the Communist Parties active in the regions,the Thai Monarchy, The North Korean Military Regime, The North Vietnamese, the Yakusa, the Tong and all the other cultures bringing shame to Races everywhere.
      Worst of all are those among all of us who instantly invalidate an idea automatically in the presence of words indicating CULTURE.
      Well intentioned, but fatally ignorant Morons are the culture that has no hope of extinction.

               

    14. Re:Fuck the king by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Thailand, while beautiful and full of hardworking upstanding people is also a mecca for pedophiles and those in the hard drug market.
      Apparently ,it's o.k. to run a country offensively to the mores of the rest of the world.
      I don't mind offending the little Thai bastard, shit, I'm probably his daddy.
      The Royal Thai Family can take turns rimming me.

      Funny, that didn't make me feel any better.Maybe history will repeat the Marcos/Philippines story again.
      That would be funny,the Thai King could run around the world looking for a place to settle as his ill gotten booty gets picked over by friends,enemies and shoe salesmen till it dwindles to nothing.
      Perhaps reports of Karma falling on his nuts will make me feel better...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    15. Re:Fuck the king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thailand, while beautiful and full of hardworking upstanding people is also a mecca for pedophiles and those in the hard drug market.

      No it isn't. There's very harsh penalties for both of those things, and you will end up in a prison for a long time. And Thai prisons really suck.

      They might have been more relaxed towards drugs back in 70-80's, but it's a completely different situation now. Not just in Thailand, but whole South East Asia.

    16. Re:Fuck the king by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      So it would seem the Thai ignoble royal family are psychopathic ass hats to the core and yeah for the subject heading.

      Ironically it's the king himself that said he's not above criticism and wants to be treated the same as everyone else, but you just keep on calling him an ass hat without looking into it.

    17. Re:Fuck the king by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      If the King were actually revered and if he actually doesn't like the law, he would have it repealed. Logic dictates that he must approve of the law

      He's the king not a president or prime minister. He has no say on government laws.

    18. Re:Fuck the king by flyneye · · Score: 1

      I'd look into political corruption as well. Television Expose' and deluge of other media keep flooding us with reports of Pedophiles caught and dragged back to various countries for prosecution. Someone must be getting paid pretty well for the kiddie flesh trade to be booming there whilst legislated against.
      I'm sure all of Asia thinks twice before conducting Heroin business over curry there as well, NOT!
      I for one will not be traveling there for verification. I prefer cruises where the worst offense is the offer of a burro show and haggling in the background is over a kilo of marijuana . Like Alaska for example:)

       

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    19. Re:Fuck the king by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Of course he does. He has as much say as he wants. He could even go so far as to pardon every single person convicted of the crime until the government took the point that it's stupid law that even the King doesn't like.

    20. Re:Fuck the king by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      He could abdicate and say he is doing so because of the inequality of this law.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    21. Re:Fuck the king by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for everywhere in Europe, but in the UK it's illegal to do, say or post anything threatening, abusive or insulting if you're likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress", and it's also illegal to use a "public electronic communications network" (i.e. phone or Internet) to send a message that is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" or do certain stuff online "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another." And yes, these laws do get used.

      Of course, it should be harder to convict someone for offending a public figure like the Queen (or senior politicians) because Article 10 ECHR should get in the way, but that doesn't seem to stop the police barging into people's homes and threatening them with arrest...

    22. Re:Fuck the king by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      So where is the campaign of derogation of Thailand king in newspapers, where are the solidarity cartoons?

      Where are protect the free speech declarations?

      Oh, wait. The king is not a Prophet Muhammad, and Muslims are public enemy number one nowadays.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    23. Re:Fuck the king by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Don't forget beamtenbeleidigung.

      Insult any bureacrat, multi-thousand euro fine.

      Germany is still a police state.

    24. Re:Fuck the king by cgenman · · Score: 2

      If I'm remembering my history correctly, those laws were enacted under Tarkin's reign. The Thai monarchy was basically an afterthought early this century, until he leveraged his legacy position to legitimize military rules who in turn, legitimized him.

      We're talking about a country where at an appointed time of day, everyone is required to turn to a picture of the king and sing. Do you really think that was voted up in a properly open legislature?

    25. Re:Fuck the king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I generally would support having US style free-speech laws in Australia, but the current situation is not as repressive as some Americans on /. seem to imagine.

      I didn't know anyone thought it was repressive here. To carry the point further, here's an example of how repressive it is - a comedy show about the PM http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-20/julia-and-tim-at-home/2908250 That's from the state owned/run broadcaster. Note - the PM's the dopey looking chick, not the dude with the stupid look on his face.

    26. Re:Fuck the king by belmolis · · Score: 2

      Civil libertarians do and have objected to this Thai law, but objections to censorship of commentary on Islam are more widespread and vehement because censorship of discussion of Islam is a much greater problem: (a) Thailand is one small country; there are 51 countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation; (b) this law is enforced only within Thailand while Muslims attempt to enforce censorship everywhere; (c) the penalties in Thailand are relatively modest while Muslims call for the death of critics and sometimes actually murder them; (d) the Thai monarchy has little importance outside of Thailand so most people in the world have nothing to say about it while Islam has great influence and from the point of view of many people around the world is a nefarious influence deserving of criticism.

    27. Re:Fuck the king by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      There is no "censorship of discussion of Islam ".

      There is vile hatred and desire to insult Muslims. That's all there is.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    28. Re:Fuck the king by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "the Thai monarchy has little importance outside of Thailand so most people in the world have nothing to say about it while Islam has great influence and from the point of view of many people around the world is a nefarious influence deserving of criticism."

      Here you nailed it. That's the cause of hatred of Islam. Islam is winning and not in the Charlie Sheen way. That's what scares the beetle juice out of Kuffaar.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    29. Re:Fuck the king by jm.one · · Score: 1

      Yeah well.. besides "Beamte" doenst reffer to police only... Beamtenbeleidigung isnt a seperate crime. It s a "Beleidigung" (insult) as any other.

    30. Re:Fuck the king by jm.one · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, nobody has ever been sentenced for that. (4) might be the actual reason for that.

    31. Re:Fuck the king by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      And at just what point does it become treason? Just out of question?

    32. Re:Fuck the king by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      No he can not. You're talking about a royal pardon which must be drafted by the government then presented to the king. The king has no say in who he pardons, just the option to do so when presented to him.

    33. Re:Fuck the king by Meski · · Score: 2

      One. Are prosecutions proceeding against Berlusconi, who, if I recall correctly, caller her 'unfuckable' (chancellor, president, what's the difference?)

      Two. I (hypothetically) have slashdot mod points. Does Thailand regard them as like/share? If so, which is worst? Funny, Informative or Insightful?

    34. Re:Fuck the king by timbo234 · · Score: 1

      At the point that you kill Queen, the PM or the Governer General:
      "Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) makes it an an offence to cause the death of, or harm to, the Sovereign, the heir apparent, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister."
      http://www.caslon.com.au/seditionnote2.htm

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    35. Re:Fuck the king by Kavafy · · Score: 1
    36. Re:Fuck the king by jandersen · · Score: 2

      To quote Wikipedia:

      In Denmark, the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph (Â 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment), but Â115[7] allows for doubling of the usual punishment when the regent is target of the libel. When a queen consort, queen dowager or the crown prince is the target, the punishment may be increased by 50%. There are no historical records of Â115 having ever been used, but in March 2011, Greenpeace activists who unfurled a banner at a dinner at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference were charged under this section.[8] They received minor sentences for other crimes, but were acquitted of the charge relating to the monarch.[9]

      Denmark is, as you may know, in Scandinavia; as for the rest of Europe, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se_majest%C3%A9

    37. Re:Fuck the king by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Ironically, that comment would be illegal in Australia, the UK and most of Europe.

      At least in Thailand it's only illegal to offend the King.

      Bollocks,.it's not "illegal" to post racist messages in the UK unless they amount to inciting racial hatred (e.g. neo nazis urging their supporters to kill Jews/Blacks/whoever). *

      There's no law against being racist here, it's just that people will hopefully treat you like the stupid twat you are for saying such things, and you probably wouldn't want to put them on your CV.

      * I'm sure this limitation on free speech will appear shocking to Americans who simultaneously blanch at the word toilet or the sight of a nipple on TV.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    38. Re:Fuck the king by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You just keep on believing PR bullshit or would that be spreading PR bullshit. Either he quits or his an ass hat, end of story.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    39. Re:Fuck the king by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Ahhh when practiced correctly freedom of speech can bring so much laughter

      Whereas in this case it comes across as racist drivel. Yes you have freedom of speech, no it does not mean what you write has any value.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    40. Re:Fuck the king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because knowing the subject instantly makes you biased... ugh... just do five minutes of wikipedia if you dont believe me.

    41. Re:Fuck the king by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Wishing ill on another does not change their karma, but it does change yours.

    42. Re:Fuck the king by nobodie · · Score: 1

      yo dude, wise up. It is NOT the king that wants this. Every time someone gets convicted the king pardons them and helps them get out of the country. It is the people that do it, especially politicians who want to get popular support from the yellow shirt majority who revere the king. So, back off, while there are some .... interesting.... aspects to the king's life, he is not the source of the laws and he is vehement in his denial of them.

      And chill out on the xenophobia, it just makes you look like a cave dweller

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    43. Re:Fuck the king by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      "harm to" - what do you count as harm, only physical pain, or also psychological pain? What about harm to their reputation is that harming them?

    44. Re:Fuck the king by timbo234 · · Score: 1

      It definitely doesn't mean harm to their reputation or phsychological harm. otherwise all the tv shows, newspapers and webites run by Aussies which criticise and make fun of politicians, and yes, even queen Liz, would be being chased with sedition and treason laws. it just doesnt happen in Australia.

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    45. Re:Fuck the king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re One: Berlusconi did not commit a crime according to that law, because the chancellor is not the president in Germany. The same way Berlusconi is not the president in Italy.

      Re Two: You do not have mod points here. But you're raising an interesting question. Do you feel like finding the answer yourself, becasue we could get you some mod points and a ticket to Bangkok.

    46. Re:Fuck the king by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      Just cause someone hasn't been prosecuted for it in recent years doesn't mean that's what the law says! The same situation here in the UK ;)

    47. Re:Fuck the king by timbo234 · · Score: 1

      Australian law says nothing of the sort. Have a look at the full act, it clearly defines the word "harm" as:
      ""harm" means physical harm or harm to a person's mental health, whether temporary or permanent. However, it does not include being subjected to any force or impact that is within the limits of what is acceptable as incidental to social interaction or to life in the community. "
      http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html

      So yes you're perfectly able to insult the Queen, the GG, the PM in Australia with no fear of either civil or criminal penalties.

      That may not be exactly true in the UK since by the sound of it you're still lumbered with un-repealed laws dating back to 1351: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7288516.stm

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    48. Re:Fuck the king by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Your dogma was run over by my karma.
      As a "paid" Subgenius son of Bob, I am contractually included by default for the very best of every religions destination of choice on a revolving timeshare basis owned by the Subgenius Foundation. Included contracts include but are not limited to resort "heavens" run by Jehovah1 , Allah, Zeus, Odin, and Andy Warhol. Wish all the ill you want, when paid up, Bob is there to intervene with " The Divine Excuse" and no bothersome Deities will ever EVER threaten your existence. But wait, there's MORE. You can be the GOD of your very own SEX PLANET! Eternal Salvation or DOUBLE YOUR MONEY BACK!!
            Show me one religion that can EVEN make that guarantee!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  2. Why indulge? by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do people continue to go to countries that suck?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Why indulge? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I haven't been to the US since they introduced the eye scan for citizens of my home country at entry.

      Shame. It was quite a nice place compared to much of the world.

    2. Re:Why indulge? by jimpop · · Score: 1

      To prep for the inevitable ground forces and occuation?

    3. Re:Why indulge? by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do people continue to go to countries that suck?

      That's exactly why I haven't been to the US during the past 20 years, but I have been to Thailand twice in that same time.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are no countries that don't suck. There are only countries that suck comparatively less in certain areas.

    5. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Makes sense, the US doesn't generally let pedo's back in once they skip the country.

    6. Re:Why indulge? by MrMista_B · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, why would anyone visit the US?

      Oh, you mean this is Thailand?

      Carry on...

    7. Re:Why indulge? by jd · · Score: 2

      That needn't be the case - countries are quite capable of learning from each other, just as people are. Of course, capability and willingness aren't generally the same thing, but that's a choice and not an intrinsic property.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re:Why indulge? by rev0lt · · Score: 2

      You know why, right? Many of the Sicksextourists _are_ americans.

    9. Re:Why indulge? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Better stay out of Europe if lese majeste laws are a concern to you.

      Germany, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Switzerland, Poland and the Netherlands have laws of this nature in force.

    10. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I haven't been to the US since they introduced the eye scan for citizens of my home country at entry.

      I call bullshit.

      1. You're from the UK... not some terrorist backwater country.

      Recent riots in Britain had few deaths (care to guess why and follow our example?)

      2. US collects 10 fingerprints and a digital photograph:

      The officer will scan your fingerprints and take your photograph with a digital camera.

      http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_1336.html
      http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0525.shtm

      There was a pilot program like 5 years ago where you could use an eye scan to speed through security (you had to signup for it and submit a scan before hand)... and that was never a general requirement, and it was discontinued.

    11. Re:Why indulge? by couchslug · · Score: 0

      "Why do people continue to go to countries that suck?"

      Sex tourism, end of story.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    12. Re:Why indulge? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      So you are Canadian?

    13. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ironic considering most of these countries have no "Majeste" to speak of. But yeah, stay away from Spain, that guy murdered his brother.

    14. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thailand is a beautiful country and the people are really friendly there. I spent time there last year and I'm going back again, without even thinking when I would return. In fact I dated a few thais too, and the whole atmosphere is much more relaxed and they seem a lot more caring than women in my country. Not everyone go there for plain sex. In fact I'm only 22 and there wouldn't be any problem getting some action in my home country either. I just like living there a lot more.

    15. Re:Why indulge? by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're an idiot.

      Thailand has beautiful islands, nice beaches, very friendly people and a ton of culture sites worth visiting. Yes, it also has sex-tourism. But at least in Bangkok, there are a lot more real massage parlours than sex-related ones. And getting a nice foot-massage halfway into a several hour shopping tour or visit to the night market (a must-see) is something they could well offer in the western world as well.

      Snide remarks, dumbo, work a lot better when they're based on facts and not bullshit.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    16. Re:Why indulge? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Australian here. If I went to the US as a tourist and went around threatening the President I would expect Bad Things to happen to me.

    17. Re:Why indulge? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yup, and Congress has had to create laws to prosecute American pedophiles because Thai authorities are too busy chasing down people who make disparaging remarks about their King.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people continue to go to countries that suck?

      That's exactly why I haven't been to the US during the past 20 years, but I have been to Thailand twice in that same time.

      Americans usually only go the SE Asia to bomb the place or to have cheap sex. Either way, please stay the hell away if you don't like it here.

    19. Re:Why indulge? by omb · · Score: 0

      The US is crazy, arrogant and ill-advised. Thailand belongs to the Thais who are lovely hardworking honest people. Leave them the HELL alone.

      Only idiots is a country that is USD 15T in debt and has produced GWB and BHO could be that stupid.

      If they want to permit sex differently from you ... MindYourOwnBusness, or better yet try telling the Saudi(s) how to.

    20. Re:Why indulge? by mellon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope, sorry, they were doing that to alien visitors when I entered at Chicago last week on the way back from Japan. The Japanese government is doing it too. I got photographed at Heathrow a while back, but I'm not entirely sure what they were doing—it wasn't at immigration, so it seemed like some sort of airport security measure.

    21. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thailand seems nice but isn't it run by a bunch of extremists? I've got nothing against the culture or scenery but for christs sake get a new government. this isn't fucking 1710

    22. Re:Why indulge? by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't, unless you threatened violence against them. You could certainly insult them all you want.

      Lord knows, we all do.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    23. Re:Why indulge? by Adriax · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that's not the same thing.
      If the US had the same laws as tailand, anyone even remotely related to fox news would be shipped off to Guantanamo for the crap they make up about the president on a daily basis.

      You can walk around america with a t-shirt that says "Obama sucks donkey balls!" all you want, you can't in tailand with a comparable shirt about the king.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    24. Re:Why indulge? by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're comparing apples to rocks. Totally different laws.

      If you came here and threatened the President, you would be in trouble.

      But you could come here and call our President every name in the book and nothing bad would happen to you. You couldn't go to Thailand and say the same things about the king. We would probably buy you a drink; in Thailand you'd wind up in jail.

    25. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people continue to go to countries that suck?

      That's exactly why I haven't been to the US during the past 20 years, but I have been to Thailand twice in that same time.

      Kids are cheaper in Thailand, right?

    26. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to visit Thailand a lot 20yrs ago. Nice people. Beautiful country.

      I refuse to now. I am not sure of the Thai people are brainwashed by the king and family. But really he is worthless. He has done nothing to combat child slavery and prostitution. In fact he probably is still in denial. So while little girls are sold as slaves and abused for the entertainment of sick fucks around the world nothing happens. But call the king four-eyes and you get 10 years.

      Fuck that egotistical prick.

    27. Re:Why indulge? by russotto · · Score: 1

      That needn't be the case - countries are quite capable of learning from each other, just as people are.

      Unfortunately, that usually means they absorb each other's worst characteristics.

    28. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heathrow has Iris scanners for the UKs IRIS program that allows you faster access through security.

      You'll need a link if you want me to believe you about chicago.. since just a year ago the DHS said about a test of iris scanning at the mexican border:

      "This is a preliminary test of how the technology performs -- we have no specific plans for acquiring or deploying this type of technology at this point," she said. Currently, the backend databases the DHS would need to successfully deploy the technology don't exist, and no DHS customers are requesting the use of such technology.

    29. Re:Why indulge? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      > That's ironic considering most of these countries have no "Majeste" to speak of. But yeah, stay away from Spain, that guy murdered his brother.

      That doesn't prevent them from applying these laws when there are visiting "Majeste".

      i.e.

      On 5 January 2005, Marxist tabloid publisher Jerzy Urban was sentenced by a Polish court to a fine of 20,000 zÅoty (about â5000 or US$6,200) for having insulted Pope John Paul II, a visiting head of state.

    30. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better stay out of Europe if lese majeste laws are a concern to you.

      Germany, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Switzerland, Poland and the Netherlands have laws of this nature in force.

      Yes they have laws like that, but not actually enforced. You can write an article criticizing the head of state and publish it. Also, do not forget that Germany, switzerland, Greece and Poland do not have a monarchy.

    31. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "went around threatening" ?
      None is threatening the king, just saying things that are potentially unpleasant about him. No problem doing this in the US, just look at the tea party.
      There's a fundamental difference.

    32. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tin foil nutter.

    33. Re:Why indulge? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We don't. We go to Thailand instead.

      A holiday in Thailand is cheap, surrounded by polite Thai people (mainly because people own quite little and are happy to serve tourists with for a few dollars), generally quite safe, and has some beautiful islands.

      A holiday in America starts by getting fingered by the TSA and then gets worse.

      I know which I'd prefer.

    34. Re:Why indulge? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      who are lovely hardworking honest people.

      Are you sure you were in Thailand?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    35. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      where are you located? Most large shopping malls I've been to in the US have at least some sort of massage station - usually an asian foot massage place. They are widely popular here now.

    36. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, smug douche bag visits Thailand and is so much better than everyone else. Thanks for the news flash!

    37. Re:Why indulge? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Thats the difference between democracies and monarchies. Its not specifically a difference between Thailand and everywhere else.

    38. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, they take the fuck-bomber to go there and the aids-clipper to come back.

    39. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't his snide remark partially based on facts? As far as I know, Thailand is infamous for child prostitution and sex tourism.

    40. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what has the US done about this law? No matter how hard the US tries to revert back to pseudo isolationism in everything except trade, other countries still expect the US to get involved in one thing or another that never provide any direct benefits to the US. Hopefully the US will start letting others run their own affairs without any US involvement (ie. money). When the US tried closing down or downsizing the bulk of it's military bases in Germany, Japan, and S. Korea those countries had a hissy fit. I am a strong supporter of US non-involvement in other countries except for trade. I am really hoping we will get out of Afghanistan and let them go on killing themselves in peace. Why should I give a shit about what those people do? As long as the keep thier nonsense within their country boundaries they should be left alone with a warning that any attempt to harm US national interests will carry a heavy price. Mutual defense treaties and even NATO should be reviewed and scrapped if they don't benefit the US interests. If someone wants any US military help they should expect an invoice with half due up front. I would also look at all of the regional economic agreements such as NAFTA and determine if they provide any meaningful support to the US economy. Trade should be exercised in a bilateral environment.

    41. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and oppressing freedom of speech and attacking opponents of their government with violence. Yes, a marvelous place, the beaches the beaches! Look at the beaches! Ignore the oppressive government and remind everyone about the beaches.

      You did read the topic first right? This isn't about the beaches, it's about freedoms of speech right! So what does beaches have to do with that?

    42. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, for the love of God! Learn how to use the apostrophe!!!

    43. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and when you are finished with that shopping spree you get to curl up with a nice 12 year old ladyboi. Stop hating yourself and admit your damned perversion.

    44. Re:Why indulge? by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      You dare not say that you are ashamed of him though... it may be career limiting. Granted, it is not the same result as 15 years in a Thai prison but saying "The President sucks donkey balls" is not necessarily without consequence even in The Land of the Free(TM)

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    45. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emperor Wilhelm II is back in Germany? Wow. Just 70 years after his death. Should be like new. A Zombiecorpse as majesty...Awesome.
      And what's the name of the King of Switzerland? Curious to know.
      Oh...and Poland. Do they know that they have a Queen?

      Failfag. There is no lese majeste law in Germany, Poland, Switzerland as they don't have any majesty and royal family.

    46. Re:Why indulge? by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      Likewise, when Pres. Bush was in office, all of the leftists would have fled the country or ended up on death row. I mean, they even made a movie about a GWBush assassination.

    47. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just came back from a trip from Hong Kong, Macau and China (Xiamen region). All three countries photographed me at customs. Two were at the airport (Hong Kong and China), but I also got photographed when I entered Macau and Hong Kong (return trip) via ferry.

      Welcome to the new world of security measures. Don't bother taking off your tinfoil hat just because you left the big bad U.S.A.

    48. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, food from street vendors that compares favorably with the best Thai restaurants in San Francisco...

    49. Re:Why indulge? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, they don't throw you in jail for three years for saying "fuck the Queen" in UK.

    50. Re:Why indulge? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Freedom in this case means freedom from government persecution. Ostracism is a very different thing, and is itself an inevitable consequence of freedom of association.

    51. Re:Why indulge? by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 1

      The Japanese government is doing it too.

      I'd love to go to Japan, wander around, see some of the places I've read about.. have a nice vacation and experience a culture I've been peripherally connected to for more than a decade.. but I won't.

      I see taking a person's fingerprints as a violation. An admission that they are believed to be a thief, murderer or other criminal who should be locked up.

      I don't oppose to recording the fingerprints of convicted criminals, or suspected criminals while an investigation is pending. Get convicted though and you are in the system for life.

      So.. I am not going to Japan while these laws are in place.

      I wonder how this has affected their tourism industries.

      --
      You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
    52. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would countries with no king have such laws? As a German I can call my head of state whatever I want. Not in his face of course but according to the law I cant insult anyone else either.

    53. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not limited to the US, eye scans, photographing and fingerprinting are very common in many countries now. This has long been a standard practice for most developed countries, but now, even most East African countries routinely fingerprint as part of the immigration process. I am sorry to hear you will not be partaking in the majesty of Kenya for fear of being documented....

    54. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've found most thais to be really friendly and helpful people. They work long days too, my old girlfriend worked almost 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. Then when she had her day off, she was happy to just spend it with me or go see her parents. Most of my experience with thais have been the same. Lovely, hard working and honest people would be how I'd described them. Now, it would be different in somewhere like Pattaya's nightclubs, but it's a large country with a population of 66 million people. The country also varies greatly where you are, northern regions are much different to Bangkok, like is Phuket and Pattaya and holiday places with resorts. You can't really dump it under one category.

    55. Re:Why indulge? by CmdrPony · · Score: 3, Informative

      Having the law but not enforcing it is actually worse. It means it can be selectively enforced if someone doesn't like some guy. Either have the law or not, but don't make it random.

    56. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The heathrow one is tf you need to change terminal (as far as i know) and its purpose is to prevent a boarding card swap between you and an identically named person, or so i've been told). I think the 'attack' here is someone arriving from an international flight to 'transfer' to another international flight but meeting someone with the same name in the terminal and getting a domestic flight boarding card from them and entering the UK Illegally that way.

      At least, that's all i can think of :)

    57. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people continue to go to countries that suck?

      I think you've missed the point. People go to these places precisely because they suck. So I've heard, anyway.

    58. Re:Why indulge? by CmdrPony · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, for example the country were talking about, Thailand, doesn't fingerprint or eye scan people. They do take photo on international flights when going through customs.

    59. Re:Why indulge? by lars_boegild_thomsen · · Score: 1

      In the case of Thailand - sucking might very well be part of the reason.

    60. Re:Why indulge? by jd · · Score: 1

      Well, yes. It's no different from any individual falling in with the wrong crowd, except that individuals have alternative crowds they can hang with.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    61. Re:Why indulge? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Why do people continue to go to countries that suck?

      That's exactly why I haven't been to the US during the past 20 years, but I have been to Thailand twice in that same time.

      So my choices are:
      1. Holiday somewhere that treats me like a criminal on entry and catalogs me like cattle.
      2. Holiday somewhere where any form of criticism of a particular person will land me in jail.

      Me and mine will stay home thanks. Plenty to see in my own country and it's significantly more effort to avoid any unfairness at home. Dollars stay here and help the economy here. Plenty to see in Australia. I wonder why tourism has been in the crapper since 9/11. Hint: It ain't the threat of terrorism.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    62. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes in Spain we have that law but is rarely applied, well, we can critique the king near always without problem.

    63. Re:Why indulge? by calzakk · · Score: 1

      Why do people continue to go to countries that suck?

      Because very few countries don't suck?

    64. Re:Why indulge? by chris.alex.thomas · · Score: 0

      no worries! whilst they have an oppressive government, you have an oppressive police force!

      Epic Spray guy goes to show the hypocracy of what you just say....

    65. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your a defender of freedom and justice?
      Yet the USA directly caused over six hundred thousand Iraqis to die in an ILLEGAL war based on lies.
      It legalized murder turture and kidnapping.
      You can be arrested and held without charge on a whim thanks to 'The Patriot Act'

      Thailand is an ancient noble and wise culture far more advanced than the USA is in so many ways.
      The USA is an infant nation betrayed from within by criminal corporate greed and corruption destroying good government.

      The Thais understand karma deeply.
      The children of the white men are tragically blind.
      Your country is reaping the terroble karma of vast murder and rejoicing in that. Whats happening now is just beginning.
      Pray for your country if you know how.
      The Thais know how.

    66. Re:Why indulge? by Tom · · Score: 1

      You did read the topic first right? This isn't about the beaches, it's about freedoms of speech right! So what does beaches have to do with that?

      The GP was alleging that sex tourism is the only reason for people to visit Thailand. He was proven wrong. That's what beaches have to do with that.

      Likewise, freedom of speech isn't the only thing that matters about a country. Humans, and by extension groups of humans such as countries, are not single-valued entities.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    67. Re:Why indulge? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Partial facts are worse than outright lies. That's why lobbyists love to use half-truths - if your argument seems to be based on truth, a common fallacy is to stop checking after a while and accept the rest at face value, too.
      Good lies are all built using the same formula: "We know that (three easily verifiable true statements), therefore (the statement you want someone to believe)."

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    68. Re:Why indulge? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Europe.

      Shopping malls over here tend to have these automated massage chairs, which for all I know about massage (and I've taken a course) can not possibly come even close.

      Good to hear it's spreading to the US.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    69. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      until they arrest you for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace or what ever the American version of a 'catch all' law is.

    70. Re:Why indulge? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Yes, and oppressing freedom of speech and attacking opponents of their government with violence.

      Indeed, they should designate Free Speech Zones where you can say what you want of the King without anyone else hearing it. Perhaps America could share its know-how in the matter?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    71. Re:Why indulge? by ultranova · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You can walk around america with a t-shirt that says "Obama sucks donkey balls!" all you want, you can't in tailand with a comparable shirt about the king.

      Try to protest Wall Street, though, and the police will shut you down. So no, you can't insult the ruler in the USA either.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    72. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And getting a nice foot-massage halfway into a several hour shopping tour or visit to the night market (a must-see) is something they could well offer in the western world as well.

      I'm betting that's a happy-ending kind of foot-massage you're talking about?

    73. Re:Why indulge? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you can say that obama is a douche or say that someone you knew said that obama is a dumb nigger - and not get thrown into jail for 15 years when you arrive.

      it's a pretty big difference. not even Putin is so protected as the thai king.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    74. Re:Why indulge? by nutznboltz · · Score: 1

      sex-tourism? sex is really nothing

    75. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do me a favor and stop calling your democrats lefties. Righties-not-as-nazi-as-republican would be more fitting.

    76. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where can I get one of those t-shirts? =D

    77. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a strong supporter of US non-involvement in other countries except for trade. I am really hoping we will get out of Afghanistan and let them go on killing themselves in peace. Why should I give a shit about what those people do?

      Er, because you said that...

      As long as the keep thier nonsense within their country boundaries they should be left alone with a warning that any attempt to harm US national interests will carry a heavy price.

      As I recall, the US's reasons for going to Afghanistan were to do with some unpleasantness involving a couple of office blocks in New Jersey or wherever it was.

      It was a while back now (just over ten years IIRC), and wasn't very widely-reported at the time so maybe you've forgotten? :-/

    78. Re:Why indulge? by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      I'm with you: I won't travel to a place where I'm treated as a criminal at the border and have my fingerprints/scans taken (by an organisation in the US's case that infamously lost its own staff's personal data early in its life). So, what with wanting to cut my carbon footprint the US in particular has had none of my tourist £/$ for many years since it started this more invasive rudeness.

      From being a frequent traveller abroad, I'm considering not renewing my passport given the security theatre and incivility shown by the US in particular. I didn't know that the Japanese were doing it too; I enjoyed visiting Japan.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    79. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a man who walks around the nearest major intersection in my area several times a week handing out pamphlets. He wears a vest that depicts Obama with a Hitler mustache drawn on it. He does so with impunity.

    80. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking amazing. A thread about Thailand political abuse, and it STILL gets twisted to the usual bullshit about how Fox News "lies" and poor Obama gets a bad rap - as if the media ever treated Bush well. One track mind?

    81. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's because the president of the United States is not the highest office of the United States, those are the banks.
      If you insult the banks, now that really will get you in trouble in the USA, just look at OCW.

    82. Re:Why indulge? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      What exactly is ill-advised about prosecuting your citizens for molesting children in foreign countries? Australia, Canada and the UK all have similar laws on their books allowing them to prosecute their citizens of child molestation in other countries. In fact, I think Australia might have been first.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    83. Re:Why indulge? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      What do you mean partially based on lies? Thailand is probably the most notorious country in the world for sex tourism.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    84. Re:Why indulge? by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      So.. I am not going to Japan while these laws are in place.

      I wonder how this has affected their tourism industries.

      I don't think it does. Most people go through customs, get the crap done, and then carry on with their holiday.

    85. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I am so fed up with these doublethink abuses of definitions that permit propagandists to say the most internally inconsistent things. If people were to simply follow through their distorted terms to their logical end, they'd realize most the nonsense they spout is contradictory in its very utterance.

    86. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why mock the leaders of countries you visit?

      anyway, a like is an endorsement, it's been cheapened too much lately with the like-fest competitions.

    87. Re:Why indulge? by mellon · · Score: 1

      The first time they did it to me, I figured it was turnabout for what the U.S. does to their citizens. AFAIK we started it—they didn't do this the first time I went to Japan. Unless you are actually an international man (or woman) of mystery, not going because they do this is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you don't want to live in a world where this kind of crap is commonplace, work to create a better world. But you live in this world: don't make yourself miserable to punish yourself for that.

    88. Re:Why indulge? by mellon · · Score: 1

      So you're saying a year ago they were testing it, and now they aren't doing it? What kind of crack are you smoking? I saw it with my own eyes—the woman directly in front of me in line got fingerprinted and scanned. Same routine as I had to go through on entry to Japan: two fingers, not ten. I think she was probably a resident alien on a green card; I was steeling myself to refuse to be fingerprinted when I got into line, because I had thought she was a citizen. I have to say, I was not looking forward to being arrested; when they didn't do it to me, I was really relieved. It sucks that they do it to anyone, but I don't know what we can do to stop it in the short term. We really need to stop electing authoritarian assholes.

    89. Re:Why indulge? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Protip: Freedom to assembly doesnt mean you can break out your coleman tent and requisition a park for two months against the wishes of the park owner and throw sanitation laws to the wind.

    90. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like getting fingered.

    91. Re:Why indulge? by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Withdrawing my tourist/business £/$ while they keep on doing it seems to be one of the most powerful signals that I can send that it's unacceptable behaviour. And bad theatre. I have made some slight effort to engage with the TSA/DHS on this topic directly at a senior level too.

      Anyhow, it's not "punishing myself" though it is unfortunate. I'll simply save my money and footprint for places more welcoming, since there are plenty of those, closer to home, as it happens.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    92. Re:Why indulge? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That is the "easily verifiable" fact that introduces you to the lie. This one is a ton simpler, it basically goes "Thailand is known for sex tourism (easily verifiable fact), therefore someone going there is a sex tourist (lie)."

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    93. Re:Why indulge? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So an eye scan is bullshit, simply untrue, but biometric information of 10 fingerprints (plus a digital photograph of who knows what resolution) is OK? That's an odd differentiation.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    94. Re:Why indulge? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The first time they did it to me, I figured it was turnabout for what the U.S. does to their citizens. AFAIK we started it—they didn't do this the first time I went to Japan. Unless you are actually an international man (or woman) of mystery, not going because they do this is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you don't want to live in a world where this kind of crap is commonplace, work to create a better world. But you live in this world: don't make yourself miserable to punish yourself for that.

      With that attitude your temporary happiness will always outweigh any sacrifice you will ever make for a greater good. Welcome to the prison you helped build for yourself, because it seemed easier not to criticise the brickwork.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    95. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because America is not a tourist resort and people here have more important things to do than refill your bloody drink. We are not desperate for some rich foreigner to show up so we can pretend like we like him and hope that he is a big tipper.

      Sure, Thailand's an ideal country if all you want from a nation is a warm place with a favorable exchange rate so you can have pleasant holiday.

    96. Re:Why indulge? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I've been in the US my whole life, and while I don't spend a lot of time at malls, I can say that every massage parlor at a mall that I've seen either is a kiosk with a long wait, or a standard appointment-required type of affair.

    97. Re:Why indulge? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      True for quite a few years now, but historically you would have been tortured to death much worse than even the worst criminal in Thailand at that time or now.

    98. Re:Why indulge? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      yeah but if you say that second one, some other a-hole might punch you in the nose.

    99. Re:Why indulge? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's because America is not a tourist resort and people here have more important things to do than refill your bloody drink.

      If you tip anything close to the expected 15%, you will have no trouble finding Americans very eager to refill your drink at the flick of an eyebrow.

    100. Re:Why indulge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people continue to go to countries that suck?

      They can buy stuff. Lots of stuff for very little money.
      That's more important than anything else.

  3. Revered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    as efforts to defend the widely reviled royal family from criticism have ramped up

    FTFY

    1. Re:Revered? by Goaway · · Score: 2

      Actually, you fixed nothing. The Thai king is indeed widely revered.

    2. Re:Revered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were true this law wouldn't be necessary.

    3. Re:Revered? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Widely revered does not mean universally revered.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:Revered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

          And how would you know that, if it is illegal to say otherwise?

          That said, the king is an old man in poor health. His son is the worst kind of corrupt playboy who deserves to be criticised for many things.

          All these prosecutions are meant to terrorize the population so there will be no dissent when the old king goes.

    5. Re:Revered? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Which is probably related to the fact that you can't openly discuss the political role of the king in Thailand.

    6. Re:Revered? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Because there isn't a single unnecessary law in your country?

      Face it:

      1) Stuff happens.
      2) People panic/get angry.
      3) Politician suggests new law to make the people in 2 vote for him.
      4) Time passes.
      5) Law remains on the books long after it's no longer needed.

      I looked it up. The Thai lese-majeste law is from 1908. The king is around 80 years old. Clearly this law was put in place long before the current king was even a gleam in his father's eye, as I believe the saying goes. Removing laws is a lot harder than adding them.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    7. Re:Revered? by skegg · · Score: 1

      You make a good point. But I have raised the topic of the King with Thai nationals residing here in Australia, and even in private conversations they heap praise on him. And I doubt they suspect me to be an agent for the Thai security services.

      Not exactly a Nielsen survey, but that's my experience.

    8. Re:Revered? by Goaway · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the law is necessary? The law is there so politicians can look like they strongly support the king.

    9. Re:Revered? by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Not at all. He is truly and honestly loved.

    10. Re:Revered? by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Sure. But how revered? Although King is generally not an elected position, what sort of approval rating would "widely revered" translate too? 85%? 75%? 51%? 25%?
      Any of those could be considered "widely revered", but there are major differences between them.

      Let me go on the record as saying that it is generally not in the long term interests of any leader of a country to silence criticism. Any benevolent leader of a country has a vested interest in knowing how the public feels about their actions. No leader has perfect information, and such feedback is invaluable. Granted a benevolent leader will not always be entirely popular. Sometimes the actions best for the people are not popular. Even so, if something the leader though would be popular was not, or an action was unpopular for a reason other than the expected one, that provides valuable information.

      A leader who is not benevolent had better at least appear benevolent, which means not silencing criticism for similar reasons. Leaders who do not at least pretend to have the interests of the people at heart generally get overthrown or removed by the people. It may take a while, but it usually happens.

      A leader's best bet is to embrace criticism and occasionally make changes to satisfy critics. Whether the leader has the peoples interests at heart or his own, he can best accomplish things by remaining in power.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    11. Re:Revered? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      You'll find no argument there from me. But the Thai king is much like the British monarchy: it technically holds certain powers, but they're almost a formality and are used only in the rarest of cases. Even in the military coups that Thailand has seen so frequently, the king rarely gets publicly involved. The Prime Minister and the senior officers of the armed forces are the real powers there, though none of them do much to directly cross the king.

      I don't agree with laws like this, but the Thai people seem to be comfortable with it and support it. I can disagree with it and maybe I will do so strongly enough that I will never visit the country, but I'm not going to push the issue much more than that.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    12. Re:Revered? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Which is not a contradiction.

    13. Re:Revered? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Probably over 90%, though I doubt you could find 50% who support the law in question. Not even the King likes that law!

      The King has no political powers, and is a very polite man. His family is relatively free of drama or ambition. A prince or princess may very well marry for Love.

      There is not the negative history of monarchs as Americans and Europeans have. Thailand is the only country in SE Asia never colonized by Europe. This is largely credited to a series of excellent rulers that came at just the right time. They played the world powers against each other and maintained themselves as a buffer.

      There is really not much for a rational person to be opposed to in the King. Haters will hate.

    14. Re:Revered? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      What I have been told by Thai expats living here in America is that the law still stands because of the popularity of the current King, but it is expected to be repealed after his reign. I would say the son has yet to come close to filling his father's shoes in the public eye. The perception of deep personal morality and good karma is why the King is so revered. His son would have to make many changes in his life and how people see his life to achieve the deep respect his father has.

    15. Re:Revered? by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      With a monarchy that devolved, such a law makes absolutely no sense. I assume it exists either because such a law has "always" been around, or as a way to prosecute political dissidents by the political arm of the government. I imagine that they could make many purely political arguments sound like criticism of the royal family, which would be reason enough to prosecute said dissidents.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  4. I prefer this... by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    It's better to be told in advance when you're going to be beaten, have property confiscated or simply be whisked off for saying the wrong thing. Wastes a lot less time than letting you mouth off until you're speaking loudly enough for others to hear.

  5. Bullshit Laws! by Das+Auge · · Score: 2

    As an America, it angers me to see some from a country not their own get arrest for a bullshit law that serves no legitimate purpose.

    Wait...are we talking about defamation of monarchy or copyrights?

    1. Re:Bullshit Laws! by teh31337one · · Score: 5, Funny

      As an America, it angers me to see some from a country not their own get arrest for a bullshit law that serves no legitimate purpose. Wait...are we talking about defamation of monarchy or copyrights?

      Are you sure you're an America?

    2. Re:Bullshit Laws! by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you're an America?

      He's from the RIAA. He speaks for the whole country whether the rest of them like it or not.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    3. Re:Bullshit Laws! by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Joe Gordon is a dual Thai/US citizen. He was born in Thailand and never renounced his citizenship. So Mr Gordon is not "from a country not their own".

      I am not saying that the law is not BS but that Thailand is applying their laws to their citizens.

    4. Re:Bullshit Laws! by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      In Canada there are a lot of people who come here and get citizenship far more easily than is done in the U.S. Then they go back to their home country and play the 'Canadian get out of jail free' card when the shit hits the fan. A few years ago when Israel invaded southern Lebanon, literally thousands of these 'Lebanese Canadians' screamed for help to get out of there. The Canadian government spent millions of dollars to evacuate these 'Canadians'. One woman even complained because she said the service was poor and the sleeping conditions and food were not up to her standards. Then when the war was over, they all went back to Lebanon.

      I can't stand these Canadian by convenience people who play both sides of the fence. If you want to be Canadian, you should have to renounce your citizenship to your former country or not become Canadian. At the minimum, you shouldn't expect any help if you get into trouble outside of Canada, especially in your former country that you hold your dual citizenship in.

      This guy was also Thai. He knew or should have known the law and penalties for what he did. Especially if he didn't want to renounced his Thai citizenship, and especially so if he was going to travel there. He needs to own his own behaviour, even if the penalty for it is stupid and excessive. He is the victim of his own circumstance.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    5. Re:Bullshit Laws! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you're an America?

      He's from the RIAA. He speaks for the whole country whether the rest of them like it or not.

      Can't say that's worse than certain countries trying to take over the name of the continent they're in.

    6. Re:Bullshit Laws! by peragrin · · Score: 1

      While i agree in principal with you what would you think og canadain/ autralian, or UK,or even USA dual citizenship?

      Not all dual status are bad. Just ones with different major values and laws. Yes for all of the differences we all share similar laws and core values. Even if some details vary greatly.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    7. Re:Bullshit Laws! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joe Gordon is a dual Thai/US citizen. He was born in Thailand and never renounced his citizenship. So Mr Gordon is not "from a country not their own".

      I am not saying that the law is not BS but that Thailand is applying their laws to their citizens.

      Have you all forgotten 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do'.Just stay home and spend your money here in the USA.

    8. Re:Bullshit Laws! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow. How many libraries of congress do you weigh?

    9. Re:Bullshit Laws! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The issue is with choosing when to use each citizenship. For example a Canadian/US dual citizenship. When in Canada one would have access to the Canadian health system as a Canadian citizen. When in the US one could stay as long as one wanted as an American citizen. If that person had a criminal record he could not freely cross the border but can if he uses the Canadian passport going north and the US passport going south. Do you see the issue? Advantages when desired and disadvantages avoided just by choosing which passport to use at what time.

    10. Re:Bullshit Laws! by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Technically there is no 'choice' in the matter - dual citizens are legally obliged to use the passport of the country you are entering. Of course that doesn't mean everyone DOES, but it's what you're supposed to do under law.

      Having said that, as you point out, this is almost always the advantageous thing to do anyway, since countries will always grant entry to their own citizens (as they should). I don't see dual citizenship as a problem provided the person has correctly satisfied the requirements of being a citizen of both countries. Then again I may be a bit biased - I'm a dualie myself.

    11. Re:Bullshit Laws! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There is no continent named "America" (for most definitions of continent). Only the stupid are offended.

    12. Re:Bullshit Laws! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      NZ citizens are required to show their NZ passport when entering NZ. NZ also issues a "citizen" endorsement to go in other passports for showing when entering NZ. But I'll just carry both passports and show the appropriate one at the appropriate place.

    13. Re:Bullshit Laws! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These guys are called investing immigrant. They invest half a million for five years without without any interest to get that canadien passport. It's explicit that they get canadien citizenship to have an escape way incase the political situation of theyre contry of origin goes bad. And making sure that these buisnessmens are legit and not fradulent and/or from organised crime is one of the biggest problem of canadien immigration services.

    14. Re:Bullshit Laws! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I don't quite understand that. I'm working on getting my Canadian PR (through skilled immigration track), and will certainly aim for citizenship for there, and I intend to keep my current citizenship for the sake of convenience when visiting my relatives - but why the hell would someone from a third-world country get Canadian citizenship and then not relocate? The difference in quality of life is very big.

    15. Re:Bullshit Laws! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The issue here is that the Joe Gordon is a Thai/US citizen. When Thai laws are applied to him when he is in Thailand he cries foul because he is a US citizen.

      For example, if you were a dual US/Canadian citizen and was authorized to use medicinal marijuana. If you were arrested for marijuana possession in a state that does not allow medicinal marijuana would you call up the Canadian consulate claiming to be a Canadian citizen in a foreign country and needing assistance even when you are an American citizen too?

    16. Re:Bullshit Laws! by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Well I might try to, but I'm not sure I'd get any advantage out of it. I'd be authorised to use marijuana ~in Canada~. If I'm in another country, the laws of that country apply to me, regardless of if I'm a citizen of another country or ten other countries for that matter. Canada will offer me some consular assistance, no doubt, but at the end of the day they'd tell me that I was subject to the laws of a foreign country and I broke those laws (same as they'd tell any other Canadian - dual citizen or not).

    17. Re:Bullshit Laws! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Canada will offer me some consular assistance, no doubt, but at the end of the day they'd tell me that I was subject to the laws of a foreign country and I broke those laws (same as they'd tell any other Canadian - dual citizen or not).

      That is the whole point, when in another country one is subject to the laws of that country. There are Thai laws against what Joe Gordon did but he is seen to be immune to them because he is an American Citizen. If you visit a country where you have broken a law, especially when you are a citizen of that country, be prepared to take the consequences. Don't whine to the consulate of your other citizenship to try to get you off.

    18. Re:Bullshit Laws! by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      If you want to be Canadian, you should have to renounce your citizenship to your former country or not become Canadian.

      I'm not sure I agree with that, especially since people do not necessarily have only control over their citizenship in other countries. Some countries may not allow a citizen to renounce citizenship or that doing so may not be effective.

      Consider that US law requires renouncing other citizenship to become a naturalized citizen. The US knows that is little more than a joke. The laws for relinquishing US citizenship require that an action (like renouncing) be taken with the intent to relinquish citizenship. Doing so only to satisfy a requirement of another country's naturalization process does not result in loss of US citizenship. That is settled law, and there is absolutely no ambiguity about it. So US citizens who became Canadian citizens under such a requirement would end up with dual citizenship, if they so desired. Similarly, citizens of any country with similar laws on relinquishing citizenship are not impacted by the US requirement to renounce other citizenship.

      At the minimum, you shouldn't expect any help if you get into trouble outside of Canada, especially in your former country that you hold your dual citizenship in.

      While a dual-citizen is in a third country, Canada should attempt to provide assistance if requested, but I fully agree that in the second country that the person has citizenship in, they should not expect any help, except in two cases:

      • They remained a citizen of this other country, not out of choice, but because they were unable to relinquish citizenship in this country, or that doing so would have involved jumping through excessive hoops.
      • They are citizens of the country they are in by some automatic means (like birthright citizenship), and they have never utilized said citizenship in any way. It is entirely possible for somebody to be a citizen of multiple countries by birth, and it is unreasonable to require that they take any explicit action to relinquish said citizenship, especially since they may not even be aware that they are technically citizens of the country in question.
      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    19. Re:Bullshit Laws! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to be Canadian, you should have to renounce your citizenship to your former country or not become Canadian.

      You should try actually thinking about what you're saying before you say it. Only one country in the world disallows dual citizenship, which is Japan. (Germany used to, but now allows it.) It is a real, serious inconvenience to expats who settle here and would like to get more rights (e.g. the right to vote) but don't want to become a foreigner in their own country (and in my case, e.g. lose access to the British NHS).

      At the minimum, you shouldn't expect any help if you get into trouble outside of Canada, especially in your former country that you hold your dual citizenship in.

      Not sure I agree with this, either, although I suspect in this case it's merely your government having bent over backwards too far. British Embassies are notorious for their unhelpfulness to British citizens faced with problems abroad - maybe the Canadians should take a leaf out of their book?

      This guy was also Thai. He knew or should have known the law and penalties for what he did. Especially if he didn't want to renounced his Thai citizenship, and especially so if he was going to travel there. He needs to own his own behaviour, even if the penalty for it is stupid and excessive. He is the victim of his own circumstance.

      Agree.

    20. Re:Bullshit Laws! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      He was visiting for medical treatment

    21. Re:Bullshit Laws! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I was not asking about the American/Thai dual citizen, but about those people with Canadian citizenship that reside in Lebanon that GP mentioned.

    22. Re:Bullshit Laws! by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

      I am truly surprised that if he were going to talk bad about the Thai royal family that he didn't do so under a fake name on the internet. That's what my friends in Bangkok do... (After bouncing their encrypted connections off foreign servers that is...)

    23. Re:Bullshit Laws! by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      If you leave Australia and take another citizenship, the law is that you have to renounce your Australian citizenship. If I can find one more example in less than two minutes, then there are more. That makes you wrong. Japan is not the only one.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  6. democracy by Tom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    efforts to defend the widely revered royal family from criticism have ramped up.

    That, right there, is the critical point. From my visits to Thailand, I also got the impression that they really love their king.

    As a democratic country, they can agree to not wanting to have criticism of the royal family, can they not? Remember that this is not the USA - there is no 1st amendment in Thailand. With that in mind - test yourself on how devoted you really are to the concept of democracy. If you think that there are limits to what a democracy can democratically decide to do - who gets to set those limits?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:democracy by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think free speech is a must for a democracy to work. How can you vote for what you want when it's illegal to say it?

    2. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the problem with democracy. Read "In Defense of Anarchism" by Robert P. Woulfe.

    3. Re:democracy by k8to · · Score: 2

      I think it's obvious that democracy isn't a proof against bad results, and anyone who says otherwise is usually politically grandstanding, or hiding something, or both.

      The who gets to set the limits problem is pretty thorny though. Our (US) byzantine system of procedure for doing it seems better than a simple vote, or a simple law pass, or a single office or bureau getting to pick. But it has problems too.

      --
      -josh
    4. Re:democracy by Chewbacon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As far as asking us to respect the king they love so much, keep in mind Americans have come to love their freedom of speech. That said: Fuck that king. I'll shit in his shoes. Bet he has a severe case of short dick syndrome. You can tell him I said it.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    5. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So democratic ideals involve silencing opposing voices?

    6. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Democracy is meaningless without absolute protection of individual rights. In a free society, liberty tops all other factors, otherwise you have "tyranny of the majority".

    7. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thailand has taken lese majesty really seriously for a long time, but there's more to it now.
      The ruling junta has been using this law to prosecute a lot of their political opponents in the king's name, pretending that criticizing them is the same as offending him.

      "No person, no idea, and no religion deserves to be illegal to insult." --RMS

    8. Re:democracy by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If you have elections but it's illegal to criticize the government or the heads of state, is that a democracy? You can vote, but I can't tell you why you should be voting? To me that is a joke election, like the one-party states like to hold to show their 99% approval rate.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would I have to avoid Thailand after modding this up?

    10. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Better than the plurality of problems with anarchism.

    11. Re:democracy by Goaway · · Score: 1

      The king is not elected, and he has no real power. There is no law against criticizing the elected government, and I gather it is pretty popular to do so.

    12. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total Godwin trap

      Anyway. Its extremely rare to find anyone advocating democracy without a (potentially unwritten) constituional framework that restricts the majority from imposing gross restrictions on "natural" rights. Nobody thinks democracy works at all reasonably without checks and balances, human rights legislation, independent judiciary, free press, rule of law, blah blah blah. And as to who ultimately dynamically sets those limits - its generally the conscience of the military top brass / inteliigence services deciding to have a coup, measured against the likelihood of successful all out rebellion (which normally entails widespread desertion or foreign support) . Which is why its so important not to have an insane military, or rather one far more committed to the ideal of the nation as a concept than to any political or religious ideology.

    13. Re:democracy by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      As other people aready said, Democracy needs a minimum set of liberties to work properly. I just don't know if the liberty to remove those liberties should be granted. There are countries that have them, others that don't, and when a set of strong enough people decides they should go without Democracy, they get their wishes anyway, whatever the rules say. By the other way, that limitation could damage a country, but that is also hypotetical.

      One thing is for sure. Once a country doesn't respect that minimum set of liberties, it stops being a Democracy, so the question has no meaning in that context.

      Also, there are a couple of factors missing here. The royal familiy wouldn't be doing such kind of thing if they were really loved by the people, and there is nothing forcing anybody to travel to an undemocratic country.

    14. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fuck King-shit Bhumibol and all his family of scumbag"

      Now I should remind never to step in Thailand.

    15. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true. The thing is in the US you have tyranny of the majority too... I know of no country where this isn't true. Not in Europe, not in Australia, and definitely not in the US. Who is left? I'm literally afraid to point out one of the most apparent examples of this so I won't. People are killed by or at least through government actions (the result of the legal process) for undesirable speech in the US and the majority supports it. The method is indirect and always inhumane. Most of Europe will lock you up too for a number of different speeches one might give that are today very unpopular. There are other communications which Europeans censor and lock people up over. I almost forgot. Canada also has a few similar laws. In fact... many 1st world countries now have in place systems to censor. The excuse seems to be the same. None-the-less we live in a world which can't stand certain ideas.

    16. Re:democracy by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you just got that impression because everybody who does not really love their king risks life in jail?

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    17. Re:democracy by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      Thailand isn't particularly democratic. There are elections, and occasionally populist politicians win, but there's an entrenched, deeply conservative, power base that includes the King, the military, and some political parties. The fact that there's a coup or a threat of a coup whenever reform looks possible indicates they still have a lot of clout.

    18. Re:democracy by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      The King most definitely has power.

    19. Re:democracy by S.O.B. · · Score: 4, Informative

      The King isn't responsible for the law or how it is used/abused by the government. He is a constitutional monarch and has no more control over the laws of Thailand than Queen Elizabeth has over the laws of Britain.

      The King has even stated that he is not above criticism and usually pardons people after they have been sentenced which is the first point in the process where he has any constitutional power that he can exercise.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    20. Re:democracy by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      The King is a constitutional monarch like Queen Elizabeth. He has no control over what laws are passed or how they are enforced. The only point he has any power to step in is after people have been sentenced when he routinely pardons them.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    21. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A question for the posters from the UK in the audience: with due consideration, how much could having laws regarding saying things that might put the monarchy in dim view reduce your GDP?

    22. Re:democracy by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 0

      "Individual rights" being defined either by the majority or by a sufficiently loud minority.

      Thanks for playing.

    23. Re:democracy by jd · · Score: 2

      I'm not so sure. The US system has multiple entities, all elected by the same group of people, making the laws, certifying the laws and then evaluating the legality of those laws. (Well, for those judges who are elected, it's the same group of voters.) This means there are no meaningful checks and balances, which ultimately means everything really is decided by a simple vote. It merely has the illusion of not being.

      Now, Plato in his book on The Republic asserts that it is not procedure that fixes the flaws in democracy but a highly educated populace. His theory was that democracy ultimately degenerates into a semi-dictatorship the moment a populist leader takes charge of a nation where the majority are ill-informed and poorly equipt to judge the merits of any argument. I would agree that this is part of the solution, though there's plenty of evidence that highly educated people are no less likely to be swayed by illogical but emotively convenient arguments and that prejudices are actually more firmly fixed rather than remedied through intellectual debate. There needs to be an additional ingredient.

      The UK's approach, the House of Lords, has some nice elements. It's theoretically a meritocracy, since you don't just get given titles you have to earn them. It's also partially isolated as those who agree to hold title are (ok, were) barred from voting or standing in local or national elections. It meant that the views of the Lords could not dominate or sway the views of the general populace AND that the general populace had no means of dominating or swaying the views of the Lords. If the two Houses agreed, it was because there was something to the arguments put forward beyond being advocated by a rich lobbyist. Not always a whole lot more, but at least something. The system was flawed, yes, and has become increasingly so, but a consensual split-brain approach is definitely worth further examination by other democracies.

      It is better to learn from the mistakes and strengths of these ideas than to stagnate.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re:democracy by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Well, first of all being a legal state limits a democracy. You can't just have a vote on who to exile/execute like in the good old days in ancient Athens. Even the majority has to respect the rights of an individual. And free speech should be a universal human right.

    25. Re:democracy by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2

      The King likes to maintain the fiction that he has nothing to do with these laws, or with the army overthrowing the elected government whenever he feels like it. He might usually issue pardons, but he does not always do that. How is that "not being above criticism"? Sometimes he pardons someone after they've been harassed by the judicial system ... and sometimes he doesn't. Better stay on his good side, eh?

    26. Re:democracy by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Lese majeste laws are pretty common in Europe. For example people have been fined in Poland for dissing visiting monarchs, the Pope etc.

    27. Re:democracy by rev0lt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, why the US - that have the 1st amendment, have only 2 major politic forces? Are you saying the majority of the americans agree with the bullshit from either side? Why do you see much more plurality on the governments of european countries? Free speech means nothing if you don't have free press (you don't), when you have censorship (you have, both on books and music), and when the politicians from either side defend corporate interests and not the citizens (you call it a legitimate profession - lobbyist - in EU is almost a criminal activity). So what's left? Either free speech is not required for a democracy, or the USA aren't a democracy. Pick your poison.

    28. Re:democracy by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Here are a few things to think about from you post.
      1. Who decides what the "minimum set of liberties" is? Not being able to publicly criticize the ceremonial head of state does not make Thailand undemocratic. The Thai people could elect a government who could strike down the law. They have democratically chosen not to do that. What you think is the "minimum set of liberties" is you own personal opinion may be different that other people in the world.

      2. The royal family is not the body that is bringing charges or prosecuting people; the elected government is. We have no information on whether or not the royal family agrees or disagrees with these charges. The king can not change laws; only the democratically elected government can.

      3. I doubt very much if anyone would be arrested for stating "Abolish the lese majeste laws because they are being misused" as it is a comment about the law and not the royal family. One could be arrested for saying "Abolish the lese majeste laws because the royal family are idiots" because that comment breaks the law.

    29. Re:democracy by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Or in a very difficult to amend Constitution.

    30. Re:democracy by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I question the "absolute" part. There has to be a sensible balance between individual rights and governmental rights. If liberty tops all other factors, the government can do nothing because there are no rights left to be had. There are only so many to go around. Government should not have excessive rights, it shouldn't even have 50% of the rights, but it can't have none at all. The same is true of any other collective entity (corporations, special interest groups, etc). They, too, should have rights but by giving them rights that can't be infringed, you have to take away the right to infringe on those rights from everyone else. It isn't zero-sum, but it IS bounded.

      The problem in the US and other Western democracies is that the rights of entities other than individuals have become excessive. That is a natural property of the free market, since corporate rights are cheaper than individual rights and a "free market" implicitly gives 100% of the liberty to the corporate entities. You've got to have a system where rights to non-individuals are only given according to a demonstrated and legitimate need rather than a desire.

      Thailand's system is improperly balanced, but it would be unfair to say it's any worse balanced than anyone else's. It's merely easier to see for most of us because we're on the outside of Thailand. Outsiders always spot flaws and defects with greater ease than insiders.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    31. Re:democracy by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      I'm committed to the concept of constitutional democracy, in which the ability of the voters to pass legislation that violates certain inalienable rights, is restricted. Ironically, those restrictions can be enacted democratically, if you outline them abstractly without cases of special pleading, and explain why (for example) the right to free speech protects everyone, and the downsides of it (e.g. you have to let people say that they don't like the king) can be addresses by... more free speech (e.g. the people who love the old guy can say so too).

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    32. Re:democracy by jd · · Score: 1

      The Bush-era advocacy of the harassment, arrest and even assassination of critics of the government meant that it was illegal for 8 years to criticize the government or the head of state. It's extremely dubious as to whether it's legal now. By your argument, the US ceased to be a democracy during that time and possibly into the present. Certainly the Occupy protesters in Oakland would argue that the US has ceased to be a democracy on those grounds.

      At the same time, can you honestly tell me that the US is no different from the one-party states you refer to? It may have a lot of similarities at present (detention without review, torture, police brutality, espionage against its own citizens, etc) but it's still no Iran.

      So clearly it's not an on/off thing, it's a spectrum. The US has slid down that spectrum but is still over the halfway mark. Only just, but nonetheless. As such, then yes. Something CAN be a democracy and not have all the attributes one might consider ideal.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    33. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear that the King doesn't care for these laws; its the government and police that draw them up.

    34. Re:democracy by jd · · Score: 1

      If you divide up liberties rather than giving them all to one group, then no one group ends up with the liberty to remove the minimum set of liberty. The more you split the brain and require a consensus between those divisions that cannot influence each other in order to remove any liberty at all from anyone for any reason, the more likely it is that such power will be used sensibly. Consensus politics tends to fail when camps do have influence across partitions because then the consensus doesn't really exist. One group is making all the decisions.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    35. Re:democracy by artor3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nonsense.

      We have two political parties because our election system -- with its winner-take-all, no run-off rules -- naturally gravitates towards a two party system.

      We have a free press. Just because you don't like what some branches of the press report doesn't mean they aren't free.

      And you're claiming that books and music are censored? Have you even been to America, or do you base all your opinions off the crap you read on Slashdot? Your English makes it clear that you aren't an American, and based on how distorted your view is, I'd guess that you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of the country.

    36. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The King Never Smiles" is an excellent read to find out why Thais love their king so dearly.

    37. Re:democracy by awrowe · · Score: 1

      Not usually a conspiracy theorist but if you don't recognise that this already happens in every western 'democracy' you care to name, then you need some observation training.

      In this instance, Thailand is simply being more open about the process.

      --
      A.I. Research. The peculiar science in which we know the question and we know the answer, but can't show the working
    38. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US the press may be free from government interference but they are not free from corporate/monied interest interference.

    39. Re:democracy by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Asia is not the West.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    40. Re:democracy by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      > In the US the press may be free from government interference but they are not free from corporate/monied interest interference.

      Some commercial channels in the US press are subject to interference from corporate interests. However THE PRESS as a whole in the US is defined so broadly and it is so diverse that it is not possible for corporate interests to interfere with it in aggregate.

    41. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all remember what king means? Yes? Fng king.totality. When I'm king watch the fuck out!

    42. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      afaiu the king has said he doesn't want people punish for it, but those in power use it as a catch-all to put people they don't like in prison

    43. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 1

      True, but -

      who gets to define the individual rights that enjoy this absolute protection? And do they have to be the same in every nation, or is there space for cultural variety in your world?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    44. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 1

      Every nation puts limits on "free speech". In some the limits are defamation, libel and slander. In others the limits are bomb threats or yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. And in some it is saying bad things about the king.

      Do you reserve the right to judge which of these limits are reasonable and which ones aren't?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    45. Re:democracy by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      As a democratic country, they can agree to not wanting to have criticism of the royal family, can they not?

      Thailand is a constitutional monarchy first, and a democracy second. Their parliamentary system does not reign supreme over the monarch, but the monarch does reign supreme over their parliamentary system.

      In other words as a democracy, they never got to decide on that question of talking freely about the royals. That question was decided for them long ago, long before Thailand became more parliamentary and more democratic in the first place.

      With that in mind - test yourself on how devoted you really are to the concept of democracy. If you think that there are limits to what a democracy can democratically decide to do - who gets to set those limits?

      Nice try, but your point just doesn't apply in this case. A better example demonstrating your point would be a democratic country which legalizes the oppression and the slavery of a minority of its own population. I think we can all agree that a Majority can be just as tyrannical as an individual (thought, that is generally more an exception to the rule, than the rule itself).

    46. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 1

      So you would be ok with jailing people for insulting the king if "though shalt not insult the king" is part of the constitution?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    47. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 1

      You can't just have a vote on who to exile/execute like in the good old days in ancient Athens.

      Why not? Athens is, after all, the original democracy.

      Even the majority has to respect the rights of an individual.

      Who defines the list of these rights, and by what authority?

      And free speech should be a universal human right.

      Says who, and by what authority?

      I'm challenging your assumption that what you know from home is true everywhere. Just because our nations have decided upon a specific set of rules does not mean that is the only or the best set of rules. In most of Asia, the individual is not treasured as highly as in the west, and the larger good - of the family or the country, or some other group - is considered important. Claiming that our strong focus on the individual is better is arrogant if we can't back it up by reason.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    48. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure there wasn't a mass jailing of Republicans once Obama took office.
      Just sayin'

    49. Re:democracy by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      While I concede that things are not quite as black and white as I stated, I also don't think there as sinister as you suggest. Reality is probably somewhere in between. After all, Thai politics are every shade of grey and then some.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    50. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 2

      The various constitutions, seperation of powers, etc. etc. all do nothing to prevent a tyranny of the majority, but they are quite successful in preventing a tyranny of a temporary majority. In most western countries, being in charge of the place for one or two terms doesn't enable you to dismantle the system or oppress the minority of your choice. You can make steps into that direction, you can do a lot of harm, but you can't become a tyrant that easily anymore.
      We know that, because lots have tried. Berlusconi in Italy, maybe the most obvious recent example. There are others as well.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    51. Re:democracy by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      Um, yes?

      After all, that's an opinion. I'm allowed to hold my opinion and vote based on it. So, yes, I do. And I expect everyone else to, as well, even when it doesn't agree with my opinion. Of course, my opinion is right and if you disagree with me you must be wrong, but we still get to vote on it. :-P

    52. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or maybe free speech is necessary, but not sufficient condition?

      Anyway, I'm with OP -- if democracy is all you care about, Thailand's shitty laws are just great. But democracy sucks ass, because it _always_ hurts minorities. But 90% of Constitutions are crap, and 90% of governiing bodies will disregard any constitutional provisions meant to limit it, and anarchy doesn't scale above a small town. So wotcha gonna do?

      In the US, we had a damn good run for almost a century (up till Lincoln and the war between the states) -- other countries have had similar periods -- but it looks like long-term, we're doomed to an unending cycle of short periods of liberty, lengthy declines into fascism/despotism/your-favorite-form-of-authoritarianism, and bloody revolution.

    53. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now, Plato in his book on The Republic asserts that it is not procedure that fixes the flaws in democracy but a highly educated populace.

      It is not a coincidence that the quality of the government correlates strongly with its focus on education. The pisspot incompetent idiots we call politicians these days have no interest in an educated population, which would immediately see them for the parasitic charlatans they are. So they see to it that education remains at a base level useful for the economy, but not more.

      Visionary politicians of decades past, who had no fear of their politics being critically examined because they actually had a plan and a clue, always had better education somewhere in their agenda.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    54. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disregard for a moment your parent's post that free speech is a requirement for democracy.
      Nonjudgmentalism is overrated. What is your opinion on the matter of jailing someone for 3 to 15 years for this crime against the king?

    55. Re:democracy by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The King isn't responsible for the law or how it is used/abused by the government. He is a constitutional monarch and has no more control over the laws of Thailand than Queen Elizabeth has over the laws of Britain.

      In Britain, no new law actually has any legal effect, until the Queen gives her assent to the act. And i'm sure the Thai King could have influence on the MPs about a law protecting the king's office.

      But if the King of Thailand has no official functions or power, then it may be sensible to provide the office of the Monarch that protection, to preserve a certain element of their culture.

      It would be extremely apt, for their democratic government to rewrite the law to apply to negative statements about anyone though; similar to the Libel laws of Britain and other countries, but with a criminal penalty, and without a requirement for the conflicting parties to settle the matter with a duel.

      Publish reckless, malicious, or intentionally deceptive false assertions about anyone with a clear intent to cause harm, go to jail.

      It would be much more just than what other countries do, simply provide monetary relief, as if lost business were the only serious harm. If they would just drop the whole "against the monarchy" part from their law and refactor appropriately....

    56. Re:democracy by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The Bush-era advocacy of the harassment, arrest and even assassination of critics of the government meant that it was illegal for 8 years to criticize the government or the head of state.

      How do you explain the Obama-era advocacy of arresting reporters for attempting to cover #OWS? Since those responsible for coordinating the federal assault on same report directly to the president, and he's not stopping them, these actions clearly have his blessing. Stop with the "Bush-era" nonsense, Obama is no different, no better.

      Something CAN be a democracy and not have all the attributes one might consider ideal.

      Athens was considered the birthplace of democracy even though they didn't have it; you had to be a male, racially privileged land owner in order to have a vote then just as you had to be here when this nation was founded. We have an electoral college that makes this a republic and it's controlled by the moneyed elite which makes it an oligarchy. So while what you say it's true, the USA is still not a democracy, and never has been.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    57. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Equating clicking a like button to enforcement of DRM is laughable.

    58. Re:democracy by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      usually pardons people after they have been sentenced

      Note two things. First "usually" and second that he could just publicly ask the prosecutors not to prosecute. But he won't, because he clearly likes being able to exercise his discretion. So fuck him. Fuck the royal family, and fuck every single person who thinks that anyone is immune to criticism.

    59. Re:democracy by xiando · · Score: 1

      Lots of countries claim to be democracies without having free speech. Norway claims to be one yet the government covertly tortures people who say anything critical about the government, NATO and a range of other issues. Most "democracies" don't work. Regimes claim to be a "democracy" because None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. (Goethe)

    60. Re:democracy by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      "Thou shalt not insult the king" would depend on special pleading. Try not to be stupid on purpose.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    61. Re:democracy by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      -> and has no more control over the laws of Thailand than Queen Elizabeth has over the laws of Britain.

      LOL, that'll be quite a lot then.
      Considering in the UK the PM meets with Beth once a week, usually at 6pm on a Wednesday, what they discuss is not recorded and remains confidential. Oh, and then there's things like the "Royal Prerogative", which includes things like declaring war and peace (and you though Tony Blair was responsible for Iraq and Afghanistan) and recognizing states (why they didn't even need to run Libya past parliament).

      All this plausible deniability makes me sick, is it harmful to Thailand to say all monarchs are little more than legitimized mafia, f' them all?

      You want something really fun?
      Why do you think our troops are in Helmand Province in Afghanistan? (hint check the UN poppy survey 2001 - goes all the way back to the BEIC)

    62. Re:democracy by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Protected by, not defined by. At least in theory. And in the text (See amendment 9). Whether you can get a judge to agree or not is now mostly decided - the 9th amendment was apparently only put in there as a joke....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    63. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty simple actually. Yelling fire in a crowded theater puts people in danger. What damage is done by making fun of a person?

    64. Re:democracy by fliptout · · Score: 1

      On a related note, I've lived in Bangkok for a short time. Now, back in the USA, I have a few expat Thai friends here, and virtually none of them care about the King. People here are not under duress to proclaim publicly how much they love the monarchy back home.

      --
      A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
    65. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are indeed limits to what a democracy can do. If something is wrong for an individual to do, it is wrong for a group of individuals to do, whether or not that group is a majority. No one may violate an individual's rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

    66. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to people who want to vote for the Nazi party.
      Aaahh, see? I don't like them either, but suddenly, most of you are A-OK with what you just a minute ago said is absolutely not acceptable ever.

      I may think that the opinion of a (from my pov) extremist group is deeply stupid, but I'd still die for their right to have it.
      And when that doesn't include the worst of the worst, like the Nazis, the NAMBLA, the FOX TeaBankers, etc, then it's not worth anything at all.

    67. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KING -supreme ruler not elected by the people but born to ascend to the throne.

    68. Re:democracy by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      We have two political parties because our election system -- with its winner-take-all, no run-off rules -- naturally gravitates towards a two party system.

      And also because bigmedia refuses to give substantive coverage to candidates who do no represent one or the other face of the Establishment Party.

      We have a free press. Just because you don't like what some branches of the press report doesn't mean they aren't free.

      We have some press freedom. However you are fooling yourself if you think the bigmedia are not heavily censored.

      And you're claiming that books and music are censored?

      I have heard all sorts of censored version of rap songs. Some books are too. I first became aware of pervasive American censorship back as a high school kid, when I ended up with two copies of Moby Dick. One of them had been censored to make Melville's famous description of his captain - "moody stricken Ahab stood before them with a crucifixion in his face" - less offensive to philistine religious zealots. You may argue, and I will concede, that's (probably) wasn't government censorship - but it's censorship all the same. Also consider the not-super-recent case of controversial psychologist WIlhelm Reich, whose books were (literally) burned, and who died while imprisoned by the US government for his writings.

      Have you even been to America

      Born, reared, and still a citizen. Mofo.

    69. Re:democracy by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Do you reserve the right to judge which of these limits are reasonable and which ones aren't?

      Abso-fuckin-lutely.

      All lese majeste laws are an offensive to the dignity of free people. When a man is not free to criticize his government, he is unquestionably a subject not a citizen. Some libel, defamation, slander, etc laws are overreaching, consequently harmful to public discourse, and perhaps outdated. Even so, imho they are not categorically, intrinsically incompatible with free democratic citizenship. Lese majeste is.

    70. Re:democracy by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If the king is truly so respected and revered, surely, were he to explicitly and clearly state that the does not wish anyone to be ever prosecuted for lese majeste, all those revering subjects of his would respectfully comply?

    71. Re:democracy by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Do you reserve the right to judge which of these limits are reasonable and which ones aren't?/quote.

      Yes, it's very easy, in fact. If the restriction on freedom of speech is clearly and unambiguously directed at political speech, it's immoral.

    72. Re:democracy by c0c · · Score: 1

      ... test yourself on how devoted you really are to the concept of democracy. If you think that there are limits to what a democracy can democratically decide to do - who gets to set those limits?

      The King, obviously. Duh!

    73. Re:democracy by jd · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. Exactly how much better the education would need to be and exactly what's needed to make it better are all subject to debate, but there's no question that corrupt, incompetent politicians rely heavily on the ignorance of others to remain any of the three.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    74. Re:democracy by jd · · Score: 1

      How do you explain the Obama-era advocacy of arresting reporters for attempting to cover #OWS?

      Hence the bit about it being dubious as to whether it's legal to criticize the government or head of State today. I don't even remotely pretend to condone or excuse the Obama-era attempts to suppress criticism and regard them as being equal in every respect to the very same attempts made by the prior administration.

      Athens was considered the birthplace of democracy even though they didn't have it

      Democracy does not imply that everyone has a vote. Modern Western democracies are "representational democracies" in that you do NOT have a vote except in choosing the person who represents you. The vast majority of voting is done only by the representatives. Well, except in "proportional representation" democracies, where you choose the affiliation and they choose the representatives for you. (PR has its strengths, such as more honestly representing how the population thinks, but personal accountability isn't one of them.)

      So while what you say it's true, the USA is still not a democracy, and never has been

      Oh, absolutely true! The Founding Fathers disliked the flaws in the democratic systems they'd seen and, instead of fixing things like education and responsibility, opted to go for a republic instead. To be fair, fixing the flaws would have been expensive and they didn't have the money. Nonetheless, the flaws are precisely why a republic won't work either. They minimized the initial breakage, which is sensible and rational enough if you can't afford to make things work well, but at the price of making a system that had the clout to ensure it was never fixed.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    75. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's very easy, in fact. If the restriction on freedom of speech is clearly and unambiguously directed at political speech, it's immoral.

      You state that as if it were a self-evident fact. I'll play devils' advocate and say it isn't. I could follow an argument saying that it makes the political process more difficult and possibly less free, but immoral?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    76. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 2

      Pretty simple actually. Yelling fire in a crowded theater puts people in danger. What damage is done by making fun of a person?

      That depends on whether you subscribe to a belief that puts the individual above the group, or in a belief that puts the group above the individual.

      Americans tend to fall into the first category, while asians tend to fall into the second. So if you fall into the first, you will have to step out of your frame of reference for a moment to follow the argument:

      The king is important to the group (the country). He unifies the Thai people through changes of government, coups, whatever happens - there is always the king. His image is important to the self-image of the Thai people. Damaging his image is damaging the identity of the Thai.

      For the average Thai, an insult to the king is not directed towards the human being that is the king, but at the entity of the king as the representation of the Thai nation - in other words, an insult on every Thai.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    77. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 2

      Took a while until someone reached that point.

      I totally have an opinion. I think that jail time is way excessive, but knowing Thai society a little, a fine would be most appropriate.

      My point is not that I support the legislation. My point is exposing the arrogance of outsiders insisting that whatever their particular culture thinks should be the way for every other culture as well.

      I do believe there are moral absolutes - evolution isn't relative. Some things are better for physical survival, and some things are better for the advancement of society. But you need to prove that your standards actually are superior, not just blankly state them as the only right way.

      I am certain that secular western society is objectively better in many regards than, say, oppressive Sharia rule under the Taliban in Afghanistan. But I also believe that we are doing ourselves a great disservice by not focussing on why our way is better, and by doing so failing to see the many ways in which it isn't.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    78. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 1

      You're avoiding the point and nitpicking.

      Again: You said you believe in constitutional limits to government powers. I'm asking if that means the constitution can say whatever it darn pleases, do you see a yet higher layer that puts limits on what can be in the constitution?

      I'm fishing for what you consider to be the highest authority on the matter.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    79. Re:democracy by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      There has to be a sensible balance between individual rights and governmental rights

      - governments don't have rights, only individuals have rights.

      The problem in the US and other Western democracies is that the rights of entities other than individuals have become excessive. That is a natural property of the free market, since corporate rights are cheaper than individual rights and a "free market" implicitly gives 100% of the liberty to the corporate entities.

      - where in the "Western democracies" have you seen these 'free markets' exactly? Even Switzerland is not really a free market and to talk about USA as if it has any type of free market is a joke.

      Governments must not be allowed to change the laws at all actually, laws must be followed and they must remain stable, otherwise the economy and society will be destroyed.

      Thinking that governments must be allowed to pass new laws and expecting the economy and society to be able to survive this is like thinking that having a Universe with laws of physics that are changing all the time is somehow conducive to creation of life.

      You can't have life created in a Universe if the laws of physics are being constantly modified, because the basics are changing all the time. If the basic thing like F=ma cannot be trusted upon not to change year to year, then you can't have anything non-primitive built upon that.

    80. Re:democracy by fa2k · · Score: 1

      Free speech is BS - there are always limitations. In pretty much any country you can get jailed for saying "i am going to kill X" even if you deep inside know that you would never do it. There is intellectual property of course, which is the greatest practical limitation on free speech. There is the DMCA, which forbids anyone to *talk about how to break copyright protections*, and also forbids anyone from actually breaking copyright protections, even if the end result would be allowed under normal copyright (fair use). In many European countries there is no protected right to free speech (which would be a lie anyway), but "political speech" is protected. Now these same countries have the balls to ban anyone from starting a Nazi party...

    81. Re:democracy by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Why not? Athens is, after all, the original democracy.

      But not a legal state.

      Says who, and by what authority? I'm challenging your assumption that what you know from home is true everywhere. Just because our nations have decided upon a specific set of rules does not mean that is the only or the best set of rules.

      The declaration of human rights was ratified by Thailand, which includes the freedom of speech.

    82. Re:democracy by fa2k · · Score: 1

      Oops, I forgot about slander and libel. In practice, those are probably even greater limitations than copyright. And of course child porn laws, which hopefully doesn't affect that many people, but is still a violation of free speech (of course it should be illegal to molest children, but trading pictures of it is protected by "free speech", and would arguably help the police find the perpetrators)

    83. Re:democracy by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I think free speech is a must for a democracy to work. How can you vote for what you want when it's illegal to say it?

      As an example: Germany has a so-called "President". That person has very little power, but his or her job is to represent the country, beat up politicians who misbehave, and so on. All parties together elect a person for that job who they all believe is reliable, has a good reputation, and is impartial.

      Insulting the German president is the same as insulting the country. This is unlike insulting the German chancellor, or insulting the US president (weird how they use the same word for different things), which is insulting that person, and not the country. The Thai's probably see that insulting their king is the same as insulting their country. You don't need a right to insult your country to make democracy work.

    84. Re:democracy by malchus842 · · Score: 1

      Governments do not have rights,only people do. Legitimate governments have powers which are delegated by the people, who agree to limit their freedom in certain areas in exchange for order in society. I do believe I read that somewhere once. Sadly, people seemed to have forgotten, or perhaps never learned, the basic principles of government espoused by the Founders of the United States. Personally, I blame parents for this - they have allowed the schools, which are run locally here, to become cesspools that no longer provide even a semblance of good education. Kids here succeed in spite of their 'education' not because of it....

    85. Re:democracy by fa2k · · Score: 1

      - governments don't have rights, only individuals have rights.

      The government definitely has the ability to infringe on your right to walk around freely (there is such a right, right?), and put you in jail.

    86. Re:democracy by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      That's not a RIGHT. They have the POWER to do it.

      It's the power that they have, but government cannot have a right.

      I have debated the concept of what a 'right' is here enough, but I think it's a first time somebody says that governments have rights.

    87. Re:democracy by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I am certain that secular western society is objectively better in many regards than, say, oppressive Sharia rule under the Taliban in Afghanistan. But I also believe that we are doing ourselves a great disservice by not focussing on why our way is better, and by doing so failing to see the many ways in which it isn't.

      Just out of curiosity, could you please explain some of the many things you said you hold Taliban rule to be equal or superior to Western democracy?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    88. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going off topic, but financial/fiscal prudence is a necessity for democracy to work, but not giving away money that is not yours or is borrowed is politically more popular, so we in the West are headed for a great train crash. We can't point to the West as an example of democracy that works.

    89. Re:democracy by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      because it _always_ hurts minorities

      I'd say it only hurts minorities when the majority wants it to. Of course, that probably happens most of the time.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    90. Re:democracy by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I do believe there are moral absolutes - evolution isn't relative. Some things are better for physical survival, and some things are better for the advancement of society.

      What do those things have to do with moral absolutes? I don't see how any of those things indicate that there is a 'correct' set of morals.

      objectively better

      For physical survival? For the advancement of society? Because the magical moral fairy said so? Either way, prove it.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    91. Re:democracy by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater puts no one in danger. It's just a word, after all. Human stupidity puts people in danger; the willingness of people to believe whatever they hear and then react in a way that puts people in danger puts people in danger. If you, upon hearing the word "fire" in a crowded theater, immediately believe those words (without checking if it is true or reacting calmly) and then stampede over anyone in your way, I'd say any damage you cause is your own fault. If you hurt anyone whilst acting in this manner, I think you should be completely responsible. Of course, if the theater owner wants to kick out the person who screamed "fire," I also think they should be able to do that.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    92. Re:democracy by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      immoral

      In your opinion?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    93. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, tyranny of the corporations since they have purchased (most) US officials.

    94. Re:democracy by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They minimized the initial breakage, which is sensible and rational enough if you can't afford to make things work well, but at the price of making a system that had the clout to ensure it was never fixed.

      I have the feeling they recognized that revolution was inevitable. If only they'd had the balls to write that into the constitution then maybe they'd have really had something. On the other hand, it's hard to see the interstate commerce clause as anything other than a back door, so I'm not coming over all wine and roses for the founding fathers, either. Some of them, maybe.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    95. Re:democracy by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      He has and they don't listen. It's on wikipedia in the article about him. Regardless it's not up to him what laws should be made or not made.

      The focus as always goes towards the royal family rather then the true offenders, the government, and just like that all off slashdot was suckered into hating the wrong guy which is why the government likes this law and keep it.

    96. Re:democracy by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      It loses "face" or whatever they call it. You'll simply never understand, and I don't either. Regardless this isn't the point. The government use this law not the royal family, so while you're all sitting around hating on the king the government is rubbing their hands and laughing at your stupidity for being able to get away with jailing whomever they want without anyone suspecting they had anything to do with it.

    97. Re:democracy by number17 · · Score: 1

      Your English makes it clear that you aren't an American

      Im not sure what English has to do with being American. Isn't Ebonics another American language?

    98. Re:democracy by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      It would be extremely apt, for their democratic government to rewrite the law to apply to negative statements about anyone though; similar to the Libel laws of Britain and other countries, but with a criminal penalty, and without a requirement for the conflicting parties to settle the matter with a duel.

      It does. You can get arrested and fined for making negative untrue statements about companies or people in Thailand too.

      It happens all the time in politics. Even Taksin the former prime minister on the run with a 3 year prison sentence has a court case against someone for libel, even though he'd be arrested upon entering Thailand.

    99. Re:democracy by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess that's why the "opposing" side just won the election and are actually censoring more actively then the last "royal" government. So much you know.

    100. Re:democracy by societyofrobots · · Score: 2

      All major laws cannot be enacted in Thailand without the explicit approval of the King. You can verify this by reading the 2007 Constitution. Publicly, Thai royalty has no influence on the laws. But you'll see otherwise if you read wikileaks.

      The pardoning is only for those who have less than 3 years left of their sentence, and only once a year. Those accused of Lese Majeste typically have 5 to 20 year sentences. You're likely to spend several years in prison before being asked to sign a statement that you love the king before you can be released.

    101. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one of any intelligence supports democracy. A lesser evil is still evil.

    102. Re:democracy by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      So, you are saying your election system don't have room for other major parties? And you feel the voice of the people is well represented?
      If you think america has free press you are so far down the well you almost can touch the water.
      In my country, we don't have forbidden books, we don't have watchlists for subversive literature, we don't have forbidden words you can't say on tv, we don't have censored and/or versioned music (or any other form of art), so yes, it is very clear I'm not an american.
      Your coments are the usual nonsense I get from americans that never lived *outside*, but you have no idea of what democracy actually is because defying the concepts that you grew up with is not easy.

    103. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 1

      The declaration of human rights was ratified by Thailand, which includes the freedom of speech.

      As said before: Freedom of Speech is not an absolute. Every country on earth, including the USA, puts limits on it. It is an ideal, and I'm all for it. But no rights are absolute, because there's always a point where it interferes with other rights, and you have to decide which one is more important.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    104. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 1

      What do those things have to do with moral absolutes? I don't see how any of those things indicate that there is a 'correct' set of morals.

      That is because you cling to "correct" as having to be some kind of moral superiority. Which is, of course, nonsense. You need an external measurement, because internally, all morals are equal (and usually assume they are the best).

      Advancement of the species seems to me to be a good measurement. It is free of morality, objective and (theoretically) measurable.

      Is it better? Yes. We can prove that freedom is advantageous to progress.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    105. Re:democracy by Hentes · · Score: 1

      So what exactly is the right interfereing here? None of the the international treaties survived unviolated, and every implementation of them imperfect, but that doesn't mean that we should give up on fixing them.

    106. Re:democracy by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      That is because you cling to "correct" as having to be some kind of moral superiority.

      When someone speaks of moral absolutes, they (in my experience) are usually referring to some kind of outside force dictating what set of morals are and aren't 'correct'. You might not have been talking about that, but that is what I usually see.

      We can prove that freedom is advantageous to progress.

      Go ahead, then. Taking into account the level of freedom that the people have would also help. Is absolute freedom advantageous? Is having no freedom disadvantageous? What level of freedom is preferred?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    107. Re:democracy by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I could follow an argument saying that it makes the political process more difficult and possibly less free, but immoral?

      Making the political process less free just for the sake of making it so is immoral, yes.

    108. Re:democracy by toutankh · · Score: 0

      So out of curiosity how many newspapers with no advertisement at all are read in the US? Surely you would not call "free press" a publication subject to ads for its survival, therefore subject to the good will of the people paying for the ads.

    109. Re:democracy by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Nobody gets to decide what the minimum set of liberties needed for Democracy to work is. It simply is. You can put your head out of the sand, take a look around and try to discover what it is, or you can try to pretend it is an empty set, that's your decision, and won't change the fact that it isn't empty. By the way, why are you asking me who gets to decide?

      Some places have a minimum protected set of liberties. Who decided what those are varies to place to place. Probably none of those places got exactly the right set, and it is arguable if it is worth protecting.

    110. Re:democracy by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      He still has the power to say one single phrase, and make all the people that passed that law look like stupid fools.

      If he didn't support such a law, it wouldn't be there.

    111. Re:democracy by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      Norway claims to be one yet the government covertly tortures people who say anything critical about the government, NATO and a range of other issues.

      What? That is complete bullshit, I won't even ask you to back it up.

      More on-topic, we do have lese-majeste laws, but they are almost never used (charges can only be brought with the explicit permission of the king). I can't remember a single case. In particular Princess Märtha Louise is a nutcase and catches a lot of public flak, with no adverse consequences for those behind it.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    112. Re:democracy by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Free speech means nothing if you don't have free press (you don't)

      Lies. I could, tomorrow, if I had the inclination and the money, create my own newspaper and publish a scathing article on the Democratic party, Obama, the IRS, and the FBI, including vulgar terms, and nothing would happen to me. The worst that could happen would be if I published as facts things that were unfactual, and fell afoul of libel laws.

      when you have censorship (you have, both on books and music)

      Unless you are referring to private entities refusing of their own initiative to sell certain products, you will have a hard time making this case. There are no books that are illegal to own, purchase, or read in the united states, and I do not believe there are any that have age restrictions. There are age restrictions on some kinds of music, which are poorly if at all enforced, and there are NO banned works of music in the US.

      There are some examples of censorship, but not generally at a federal level, and certainly not of books or music.

      Either free speech is not required for a democracy, or the USA aren't a democracy.

      Or else parent was using shorthand for "free speech is required for a democracy to work WELL", and you have made a very poor case for "no free speech in the US". The fact that you are posting this complaint to a US website that has often been the site of arguments about corruption in the US government as well as rather scathing attacks on the presidents over the last 10 years or so, indicates how full of crap you are.

    113. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flipping through TV channels as US of A invades Iraq. Ok, I see a handful of Iraqi's (or wanna be Iraqi's) rounded up and enticed to cheer our "liberation forces". Not a single TV channel openly denouncing the invasion, while everyone with half a brain knows what is going on.

      So, clearly something is amiss with "freedom of press". There are some hidden levers and strings that the great government can pull to put the press in line. This is not the only example I encountered, but "freedom of press" is a joke. Well, at least the journalists are not assassinated, like they do in Russia.

    114. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 1

      I really want to say that there is nothing moral about politics anyways, but...

      You have an assumption hidden there that you haven't proven. You assume that there is a "just because" reason. But there isn't. They actually have a reason: The king and his image are important to the Thai people.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    115. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 1

      Insulting the king of Thailand interferes with the cultural identity of the Thai people, who identify with the king and truly adore him (that's not a political ploy, they really love their king).

      It's a small harm, but it is done to many, many people. It's like spam in that regard.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    116. Re:democracy by Tom · · Score: 1

      When someone speaks of moral absolutes, they (in my experience) are usually referring to some kind of outside force dictating what set of morals are and aren't 'correct'. You might not have been talking about that, but that is what I usually see.

      Agreed. As an atheist, the concept of an outside force dictating a set of morals is alien to me. Or rather: It's a tyranny, and it means nothing regarding the correctness of those morals.

      Go ahead, then. Taking into account the level of freedom that the people have would also help. Is absolute freedom advantageous? Is having no freedom disadvantageous? What level of freedom is preferred?

      The freedom necessary to exchange ideas and discuss them freely. Let me pick the generic term "knowledge" to avoid any "science vs. everything else" debate.

      Knowledge needs to be transferred and stored to generate what Korzybski calls "time-binding" - the unique human ability to stand on the shoulders of giants, to not start from scratch every generation, but build upon whatever knowledge prior generations had acquired.

      In order to progress, knowledge needs to be available not only for consumption, but also for questioning and thus improvement. Any limit on the dissemination of knowledge, or on the discussion of it, potentially prevents an improvement.

      In the real world, you also have to take into account that we are human beings with emotions, reason, misguided beliefs, failings, etc. - and that a balanced mental state is a requirement for the above. In a deeply religious society, it may be better for the progress of knowledge to respect the religion, because causing strive would upset the mental balance of the people and thus prevent constructive work rather than support it.

      So there's your answer: Absolute freedom is only desired in a theoretical world. The optimal level of freedom is the one where both the well-being of the human beings now in existence and the environment for them improving the future of the race are at their optimal values. What exactly that means depends on the circumstances, time in history, culture, etc. etc.

      Personally, I belong to the class of people who challenge the status quo and try to edge people out of the comfort zone into a more progressive thinking. There is an opposite class that wants to avoid progress and keep the status quo. It is for the best of the human race if neither side ever wins completely, but the progressive side keeps a slight advantage.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    117. Re:democracy by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They actually have a reason: The king and his image are important to the Thai people.

      The thing about laws like that is that they don't let one challenge this assumption - so, in truth, you never really know. It's precisely what the problem with the law is.

    118. Re:democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It is a Republic with Democratic principles, but it is not any sort of direct Democracy where people can vote directly on single issues.

      Even the King wants that law repealed.

      Every Thai expat I know loves the King. I'm an American and I meet people who come here from all over the world. Many of them are happy to say bad things about anybody in government wherever they came from. Not all Thais I meet like the current PM or the last one, or agree on that, but every single one says the same thing about this law and the King:

      They love the King, and they don't want to be friends with people who say bad things about him, but they believe in free speech and the law should go away.

      However since the King has no actual political power, this law is one of the few ways politicians can show they support the King, so it is hard to change the law. When his reign ends, the law will probably be changed.

    119. Re:democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      amen!

      "Parental Warning" isn't censorship, it is a badge of honor for music targeted at teens.

    120. Re:democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      We have two political parties because our election system -- with its winner-take-all, no run-off rules -- naturally gravitates towards a two party system.

      And also because bigmedia refuses to give substantive coverage to candidates who do no represent one or the other face of the Establishment Party.

      No, it is simply and entirely because of winner-takes-all. It is a matter of math. That is why in the past when a third party has risen, it has always replaced one of the existing parties.

      There are other countries with their own local "bigmedia" who have different election systems, and they still have lots of small and medium sized parties if their voting system encourages it.

      The US has changed which parties the "two parties" are a number of times. Look it up!

    121. Re:democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      An America "banned books" list, when you look closer, turns out not to be banned books at all but lists of books removed from school or public libraries in specific locations. Note that the books in question aren't banned from being read in these libraries, they just choose not to offer those titles themselves.

    122. Re:democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In the case of yelling "fire," the reason it is not covered under American law is that it is not considered "speech;" it is not intended to add to the public discourse. Free speech is not important because it comes out from between your lips, it is important because it is ideas that may or may not be acceptable to all persons. In yelling "fire" there is a desire to create alarm through a lie, but there is no idea that is being contributed, no claimed artistic or social value, and real danger is created that is unrelated to the idea, and that the victims did not consent to be subjected to.

      Of course if you had a theatrical play where somebody shouted fire, as long as you took real and effective precautions to prevent alarm and panic then it could be art and be protected. But that has never been the case, AFAIK.

      This is why an effective and independent judiciary is absolutely vital to any scheme to protect basic rights. We can have the freedom to express ideas that some find absurd or dangerous, and freedom from being trampled in a panic at a theater exit, too!

    123. Re:democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      And lack of food doesn't cause starvation, human failure to procure food does?

    124. Re:democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      All lese majeste laws are an offensive to the dignity of free people .When a man is not free to criticize his government, he is unquestionably a subject not a citizen.

      The King of Thailand also opposes the law.

      While I agree the law is an offense to the dignity of free people, it is debatable if he really constitutes "Government." The law doesn't protect anybody with any actual power to govern, and the people are free to criticize the people writing the laws, enforcing the laws, etc.

      Those rights are freely exercised in a dynamic political system with numerous and ever-changing parties and lots of heated rhetoric.

    125. Re:democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      They actually have a reason: The king and his image are important to the Thai people.

      The thing about laws like that is that they don't let one challenge this assumption - so, in truth, you never really know. It's precisely what the problem with the law is.

      My gf is Thai, and we live in the USA, and you can ask Thai people anywhere in the world what they think in private conversation and you'll find out it is true! Thai people love the King, even Thai people who would rather live in the US.

      They have a different history with their monarchs than Americans and Europeans. Thailand was never colonized by Europe, and a number of good monarchs in a row are largely credited with that. They do not have the history of intrigue, oppression, and butchery that many of us Westerners associate with Kings.

    126. Re:democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The government has to propose the pardon to him. A different part of the government than the part that was charging them. It is an ad-hoc check and balance where the King may or may not have the opportunity to decide Yes/No to pardon or not. The King of Thailand does not have the power to pardon or dismiss criminal convictions on his own.

    127. Re:democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It would be considered highly inappropriate and below his dignity and station for him to have communications with prosecutors about one of their cases.

      If he had even this much real power, then of course he could stop it. Where he is not prevented power by law, he is prevented power by custom.

    128. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From my visits to Thailand, I also got the impression that they really love their king.

      They also really love boom-boom. And smoking.

    129. Re:democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Fun Fact:
      a <= b does not imply that a = b. In many cases where a <= b, a is in fact considerably < b.

    130. Re:democracy by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      The US has changed which parties the "two parties" are a number of times. Look it up!

      Afaik, there has been no change in the two faces of the Establishment Party since the dawning of the mass media age (~1920s).

    131. Re:democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Try wikipedia.

      He has in fact criticized the law, he officially opposes it, it is one of the few public positions on any laws that he has ever declared.

      And to educated people, it does make Parliament look foolish!

      But the Thai parliament, like governments everywhere, are experts in looking foolish and support the law without blushing.

    132. Re:democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Sorry gramps, the kid is right, he did cover that. He is claiming a certain set of conditions allows to constitutionally prohibit further changes in law that would restrict certain inalienable rights.

      You're asking him if he means the opposite of what he clearly meant, and he is pointing out one part of what he said that already addresses your example directly. He went out of his way to cover your example, and he would seek to prevent government from enacting that sort of restriction.

      The lawn is already mowed, here is some ice tea, let me turn on the TV for you...

    133. Re:democracy by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Lack of food causes starvation. Human failure to procure food only helps. While yelling "fire" may help put people in danger, it is ultimately their own stupidity that does that (or other peoples' stupidity). The word itself does not cause any harm. After all, if no one went berserk upon hearing that word (I find it highly unlikely that such a thing would happen anyway), nothing would happen.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    134. Re:democracy by jd · · Score: 1

      I do not agree that government powers are delegated by "the people", for to define "the people" you have to define a collective and assign it the right as a collective entity to assign powers to the government. Which is impossible if only people have rights, since the collective can therefore have none. It's a paradox that can only be broken if you throw away that absurd notion that only people have rights. Your argument is premised on the very thing it seeks to invalidate.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    135. Re:democracy by jd · · Score: 1

      You can't have life created in a Universe if the laws of physics are being constantly modified, because the basics are changing all the time.

      You'll be glad to know, then, that the invariance of the laws of physics with respect to either space or time is now questioned.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    136. Re:democracy by malchus842 · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Each individual must agree to join the collective. Failing that, the collective has no just power over that individual.

    137. Re:democracy by jd · · Score: 1

      I cannot think of a single nation on the planet - actual or theoretical - where each individual has had any such power. To compound the issue, in many countries, whilst you can take up the citizenship of other nations if you like, you cannot renounce citizenship. Ever. In consequence, by your logic there are no legitimate governments or nations.

      What about corporate entities? Well, a person's got to eat. Fine-sounding words won't change that. Which means you have a choice between delegating to a corporate entity or killing yourself. A bit of a naff equation, but until countries do more for individual inventors and artists, it's the way it's going to be. Since agreement under duress (which is what this is, like it or not) is not legally an agreement at all, you have not meaningfully agreed to anything and so no corporate entity can be legitimate under your logic.

      Not sure you'll find too many who would be sympathetic to the view that nothing exists. merely because nothing is "just". Life itself isn't just. The entire concept is a holdover from the Iron Age. Since the Middle Ages, the concept of "just" anything has been largely replaced with the notion of appropriate. The latter exists, the former does not. And existing has definite advantages.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    138. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no books that are illegal to own, purchase, or read in the united states

      What about books containing pictures of children engaged in sexual activity (i.e., child pornography)?

  7. law used for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that law is used for getting competition jailed for 15 years

  8. Pesky foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't they know their laws don't apply to Americans!

    1. Re:Pesky foreigners by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      If you visit them they do while you are there...

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:Pesky foreigners by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Ha! It won't be long until they're scanning the entire world for "likes", and extraditing some American Citizens from Skokie and Peoria off to Thailand... Kinda like we arrested the supposed pedophile that sent some messages to an alleged underage girl, the guy being from Australia, his message having been sent from his home in Australia, and he showed up here and was arrested.... for messing on the internet in Australia. Wonder how long 'til American citizens are extradited to Iran for Anti-Islamic speech... on the internet... from his home in the USA...

    3. Re:Pesky foreigners by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      depend where this "alleged underage girl" comes from. It is from the USA then the authorities have the right to detain you. Same thing applies to those online poker site bosses, they got arrested when they pass through the USA.

  9. Re:The King of Thailand can suck my balls. by slippyblade · · Score: 1

    Except that in the Good 'Ole USofA we routinely arrest and detain, often without trial, citizens of other nations. We cover it up with nonsense like "security" and "copyright". If we feel the need to get outraged by this kind of behaviour we need look no further than our own shores.

  10. when in rome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... bow to the emperor as the romans do. If you can't, stay in your own country.

  11. Who is "they" by Atmchicago · · Score: 1

    I've never been to Thailand, so maybe they really are enamored with the king. However, when it's illegal to say otherwise, who won't say they love the king? This reminds me of Napoleon Bonaparte's election, where voting consisted of checking yes or no to the question "Do you vote for Napoleon? Sign here."

    --

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    1. Re:Who is "they" by Goaway · · Score: 0

      Thai people outside of the country, who are not subject to the laws, also adore him. He is genuinely and truly very well liked. The laws are a consequence of him being liked, not the other way around.

    2. Re:Who is "they" by k8to · · Score: 1

      I hadn't heard of the irregularities in Napoleonic elections. Some googling turned up Victor Hugo's writings on the topic. http://www.online-literature.com/victor_hugo/napoleon-the-little/45/

      Are there other places I should read?

      --
      -josh
    3. Re:Who is "they" by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just to expand on this slightly: The Napoleon in your link is Napoleon III, the bumbling fool who fancied himself a military genius but pretty much lost all his major war adventures. He was nothing like Napoleon I, who lived 50 years earlier, and brought the ideals of the French revolution to all of Europe.

    4. Re:Who is "they" by Nick_13ro · · Score: 1

      Just to expand on this slightly: The Napoleon in your link is Napoleon III, the bumbling fool who fancied himself a military genius but pretty much lost all his major war adventures. He was nothing like Napoleon I, who lived 50 years earlier, and brought the ideals of the French revolution to all of Europe.

      You're funny. Napoleon the III was indeed a military disaster compared with Napoleon I, but Bonaparte certainly was no champion of revolutionary ideals. He was only a champion of himself. He undermined the old regime only to the extent required to keep his own dynasty afloat. He made kings of his relatives and he crowned himself emperor. Not to mention he made quite clear his opinion about revolutionary ideals: “Vanity made the [French] Revolution; liberty was only a pretext.” And he was right too. If anybody cared about any liberty nonsense he could not have ended up being worshiped. People cared about the liberty propaganda to the extent that it massaged their egos and boosted their sense of self worth. Napoleon's merit was realizing that and managed to do a better job at it as an autocrat than any elected professional liars.

    5. Re:Who is "they" by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Sort of. One man cannot bring ideals to a continent literally. By successfully conquering Europe and imposing France's laws abroad for approximately one generation, the ancien regime throughout the continent was weakened and the middle classes everywhere were empowered.

      Napoleon was only a general, but without his successful conquests the Revolutionary legacy would certainly not have lasted much beyond the Terror years and only in France. If the Bourbon Restoration had happened before 1800, it would have been a disaster.

    6. Re:Who is "they" by Tom · · Score: 1

      However, when it's illegal to say otherwise, who won't say they love the king?

      Everyone who doesn't. It is not illegal to say nothing on the matter.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    7. Re:Who is "they" by NoMaster · · Score: 2

      Or the old joke about the American on holidays in Romania during the 80's - he was in a bar, chatting to a local, and asked him "what do you think about Ceausescu?"

      The local frowned, pointed to all the people in the bar, put his finger to his lips, and motioned for the visitor to come outside.

      Out in the street, the American asked again: "What do you think about Ceausescu?". The local shook his head, gestured to indicate all the people passing by on the street, and walked into a side alley.

      The American followed him again, and half-way down the dark alley grabbed the local by the shoulder and hissed "Tell me what you think about Ceausescu?"

      The local looked up and down the alley, and spied a shadowy figure in a long jacket standing on a balcony smoking. Shaking his head and pointing, he stepped back into a dark doorway, and gestured for the American to follow him.

      The American stepped into the dark, and whispered "So, tell me what you really think about Ceausescu?"

      The local took one last look around, stood up on tip-toe, and whispered into the American's ear "I like him!"

      (Damned /. and its utter failure to handle extended Latin characters...)

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    8. Re:Who is "they" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting Anon b/c I've worked and vacationed in Thailand....

      First, the lese majeste laws were in place long before this king so you're wrong on facts and the interpretation of the facts.

      A certain class of Thais, those who have the means and opportunity to live abroad love the guy. Have you considered the political leanings of overseas Thais in context? The last throne supported/prompted coup should give you some idea from which social classes the king's support comes from.

      Go out into the countryside, far from urban centers of wealth and see how much Thais love their king.

    9. Re:Who is "they" by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Thai people outside of the country, who are not subject to the laws, also adore him.

      My local Thai restaurant took down their portrait of the king around the time the army overthrew the hugely popular elected prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. Maybe people start to love the monarchy just a little bit less when the threat of police violence no longer forces them to love it.

    10. Re:Who is "they" by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      You realise that his sister is prime minister now and it's her government that is using the laws right? In what country does the government stay in family hands? A corrupt one.

    11. Re:Who is "they" by Nick_13ro · · Score: 1

      Sort of. One man cannot bring ideals to a continent literally. By successfully conquering Europe and imposing France's laws abroad for approximately one generation, the ancien regime throughout the continent was weakened and the middle classes everywhere were empowered.

      Napoleon was only a general, but without his successful conquests the Revolutionary legacy would certainly not have lasted much beyond the Terror years and only in France. If the Bourbon Restoration had happened before 1800, it would have been a disaster.

      Sadly the revolutionary ideals were no more than propaganda. And the people empowered by the revolutions (the 1948 ones too) were not the bourgeoisie but the bankers who funded them. Always the golden rule is supreme: those with the gold make the rules. The ancien regime's only mistake was to allow such vast accumulations of wealth (the banks) outside if its control. Without that no political change would have been possible in Europe to this day. And the proof for that is the precedent of the roman empire: it grew to be an order of magnitude more oppressive than any 18th century monarchy and yet it was only destroyed by outside pressure. The reason is simple: it managed to control all the monetary wealth in its territory, while the european monarchies did not- while the roman state was owed money by everybody, the european monarchies owed money to the bankers: THAT was the cause of their downfall.

    12. Re:Who is "they" by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      My gf came from a small farming village in central Thailand, where most people only recently got flush toilets and still "shower" by splashing warm water out of a bucket with their hands. Everybody loves the King. The only people who would want to say something bad are people like the town drunk, people who are ready to say something bad about anybody.

      He has no power to govern, has never had such power, hasn't asked for such power even in crisis, and is seen as somebody who lived his personal life with dignity and compassion. When there is a crisis, he avoids taking sides and encourages the country to keep working, to stay together, to find a way forward.

      He is a nearly perfect figurehead, enhancing national unity with no apparent negative cost.

      Even the rural farm girls love the King!

    13. Re:Who is "they" by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Eh? You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The revolutionary ideals were real and affected all Frenchmen (and later abroad, too). This was codified in the declaration of rights as early as 1789, and survived in various forms to the present day, even through all the reactionary counterattacks over time.

      Not everybody grew rich, but that's generally impossible. What does matter however is that those who grew rich as a result of the various revolutions were not the same as those who were rich previously. I believe that's the essence of what keeps a society away from decadence and oppression. And the ancien regime was much too rigid to allow the social mobility that was necessary for that to occur.

      In fact, since you mention bankers, the immediate catalyst for 1789 was Louis XVI's money problems, which caused him to summon the Etats Generaux, to raise new taxes. This would have worked except that people revolted because the new revolutionary ideals were already spreading in people's minds.

    14. Re:Who is "they" by Nick_13ro · · Score: 1

      Eh? You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The revolutionary ideals were real and affected all Frenchmen (and later abroad, too). This was codified in the declaration of rights as early as 1789, and survived in various forms to the present day, even through all the reactionary counterattacks over time.

      Not everybody grew rich, but that's generally impossible. What does matter however is that those who grew rich as a result of the various revolutions were not the same as those who were rich previously. I believe that's the essence of what keeps a society away from decadence and oppression. And the ancien regime was much too rigid to allow the social mobility that was necessary for that to occur.

      In fact, since you mention bankers, the immediate catalyst for 1789 was Louis XVI's money problems, which caused him to summon the Etats Generaux, to raise new taxes. This would have worked except that people revolted because the new revolutionary ideals were already spreading in people's minds.

      Yeah, well. I think the problem is you identify yourself with the slogans of the revolution and then you look at things from a biased perspective, therefore unable to recognize what actually transpired. Of-course there was substantial social and economic mobility after the revolution- that's the principal characteristic of a radical change of regime and the only way a new system can buy itself loyalty is to put poor people in high places pitting them against the previous elite- nothing idealistic there, simple necessity dictated that. The exact same process was applied in the countries overran by the communists. Then naturally after a while things stabilized and people ended up with the same chances or less of moving up the economic ladder at least than during the ancien regime. The decadence of the bourbon monarchy was that it no longer recognized that political power came from the barrel of the gun and it was no longer willing to do what was necessary to impose its supremacy- namely confiscate the wealth of all those spreading and funding revolutionary thought, imprisoning or hanging them as appropriate. And yes they should have done that long before 1789. You are absolutely right that the new revolutionary rulers were not decadent since they had absolutely no moral issues doing that unlike the previous regime. For ex. the mob attacking the Bastille refused to accept its surrender choosing to take it by force, massacre the garrison and liberate all of the SEVEN prisoners. Besides that I'm sure you're familiar with the human rights spreading campaign by means of terror (their word not mine funny enough) and guillotine. In short using some objectivity I think you'll find that the only political regimes that fall they do so because they're week or they act week (usually both), not because they're oppressive. Oppression keeps one in power, popular belief to the contrary aside.

  12. Question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did the US citizen post the link while in thailand or while elsewhere?

    1. Re:Question... by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      The link in the summary provides all the details. Click and ye shall find.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  13. Girth by Das+Auge · · Score: 5, Funny

    My girth assures me that I am, indeed, an America.

    1. Re:Girth by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Funny

      figures....

      he's a girther!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Girth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luke, I am your girther.

    3. Re:Girth by teh31337one · · Score: 1

      hunh, I just noticed that I should have highlighted "to see some from a country" too..

  14. Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fart in king Bhumibol's general direction. His mother was a binturong and his father smelt of durians.

  15. live in thailand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do you live in Thailand and you hate your neighbor? tell the police that the neighbor said something bad about the king they will jail him/her and he/she will probably die in jail !

    1. Re:live in thailand? by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      Don't think it hasn't been done. It's one of the many ways the law is abused.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  16. Way to go, Thailand. by Pi1grim · · Score: 4, Funny

    Damn, this simply calls for bait and switch technique.
    1. Post a video of a cat hugging a kitten
    2. Collect a whole load of "likes"
    3. Switch the video for something different entirely
    4. Land a lot of people in jail for up to 15 years.

    1. Re:Way to go, Thailand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2b. Make sure the king's closest friends and all your enemies "liked" it too.

    2. Re:Way to go, Thailand. by societyofrobots · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's exactly what has been happening on facebook pages in Thailand.

    3. Re:Way to go, Thailand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure this isn't possible. Though it used to be possible to change GROUP NAMES without any notification to those joined. Some pretty funny/mean happenings there!

    4. Re:Way to go, Thailand. by Pi1grim · · Score: 1

      Facebook can forbid changing the content of the post, but if it links somewhere — they cannot forbid you to changing the content on the other end of the link, so, trust me, it's more than possible.

  17. Quick! by RandomAvatar · · Score: 0

    Everyone post, like, and share articles that are unflattering to the Thai monarchy!

    1. Re:Quick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're in America. If you are and post such things to FB then US police will show up just to pepper spray you in the face.

  18. Re:Fuck the king of Thailand by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    Why not extend that to presidents? They can just not get elected if they don't want to be assasinated.

  19. Cnut's by Blade · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to show these guys some useful fables.

  20. Insult #47 by cvtan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Personally, I believe the King carrying such a long sword clearly is a futile attempt to compensate for other shortcomings.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Insult #47 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like!

  21. Re:Fuck the king of Thailand by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    A reverse lottery? Oh, memories of a Sliders episode... to adapt:

    For power and wealth you must buy lottery tickets. Each week, a set of winners is chosen... and euthanised[tm].

    All in favour?

  22. All hail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    King Bum Ball? Are you sure this didn't happen in State College, PA?

  23. What I feel is very wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I think is extremely wrong with the case of the US Citizen is that the comments he made were made here in the US, where it is protected speech... He then later travels to Thailand, and is arrested... He broke no laws while in Thailand, but was arrested for something he did in the US...

    I would hope that the US bans travel to Thailand until this is resolved... or at least posts some sort of travel advisory... Any sort of economic sanctions? maybe stop US companies from exporting to or importing from Thailand?

    1. Re:What I feel is very wrong by 0123456 · · Score: 0

      Indeed. If, say, he'd written bad things about Obama on a blog in Britain, the US government would have extradited him. It's awful that the Thais had to wait for him to actually travel to Thailand.

    2. Re:What I feel is very wrong by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Indeed. If, say, he'd written bad things about Obama on a blog in Britain, the US government would have extradited him. It's awful that the Thais had to wait for him to actually travel to Thailand.

      What if he just linked like he did originally?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  24. Re:Fuck the king of Thailand by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    I'd prefer 'after-elections'. 4 years or so after your term of office ends there is an election where people vote if they were satisfied with what you achieved in office. If they are not, you're sent to prison for low level positions, and executed for anything high up.

  25. Very true. by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The grossest example for copyright being the Russian who was arrested for a DMCA violation by breaking Adobe copy protection whilst in Russia. On security, a pilot was arrested in the UK on the orders of the US after 9/11. They wanted him deported without the required deportation hearing and without knowing what he was charged with. The UK ultimately refused, gave him an extradition hearing, and he proved his total innocence of the charge. Had the UK not done that, he'd be in Gitmo to this day with no rights and no knowledge of even the charges made.

    This doesn't make the UK particularly heroic - obeying its own laws should not be considered exceptional, it should be considered the norm. The UK was also involved in a number of renditions that DID violate UK law, just not that one.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  26. Compare McLibel by tepples · · Score: 1

    I doubt very much if anyone would be arrested for stating "Abolish the lese majeste laws because they are being misused" as it is a comment about the law and not the royal family.

    If the lese majeste laws are anything like English libel laws, as demonstrated in McDonald's v. Steel and Morris , then commenting against the lese majeste law might still be grounds for I-can't-believe-it's-not-frivolous legal action, be it civil or criminal, just to create a risk of having to pay for a legal defense and thereby chill such comment.

    1. Re:Compare McLibel by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Starting with "If" generally invalidated everything said after it. To equate English libel laws with the Thai lese majeste laws you must do the research. It is not up to the reader to find out whether or not the "if" is true. Add "if" to "might" and the statement is without weight.

    2. Re:Compare McLibel by tepples · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia does give a few examples with citations about how the law "has often been used to silence discussion about Bhumibol's role in politics", so yes, it has been used as a SLAPP tool. But is it wrong to ask if there's someone already familiar with the crime of lese majeste in Thailand who knows whether or not it is reverse-onus like libel in England?

    3. Re:Compare McLibel by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      If you meant to ask a question they do that. Had your opening statement been "Are the the lese majeste laws are anything like English libel laws?" it would have been much clearer. By starting with "If" it appears that you are taking the statement as a fact and not a question.

  27. King Bum? by khipu · · Score: 1

    Is that you, King Bum?

  28. Time article on Thailand's lese majeste law by Dahan · · Score: 4, Informative

    FYI, here's an informative/interesting article from Time magazine: What's Behind Thailand's Lèse Majesté Crackdown?

    tl;dr: it's used as a political tool to silence/jail one's enemies--while the law has been around forever, prosecutions skyrocketed after the 2006 coup that ousted the prime minister as the different political parties fight for power. The king himself has publically stated that he doesn't support the lese majeste law, and no member of the royal family has ever filed a lese majeste charge.

    1. Re:Time article on Thailand's lese majeste law by phorm · · Score: 1

      So why doesn't he get rid of it?

    2. Re:Time article on Thailand's lese majeste law by pntkl · · Score: 1

      If it was as bad as people said it was, about Thailand; you'd think Americans would be screaming for a trade embargo. I know from first-hand experience, Thailand invests considerably, inside the U.S. I don't understand why Joe Gordon was imprisoned, although, it seems there isn't much of an outcry, where it counts, to free him: http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-and-joe-gordon/

    3. Re:Time article on Thailand's lese majeste law by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      My guess is - because he can't. If Thailand is like most other constitutional monarchies (most obviously, the western/Commonwealth nations such as the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ etc.) - the monarch acts essentially as a powerless figurehead. The Parliament is the only body that can create/amend laws. Constitutional monarchs are apolitical: they do not involve themselves in political comment or debate of any kind and are expected to remain silent and neutral, simply doing Parliament's bidding (i.e. signing into law whatever Parliament puts before them, whether they personally agree with it or not).

    4. Re:Time article on Thailand's lese majeste law by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      What the hell is tl;dr ?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    5. Re:Time article on Thailand's lese majeste law by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      What the hell is tl;dr ?

      An acronym.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    6. Re:Time article on Thailand's lese majeste law by AdamJS · · Score: 1

      So the political parties are using laws (that are supposed to enforce respect for the monarchy, but not heavy-handedly) in the King's name (against his wishes) to smack down political opponents and dissent?

      That's just so backwards-ly bizarre and so strangely Orwellian.

    7. Re:Time article on Thailand's lese majeste law by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      What the hell is tl;dr ?

      It is a meme where the intellectually incurious wear it on their sleeve to show they are Real Americans.

    8. Re:Time article on Thailand's lese majeste law by Dahan · · Score: 1

      The king doesn't have any political power; Thailand's a constitutional monarchy, and like the other constitutional monarchies in the world, the king's involvement in government basically consists of presiding over various ceremonies and rubber-stamping what Parliament sends his way. The people who can get rid of the law like its power too much to do so... and my personal impression as a Thai (living in the US) is that a lot of the Thai people approve of the law too--the vast majority of Thais revere the king, and many think he should be legally protected.

  29. You know what I'd "like?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reasonable hard drive prices because factories weren't built on flood plains!

  30. unintended consequences by cslewis2007 · · Score: 0

    could we ever have really conceived that this would have been one of the unintended consequences of an implementation of computer science? I know it's somewhat facile, but really, expressing oneself in a virtual digital media would result in persecution and possible incarceration? Is there a way to to fix this? Or is this kind of thing just an inevitable consequence of technology allowing us to express ourselves such that a state can exploit and use that freedom of expression against us? How many degrees of separation is it, I wonder, from Kevin Bacon, to an extended jail term in Thailand?

  31. It's a matter of hygiene by accessbob · · Score: 1

    No, thank you. With Thai censorship, you never know where he's been.....

  32. If there was ever a reason for a CIA hit squad ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is it.

    Kill the king, kill his son, and save a lot of people a lot of trouble.

  33. goddamnit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the like button when you really need it?

  34. The king slipped on a banana peel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hurr hurr I'm going to insult the king too. I'm like a freedom fighter only in front of the keyboard, yo. Hurr.

  35. Facebook by mfh · · Score: 0

    Here is what an ethical Facebook does:
    Remove all access to people from Thailand until they join THIS century/millennium.

    Here is what Facebook would probably do, since they are evil:
    Offer King fucknuts a backdoor pass to every Thai user's accounts for a hefty fee.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Facebook by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      The king doesn't give two hoots about this matter and is on the public record as saying he doesn't support lese majeste laws. The royal family has never launched a lese majeste action. It is the government that imposes and enforces these laws (and being a constitutional monarch, the King is powerless to stop them).

      So while I fully agree with your sentiment, it is the Thai Govt. that FB would be selling their back door to, not the king.

    2. Re:Facebook by mfh · · Score: 1

      Good correction! If Slashdot was like Reddit I could change my post to reflect your correction, but we're still stuck with it the way it is.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    3. Re:Facebook by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      sure, but is the king doing _anything_ to get these people out of jail? NO! is he doing anything to make their time in thai prison more bearable? NO! he just says he doesn't like them. then goes with his life like before whilst he can't be even called on not doing anything since that would get you to jail too. nice combo. if he would initiate lese majeste action it would lead to streisand effect anyways, though of course that couldn't be publicly mentioned on thai press.

      facebook should have a disclaimer at least when accessed from thai or if the user has thailand marked on his trips.
      the real problem with throwing someone to thai prison from a facebook like is simply that it's too easy to abuse.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Facebook by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Remove all access to people from Thailand until they join THIS century/millennium.

      Really? Why is it ethical to punish the people for something their government does?

      By that logic, Americans REALLY have it coming...

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  36. Americans fix your own house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being/

    We Americans know what to do if you disagree with the government.

  37. Northern or southern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an America....

    Are you the northern one, or the southern one?

    1. Re:Northern or southern? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      America, North America, South America, those are all different things.

      Also close but different:

      Virginia and West Virginia
      West Virginia and Westminster
      tonsil and tonsillectomy
      bidden and forbidden
      frontal and frontal lobotomy
      apple and apple butt

  38. It was a misclick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't mean to click that button!

  39. women Timberland boots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice Article.Thank you for sharing.Waiting for updating.wholesale replica women Timberland boots on line from China

    1. Re:women Timberland boots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "wholesale replica women" - where do I sign up??

  40. Re:If there was ever a reason for a CIA hit squad by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    Call of Duty: Thailand.

  41. Pot, kettle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, assuming you're from any of the US, UK, Australia, Germany, France, Russia, etc, etc, etc... why don't you ask yourself that one first?

  42. Operation Thailand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's do it, Anons.

  43. And even if you did make a threat by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    You probably wouldn't go to jail. The secret service takes all threats seriously and investigates them, but they aren't idiots. They realize most are just people being stupid and they just go and have a little what's what chat with the person. If you were a tourist I could see them also sending you home. However unless they find other evidence or get the feeling that you are serious at the chat, no arrest is made.

    This happens occasionally at the university I work for. Some idiot sends the president a threat for whatever reason (as newspapers like to say: alcohol is often a factor), the USSS shows up explains that is a bad idea, and that is the end of it.

  44. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does it mean?

    Yes, I'm serious.. that might be an insult.. but I can't tell what is translates to. Thai specific insult perhaps?

  45. Catch Lese Majeste by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 1

    1) The Lese Majeste law was established in 1908 when the monarchy had absolute power in Thailand

    2) Anyone proposing a change to the Lese Majeste law may be charged with Lese Majeste

    3) Judges are afraid to dismiss any Lese Majeste case because that of itself can be interpreted as insulting the king

    Now where do you see any democratic process in that mess

  46. Why click? wget instead by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

    I thought most people used wget? then you can be accused of using the command line.

    --
    All cows eat grass!
  47. Shh... by iozozturk · · Score: 1

    Don't let Erdogan in Turkey hear this post. He will like this.

    --
    twitter.com/ismetozozturk
  48. So what happens if by lolococo · · Score: 1

    ... I click "like" from my country, and then travel to Thailand (I know, I'd be dumb to do that now, but I'm dumb anyway) ?
    Could they charge me? Could they charge me before I even travel there?

    1. Re:So what happens if by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If, like the person in the article, you are actually a natural born Thai citizen then yes.

      Just as, since he is also an American citizen, he could be tried in the US for actions committed abroad that are illegal for Americans. We only have a few, such as, interfering with a foreign government, engaging in human trafficking, doing business in violation of US sanctions, etc.

  49. nobility are the descendants of organized crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some guy and his crew murdered everyone else into submission a few hundred years ago and now their descendants put on airs and claim their god made them nobility.

    Could their gods protect them from a guillotine?

    Surely a god that wanted him to be king would stop the blade of the guillotine!

    Maybe the pope would be willing to demonstrate how much his god wants him to be pope?

    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    1. Re:nobility are the descendants of organized crime by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Thailand's history with it's monarchy is a lot different than Europe and America's!

      Thailand is the only country in SE Asia not to be colonized by Europe, thanks to a series of clever Kings. They have a history and cultural tradition of individual freedom.

      It is dangerous to make assumptions about Asian history and culture based on Western history.

  50. Reaching... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're reaching and / or mentally lazy.

    America is short for The United States of American.

    In the same way that German is short Federal Republic of Germany. Or do you refer to people of that country as Federal Republic of Germanians?

    The mentally lazy, among others, are offended.

  51. The king has no control by AlecC · · Score: 5, Informative

    Precisely - he is, and knows he is, a figurehead, and he should not interfere in the democratic process. His only interventions have been calmly to ask the politicians to get their act together and stop behaving like spoiled children (free translation). It is one faction of politicians who build him up for their own purposes. He cannot interfere with the law without interfering with democracy. He can then pardon those convicted. It is one of the problems of a constitutional monarchy that things done in the monarch's name are actually totally, out of the control of the monarch. His function is roughly the same as the flag in the US - something to salute, and produce prominently on state occasions, but not as functional part of the legislations. These laws are roughly like the rules, which some consider laws, about respectful treatment of the Stars and Stripes.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  52. Re:Fuck the king of Thailand by ultranova · · Score: 1

    I'd prefer 'after-elections'. 4 years or so after your term of office ends there is an election where people vote if they were satisfied with what you achieved in office. If they are not, you're sent to prison for low level positions, and executed for anything high up.

    Thus making it certain that only people with a pathological need for power will ever try for public positions, making all the current problems even worse.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  53. Quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He could admit this is bullshit, and step down.

    We've got a royal family in sweden, they behave like morons too. But they get away with it
    because the next day they switch to cute and cuddly.
    I'm saying, even *with* a fairly high-quality functioning democracy in place, most dumb-asses remain.

  54. Icons by ThomasLB · · Score: 1

    It's not so terrible different than the large number of Americans who want to ban flag burning. People don't like it when their national symbols are desecrated.

    1. Re:Icons by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Stop being reasonable. That's a good way to make everybody hate you.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  55. Lese-majesty... Some things will never change. by Artemis3 · · Score: 1

    Unless you get rid of monarchy, or autocracy for that matter, because even when not written it WILL be enforced. It is taboo, forbidden to criticise your head of state unless you live in a republic with sufficient citizen rights, and even some of those have exemptions. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lese-majesty

    --
    Artix
    Your Linux, your init.
  56. my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    acting like an internet prick and enforcing strict censhorship is not going to make you more liked by the public. It pays to be able to laugh at yourself and befriend the people

  57. So much for "Land of the free" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody know another country, whose citizens refer to as "land of the free"?

  58. Vacuous truth by tepples · · Score: 1

    If you meant to ask a question they do that.

    Years ago, I worded more things as questions, but other users would complain that I worded too many things as questions. How should I tell the difference between where wording as a question is warranted and where it is not?

    By starting with "If" it appears that you are taking the statement as a fact and not a question.

    I thought "if A then B" was logic-ese for "B or not A". Someone could still reply by showing not A, with the implication "not A, so you may not always have to worry about B".

  59. So that would include this /. post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's going to "share"?

  60. anywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got news for all of you here. If you are in a position where your words have real impact and you say things about the real power base of any country you're in, you will have problems.

  61. The monarchy hides self-promotion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The monarchy promotes the monarchy, but hides what it is doing.

    Read Verisimilitude by Harry Nicolaides, for example.

  62. Where's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take two steps back and go back to the 'badsummary' headline . . . it's not a half bad idea.

    1) Put people in prison for clicking "like" (using face book)
    2) Put people in prison for using twitter
    3) Put people in prison for inappropriate or senseless shortening of words (c u l8r)

    Everything else figures itself out :)

  63. Wrong facts by gwolf · · Score: 1

    I had to get a retina scan and my 10 fingerprints taken to get a US visa.
    I am Mexican, and I understand those requirements are the same for all countries that don't enter the visa waiver program.

  64. King Bhumibol is gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard that King Bhumibol is gay..

  65. Maybe a bit overboard? by TheUSADebate.com · · Score: 1

    Sure, you want to protect the image of your country and all but you've got to be kidding me with this. Apparently Thailand took the initiative to start an internet police kind of thing they just MIGHT have overdone it