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."

Comments

democracy

[Tom]

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?

Re:democracy

[jd]

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.

Re:Why indulge?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Very true.

[jd]

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.

Re:Why indulge?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Fuck the king

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Fuck the king

[rtb61]

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.

Re:Fuck the king

[grumbel]

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.

Re:Why indulge?

[ultranova]

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.