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."
Fuck that greasy yellow slope
Why do people continue to go to countries that suck?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
as efforts to defend the widely reviled royal family from criticism have ramped up
FTFY
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?
Don't they know their laws don't apply to Americans!
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?
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".
My girth assures me that I am, indeed, an America.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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
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.