Slashdot Mirror
Thailand Jails Dissident For What People Thought He Would Have Said
patiwat writes "A Thai court has convicted a man for censoring himself. In a 2010 anti-government rally, Yossawarit Chuklom said several people were against the dissolution of Abhisit Vejjajiva's government. He mentioned a few names, and then put his hand over his mouth and said he wasn't brave enough to continue. A court ruled that he would have mentioned King Bhumibol Adulyadej — thus earning him a conviction for insulting the King, who is constitutionally banned from any political role."
King Bhumibol Adulyade enjoys licking my toes.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
steaming turd if he allows such crap to happen. One more country I'll never visit. One more country I will avoid when buying things.
But Thailand is still where a huge chunk of consumer goods in the U.S. come from? How are the communists so much worse than monarchist totalitarians?
Okay maybe he "thought about it" but clearly did not form the intent to name the rest of those names including the kings because he self censored after all.
It would be kinda like being charged with conspiracy to commit a felony here for talking with some friends about how you go about robbing a bank; in a purely hypothetical manor.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
The injustice here is that he's being imprisoned for expressing an opinion that involves the King and his role in politics. That's rotten.
I suspect most people here will assume, instead, that the injustice is that he didn't name the King explicitly, but courts tend to make reasonable inferences that people using certain language and gestures intend to communicate a concept even if they don't state it explicitly in ${language}. Just as you couldn't say "One of my co-workers is a pedophile and it's not" ${list of everyone except the person you're refusing to name} without being at serious risk of being sued for libel, likewise it sounds like the dissident made gestures that would only be interpreted in one way by the crowd.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Since they are now a country filled only with criminals, they may as well act like it and make sure all of the government is represented by criminals like themselves.
Of course, I don't have much room to talk... as I live in America, land of the arbitrarily scheduled herbs and weapon restrictions set up to make sure that everyone has bomb making supplies or some other contraband in their homes.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
I do not see why the court would be against his self censorship.
I can see jailing someone who was forcibly stopped from saying something that was illegal, there are tons of laws in the west where what someone thinks you would of done is applicable (even if you have not yet committed any crimes).
But it sounds like Thailand wants its citizens to self censor, so why punish it?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is the ninth incarnation of Lord Rama, who himself was the eighth incarnation of Lord Vishnu, the Preserver of the Universe. His Majesty is omniscient and He knows what everyone is thinking. It might look odd to the West with its mechanistic interpretation of the observable universe. But, rest assured, they know what was on his mind and they know what he would have done. The only thing that perplexes the holistic Eastern minded Thai people is, "Why is His Majesty using the mechanistic physical instruments like courts and jail, like the simple minded Westerners, and is not using His omnipotent powers to punish him directly and demonstrate His powers over nature for all to see?"
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
My daughter used to tease my son when they were little calling him "monkey face". One day a monkey came on children's TV and my son turned round and said "mum, dad, can you tell her off ... I know what she's thinking".
Seems some people don't grow up
By convicting people for insulting the king, isn't the judge implying that the king isn't strong enough to stand up for himself? If someone did that to me, I'd be pretty insulted. Throw the judge in jail!
Right? If no one is allowed to say or even IMPLY anything critical of the king (which the king himself said should be allowed, according to a quote in Wikipedia) then that should apply to the judges as well.
What's our next product to export?
Next time you're in a grocery store, look at the packages of tuna fish (StarKist, Chicken of the Sea, other brands). Much of it says Thailand as country of origin, though lately more of it seems to be labeled as coming from Ecuador.
But don't try to joke, suggest, or even imply the word "bomb" in an airport or a plane. Even mentioning a related joke on Twitter could give you troubles.
During the original 13 colonies of the USA, British government sent inmates and people that was convicted to jail time to USA. I think it's time for Thailand to step-up and advance it's form of government and send their prisoners to other countries.
Kicking citizens out of the country is worse than wanting to keep them for what they say & might say.
I thought that was the point of jail. To prevent people from doing what you think they might do in the future. That's in the definition of a "threat to society." If you were to actually punish someone, it would be a rehabilitative measure - not a jail sentence. No one sits in jail and "thinks about what they have done." Jail just helps the rest think that you might not do what they think you might do.
That's basically what this amounts to...
Okay, it's not exactly the same as what was in the book 1984,but they still arrested him only for what he was thinking (in actuality, really only what they believe that he thought, but even giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were right, this still amounts to arresting somebody because of what they were thinking).
Putting that aside for a moment, the point that the court really needs to consider here is that he DIDN'T.... period. Even if they are entirely right about everything, and he really thought about it, or even if he really wanted to.... he DIDN'T.
So, in the end, again, assuming that they are entirely correct here, the only thing that they could ever hope to say is that he thought about doing what he was accused of.
Which, once the implications of that are realized by the population, I dare say that a not entirely percentage of them will also be guilty of.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"the King, who is constitutionally banned from any political role."
This is just a myth often used by royalists who'd like to pretend that the Monarchy is pro-Democracy.
In fact, the 2007 Constitution grants sweeping powers to the King. Nearly nothing can happen without the legal approval from the King.
Verify yourself:
www.senate.go.th/th_senate/English/constitution2007.pdf
I bet you're the type that repeatedly shares pictures on facebook posted by "Obamuh's takin' away are guns and freedom!" type pages.
(the 'are' was intentional)
Defamation (includes libel and slander).
Obscenity: The Supreme Court test for obscenity is as follows: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Fighting words: As defined by the Supreme Court, fighting words are "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
Causing panic: The classic example of speech causing panic is someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Speech may be suppressed where a reasonable person would know that his speech is likely to cause panic and/or harm to others.
Incitement to crime: Speech that spurs another to commit a crime.
Sedition: Speech that advocates unlawful conduct against the government or the violent overthrow of the government.
http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/freedom-speech/free-speech-primer-what-can
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Sir Thomas More.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
In the article:
But there was also someone else, he said, then placed his hands over his mouth. “I am not brave enough to say it,” he told the crowd. “But I know what are you thinking right now. So I will keep my mouth shut.”
Unfortunately for him, "you" also ended up including the judge.
I am justifying the Thai law, but mentioning that law has not been stretched in this case. It has been applied correctly.
Criticizing the government hardly compares to serious threat of imminent violence
It's a horrible unfair law, yadda yadda.
Quit thinking about law when you ought to be thinking about power. In this situation, you have a government so bullshit that it can make a law against insulting someone. In that context, it is ridiculous, whenever they decide to act against someone, to get bogged down in technicalities about whether their chosen victim obeyed or violated the law. What they wrote doesn't matter; the ACTUAL LAW is: "stay on my good side." Their chosen victim violated that law.
The real problem isn't the stupid law; it's that they would, and can and did, have such a stupid law. Once you say "stupid laws are ok" then it doesn't make sense to complain about stupid laws; "stupid laws are ok" is what you ought to be complaining about.
That aside, back in rules-lawyer mode... I can insult someone by not saying anything against them, whether by backhanded complement or conspicuous omission. I can communicate a word without speaking that word. I can point at a person without saying their name or aiming my finger.
Whenever you say "he who must not be named," it can cause Voldemort or Demogorgon to be summoned (depending on context. That's the power of magic. ;-)
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
A man is walking around in the streets of [insert dictatorial state] and loudly shouting: "What a shitty government!" Needless to say, it is not long before state security arrests him.
"I never said which government I was talking about," he defends himself.
"You said 'shitty'. There is only one shitty government," the secret policeman retorts.
if every Thai citizen have an assault rifle.
New Economic Perspectives
The arrangement is that the king pretends he has no control over the law saying that no one can criticize the king. That's so he can avoid blame.
Clearly the judge formed the thought that the man was going to name the king... in that context and given the crime if 'insulting the king' isn't it pretty insulting to the king for the judge to immediately assume that the king would have been mentioned?
His mother was a binturong and his father smelt of durians.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Ordinary people are ruthlessly conditioned. That conditioning becomes the 'values' and 'traditions' by which most people then seek to live their lives.
"There are 'gods' on Earth, and we call them 'kings'". Now YOU don't buy into this, so YOU think that people do are weak minded fools. But do you wear black to a funeral, or a 'suit' when you wish to seem 'respectable? How are you any more 'civilised' or 'advanced' than an African widow forced to cover her naked body in soot during the mourning period, or a young African women 'forced' to dance naked before her king?
In Thailand, the children, and young adults, are ruthless beaten at every stage of their 'training'. When they become adults, they focus on beating the new generation into conformance. The king is the state, and the state is the people, and if the people stop believing, well the sun won't rise the next morning, or some such instinctive mental garbage.
Sorry, 99.9% of you reading this (at least) are no better intellectually than the Thai's that 'love' their king. Why? Because you not only follow similar brain-dead rituals in your life (which is fine to conform), but you justify these rituals to yourself, your friends, and your kin. Wearing your suit is NOT a problem. Justifying the wearing of suits most certainly is.
Your masters do NOT care that you conform- they know that peer pressure will see to this. You masters DEMAND that you justify and teach conformance wherever and whenever possible. The Thai king didn't take this man down. Indeed, this 'royal' slob frequently throws 'pardons' in the direction of such internationally embarrassing convictees. The 'mob' demanded this man's head on a pike, so they could feel better about their own despicable subservience.
You Yanks are no different when it comes to emperor Obama, your mass-murdering psychopathic war-criminal president from a family with the deepest CIA roots. He's 'black' so he's cool- dribble, dribble. Years of advertising PR using the faces of steroid bulked or Human-growth-hormone elongated 'black' sports heroes has seen to that. Never notice that the true story of black Americans is just how many of them you stick into the prison system every year.
Obama is so thick, he literally cannot function without auto-cue scripts. We have some of the wickedest politicians the Human Race has ever produced in Europe, but at least they have brains enough to be able to talk 'off script'. It is obvious that Obama is educationally sub-normal, but Yanks are fed a fantasy of Obama as an intellectual genius. Ah, but now I've insulted YOUR king, and you want to scream at me about all those elite schools Obama 'aced'- well, you chumps, the British Royals were also sent to the 'best' schools, and given fine scores, but Brits are smart enough to know their royals are morons.
The sheep of the 'Old World' are told "if he's at the top, god put him there". The sheep of the 'New World' are told "if he's at the top, talent put him there". Both claims are lies.
Anyway, if you go up against the top-dog, you must expect extreme aggro. This is the way of Nature. Only challenge the top dog if you are truly wishing to be part of the process that brings him low. If I lived in Thailand, and wished to bring the king down, I'd aim at his 'legs'. The sickening violence used daily against children and young adults (especially in school) forms the 'legs' on which the king stands. Make the beating of children unlawful, and the inappropriate support for the king will falter, and falter very rapidly. Extreme subservience always has mechanisms renewing its presence in the population. Remove those mechanisms, and the extreme subservience will vanish.
... also avoid discussing algebraic geometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_up#The_blowup_of_a_point_in_a_plane
"In a 2010 anti-government rally, Yossawarit Chuklom said several people were against the dissolution of Abhisit Vejjajiva's government."
Doesn't this effectively mean that the government is saying that implying the king does not want the government dissolved is an insult to the king?
The government says "Of course you insulted him, what kind of idiot doesn't want this government dissolved?"
Thailand: added to my list.
-Bob-
I don't understand how the unspoken, presumed statement can be taken to be an insult. He is claiming that the King is on what he considered to be the right side of a debate. Isn't that a compliment, if anything?
Let's say, to exaggerate an analogy for clarity, that at an anti-pedophile rally, if there were such a thing, someone were to name several prominent people who are, like the speaker presumably is, outspoken against pedophiles. He's saying "Pedophiles are bad people, and should be disapproved of. I disapprove of them. And these other prominent people also disapprove of them! Good on them for doing so!" How would the people named be insulted by that?
Likewise, this Thai guy is saying "The government administration are bad people, and should be disapproved of. I disapprove of them. These other prominent people, and even the King himself, disapprove of them. Good on them for doing so!" How is that an insult to the king?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Google for your favorite Wizard of Id cartoons...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Please wire $2,000 to the RIAA to settle the copyright infringement case against you for the music you would have downloaded last weekend.
Defendant: What crime am I guilty of?
Prosecutor: Insulting the king.
Defendant: But I didn't insult the king.
Prosecutor: Well, you would have....
Defendant: I would have said what?
Prosecutor: I can't say.
Defendant: Aha! But you WOULD have! Put this man on trial!
Ah but Canada has it even better. We get to avoid the unnecessary expense of a politician and have another country pay for the monarch. ;-)
Complete nonsense: "Actually, the king of Thailand is just as censored as anyone else." This is how it works: The kings or queens in England or Thailand, to use two examples, pretend that they are fine people. Anyone not agreeing with that will be killed or otherwise silenced.
More nonsense: "The Thai monarchy is very much a symbolic post... Actually, the monarchy keeps power any way it can. Sometimes that is by pretending to have no power.
Your analogy is simple and expressive. Unfortunately it expresses an unfathomable morass of ignorance.
It seems "tyranny" has joined "big government" as being synonymous for "any government I don't like."
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Considering that space travel in practice is restricted to rockets and below, I'd say it's irrelevant if anyone wanted ion engines or any other form of propulsion. Or not.
...I've seen here on Slashdot, and I've been here awhile.
Oh, and by the way... According to the wonders of your logic, are all people who eat chicken actually cocksuckers?
From each according to ability, to each according to need. That doesn't sound all that passive toward the former.
What's so bad about everyone and their fellow man doing what they can for their fellow man and everyone?
Isn't that why they executed Thomas More? "Hey, he didn't comment on the King's new marriage, but *if* he did, whoa Nelly, he sure would have some choice things to say about divorce!"
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
On the balance of probability, you referred to Windows 8. However, it is not beyond reasonable that you referred to Windows RT.
The issue at hand is that a man has been imprisoned - which is typically a criminal penalty (judged beyond reasonable doubt). However, the evidence was on the balance of probability (civil).
Arguably, a civil standard of evidence is useful for resolving minor disputes, such as two neighbors claiming ownership of a lawnmower. Some innocent parties may lose out but you'll be right more than half of the time. In aggregate, it is better than doing nothing at all.
Whereas, to put someone in prison, deprive them of their liberty, their livelihood, their family life and giving them a criminal record - based on they might have done (or might have thought) - it is just fucked.
This is just like..... or wait....