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?
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.
Please, it's tuna. Just tuna. We already know it's a fish.
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'
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
I know that Thai is a human or a language but not a land.
Sir Thomas More.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
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
You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish.
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.
If that critic (even for implied, not spoken words) causes a riot, then could qualify as imminent violence.
... also avoid discussing algebraic geometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_up#The_blowup_of_a_point_in_a_plane
Wow. My Little Pony fan fiction has gotten way too serious.
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."
You are such an American.
Non-American Constitutions frequently have strong customary elements that greatly alter everything, but do not actually appear in the text. According to the official Canadian Constitution there is no Prime Minister, there is no such thing as a Cabinet, and the Queen does everything through a people she appoints called the "Her Majesty's Privy Council." According to the text this Council is totally her creature, serves at her will, and is generally just a fall-guy for when if the Queen fucks up.
The way that works in actual law is that the Chair of the Privy Council is the Prime Minister. The Council itself consists of all current and former Cabinet members, plus some people appointed so they can read highly classified documents, but the Cabinet is the bit of it that does all the Privy Council stuff. This is legally linked to the Constitution on the basis Preamble's sentence saying Canada wants a "Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom." There's a whole customary section of the Constitution which is unwritten, but is probably harder to change then the written bits. It should be noted that under American law a preamble has no legal relevance.
Google for your favorite Wizard of Id cartoons...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"You Yanks are no different when it comes to emperor Obama"
What???
Granted there are plenty of intelectually diminished "leftists", There is a huge diffrence in reaction from the government.
You know
"Anyway, if you go up against the top-dog, you must expect extreme aggro."
No, you recive critism, some trolling, and some herp derp butthurt from Obama's follower. You don't get assassinated, or thrown in jail.
There are even people who've hinted at rebellion, or even insinuited shooting the president,(idle empty threats, however), and because most of them are far to derpish to pull it off.
A good percent of the right wing open makes fun of and bashes the president, and none of them are in jail.
I understand that American freedoms are slowly slipping away, and that many people get put on watch lists, and some minor LE intimidation. I understand that the Tea Party and OWS got harrassed by the federal law enforcement aparatus. Few of them recieved long term jail sentances, and none of them any jail sentance simply for speaking. While certainly condemnable, its hardly the same scope or scale.
I do agree we are heading in the wrong direction libertywise, but I disagree with your assesment of how far we've already sunk.
You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish!
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
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. ;-)
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.
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.
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?
I'm in favour of that, if it's of their own choosing. I'm all in favour of charity and goodwill toward all. However, I'm also in favour of teaching them to fish, not giving them a fish. Most of us (myself included) are basically lazy, and would happily live off the charity of others if we could. What happens if nobody we know has any fish? Will we starve? Instead of learning how to fish? How selfish.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit