Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Thai Activist Jailed For the Crime of Sharing an Article on Facebook (eff.org)

Posted by msmash on from the stranger-things dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Thai activist Jatuphat "Pai" Boonpattaraksa was sentenced this week to two and a half years in prison -- for the crime of sharing a BBC article on Facebook. The Thai-language article profiled Thailand's new king and, while thousands of users shared it, only Jutaphat was found to violate Thailand's strict lese majeste laws against insulting, defaming, or threatening the monarchy. The sentence comes after Jatuphat has already spent eight months in detention without bail. During this time, Jatuphat has fought additional charges for violating the Thai military junta's ban on political gatherings and for other activism with Dao Din, an anti-coup group. While in trial in military court, Jatuphat also accepted the Gwangzu Prize for Human Rights. When he was arrested last December, Jatuphat was the first person to be charged with lese majeste since the former King Bhumibol passed away and his son Vajiralongkorn took the throne. (He was not, however, the first to receive a sentence -- this past June saw one of the harshest rulings to date, with one man waiting over a year in jail to be sentenced to 35 years for Facebook posts critical of the royal family.) The conviction, which appears to have singled Jatuphat out among thousands of other Facebook users who shared the article, sends a strong message to other activists and netizens: overbroad laws like lese majeste can and will be used to target those who oppose military rule in Thailand.

120 comments

  1. If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by CajunArson · · Score: -1

    The Thai government can't prove that he's a *LITERAL NAZI* can they? Because then this would be OK.

    Lack of virtue signaling might be enough.. did he *not* expressly call Trump Hitler while he was criticizing the king? That might be enough.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by Noishkel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And this is why you don't go on Facebook ever. Well that, and I literally couldn't give less of a damn about the kind of leftist drivel that populates most of any social media.

    2. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      The Thai government can't prove that he's a *LITERAL NAZI* can they? Because then this would be OK.

      In Russia, he would have simply been killed.

      The thing with narcissistic ego-driven despots is they do this kind of horrible shit if they're allowed to. Considering his kind words for Putin and Duarte, how long before Trump calls the king of Thailand "a tremendous guy"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever notice how the only people who complain about "virtue signaling" are shitty people, whiny piss-ants generally? What a sad world you must live in, where doing nice things or saying something nice is an attempted manipulation. Also, your Trump cultism isn't related to anything in this post, why did you bring him up? Stop projecting and seek help.

    4. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is Duarte? Did you mean Duterte? Doot-doot? Duterte Harry?

    5. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Sieg Heil , my good man!

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    6. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever notice how people who complain about the complaints are trying too hard?

      It's not going away, bud. Now go overpay for stuff because you actually think they're in your echo chamber, whether it's left right or apache helicopter.

    7. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of right-wing nutjobs on Facebook for you to friend up with.

    8. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There is too much politics on Facebook. But it's on the left and the right. I haven't been on long, but I can't imagine that it's always been this bad or it would never have become popular.

    9. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The Thai government can't prove that he's a *LITERAL NAZI* can they? Because then this would be OK.

      In Russia, he would have simply been killed.

      The thing with narcissistic ego-driven despots is they do this kind of horrible shit if they're allowed to. Considering his kind words for Putin and Duarte, how long before Trump calls the king of Thailand "a tremendous guy"?

      The thing is, it's not the King driving this. Its the military Junta who drives this. The King of Thailand has no real political power.

      The lest majesty laws have always been used for political gain, not protecting the royalty. The previous king constantly pardoned anyone convicted of leste majesty and several times asked parliament to remove the leste majesty laws, the Thai parliament refused because they were so convenient.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    10. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't wait for all the nazis and white supremacists to go there and show 'em who's boss. You tell 'em paleface!

    11. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The west also has a bad habit of killing-off people it doesn't like:

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/25/british-spy-mi6-gareth-williams

    12. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It might be hard to comprehend the Thai situation from the west.

      They have never had any sort of enlightened democracy, they never fought for political freedoms or had political freedom as a core part of their culture. Their elected governments have been almost uniformly corrupt and sleazy.

      Furthermore, their versions of monarchy and dictatorship have been rather mild. They don't have freedom of speech, being a dissident is not safe, but the general population do not experience significant oppression or other suffering.

      So for those reasons, the average person really doesn't care about politics. But they're against any group that wants to make violence in the streets. The coup followed grenade attacks in Bangkok, and a lot of Thai people were happy to see physical peace in the streets.

      Like it says in the summary, other people shared the story and didn't get in trouble; the person who got in trouble is the person who is a political dissident. Most Thai people do not want agitators! They want democracy, at least weak democracy, but they're willing to wait and have it later after the agitators are sufficiently sidelined.

      Thailand is the only country in their region who was never colonized by Europe, and they achieved that by having strong kings, strong national unity, and being very politically pragmatic. Most Thais have little reason to value democracy ahead of respect for the King, or national unity. Divisive messages are common in their election politics, but also it is very unpopular. They don't really have enough experience with democracy to even do it in a way that works well for them. Making it work is a low priority for most. There is no ego-driven despot that took over. There is substantial power-sharing between all the traditionalist forces right now.

    13. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It is absolutely not clear what power the King of Thailand has right now.

      He just recently retook direct control of all royal property, which previously had been held in a sort of trust similar to the English system. A whole bunch of changes have been made over the past 6 months to give him increased power. If he actually wants to wield that power and be stuck living in Thailand instead of Germany is a whole different question, though.

      From the military perspective, a stronger king would give them a lot more power than a stronger elected government. As long as the military rules directly, their weakness is that the King could make a public statement announcing an election timeline and they would have to follow it. The King taking powers is more beneficial to them than the King being a populist. They absolutely need him because the Thai people would follow the King to their deaths. Military leaders are easy to replace, almost any soldier can serve as a general in a nation with no military enemies.

      The King does have absolute power to pardon people convicted of insulting the monarchy. His father Rama IX used that power frequently. But don't expect dissidents to get pardons while national unity is elusive.

    14. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by Noishkel · · Score: 1

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA BECAUSE ALL RIGHT WINGERS ARE NAZIS HAHAHAHAHAHA.

      You know with rapier whit like that you should write for the Daily Show. The quality of shrill leftist cries from that show really have been sub par about 2010.

    15. Re:If only he was Alt-Right this would be cool. by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      i think there's wingnuts everywhere, wether they're right or left doesnt really matter since they have the same stance : "I get to speak and you have to shut up if you dont talk like me" ... exactly the same ... so in soviet thailand they just look for whatever mistake the moment you're in the crosshairs hm ? thats original, never heard that done before in soviet somewhere else, certainly not in E 'raison d'état' U , the United Lobbies of the free world, or my personal hellgium here ... crosshair-nitpicking ... just proves the law is the law , sed lex dura lex wherever you go : onesided bullshit for the verbal brain

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. Meanwhile at Google by Kohath · · Score: 2, Informative

    If he were at Google, he might only have been doxxed, fired and blacklisted.

    1. Re:Meanwhile at Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if he pointed out that there was a gender bias towards who could be a king.

  3. It's cool, he was a Neo-Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Big Media decided to leave that tidbit out.

    1. Re:It's cool, he was a Neo-Nazi by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, censorship is in. The Thai government and the totalitarian majority in Silicon Valley have much in common.

    2. Re:It's cool, he was a Neo-Nazi by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually, considering what the Thai government is like, it's more likely him NOT being one is the problem...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. All facebook use should carry a prison sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Down with social media!

  5. No, that was the excuse by bungo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Another click bait headline. I liked Slashdot better when we had dupes every day, and what Taco did couldn't be described as editing.

    He was jailed because he was a pro-domacracy activist, and they used the suppressive laws to silence him.

    This is no different to when they used the same law to jail an activist who 'liked' a face book post.

    Oppressive government uses oppressive law to suppress dissidents. Hmmm... doesn't make a very clickable headline.

    --
    "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
    1. Re:No, that was the excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Hmmm... doesn't make a very clickable headline.

      What surprises me about this article is that the word "Thai" wasn't left off the headline and "Trump" somehow spun in instead.

      Of course, related links below include "Gender Differences", "California to secede after Trump win", " Far Right Activists", and "Neo-Nazi".

    2. Re:No, that was the excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      A socialist communist government suppresses its people?! The hell you say! You are just making it up. That never happens. /sarc

      For example last week. I saw one socialist group getting pissed off at another one then using that excuse to blame the republicans. The more I see of socialists the more I realize they have no damn idea what they are talking about other than 'let me be in charge of you and you can be at the mercy of my feelings'.

    3. Re:No, that was the excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Do you alt-right cretins need to infest EVERY Slashdot article with your shit?

    4. Re:No, that was the excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Do you 'alt-letf' douchbags need to comment on every censorship things like it is the coolest thing ever?

    5. Re:No, that was the excuse by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >He was jailed because he was a pro-domacracy activist, and they used the suppressive laws to silence him.

      Which is something I just don't get. If you're going to arbitrarily apply laws in order to lock up dissenters... just lock up the dissenters. Everybody knows what you're doing anyway, the percentage in denial who would rebel if denial was made more difficult is insignificant.

    6. Re:No, that was the excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Thailand is a democracy? They vote....in higher % than we do in the US.

    7. Re:No, that was the excuse by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Because most Thai people do not consider insulting the King to be an OK thing, they might prefer not to have the law but also they hate people who they see doing it. If they only lock him up, people only know that he is bad in the eyes of the military government. If they accuse him of insulting King Rama, they will certainly hate him.

      For the most part, central Thais are not going to question it if the King decides you are excessively meddlesome. Most of the dissidents are from other regions, and perhaps do not share as much of their culture with the central Thais.

    8. Re:No, that was the excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The alleged king is not even a king, he is a manchild acting out a power fantasy and deserves to be publicly hanged, thrown off a building, or gunned down in the street. He is an insult to what nobility should be.

      Death to the false king.

    9. Re:No, that was the excuse by stud9920 · · Score: 1

      Another click bait headline. I liked Slashdot better when we had dupes every day, and what Taco did couldn't be described as editing.

      He was jailed because he was a pro-domacracy activist, and they used the suppressive laws to silence him.

      Free Taco!

  6. Freedom of Speech by Captain+Ramage · · Score: 2

    We have an a natural born right to speech and thought. Unfortunately, not all countries observe that. This is why we must jealously guard everyone's freedom of speech, even when they choose to exercise the right to utter and state absolutely abhorrent ideas.

    1. Re:Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *had* past tense. No longer. BoR has been stripped down to reading Miranda rights and the military won't barracks soldiers in your house.

    2. Re:Freedom of Speech by TheInternet01 · · Score: 2

      There is no such thing as a natural right. Rights are a concept we developed and uphold with better morale understanding to improve the world we live in. We found when things were better for everyone, it was almost always better for the individual as well. At the end of the day, we decided this is the right way to do things, other people said it was wrong to hold their power.

      --
      Uplink Hosting - Web/email at an affordable price with high performance - https://uplinkhosting.ca/link.php?id=3
    3. Re:Freedom of Speech by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You have the right to speech and thought. Too bad that today far too many that use the former forgo the latter...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Freedom of Speech by doctorvo · · Score: 2

      There is no such thing as a natural right.

      Spoken like the totalitarian prick that you are.

    5. Re:Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as a natural right. Rights are a concept we developed and uphold with better morale understanding to improve the world we live in.

      We found when things were better for everyone, it was almost always better for the individual as well.

      At the end of the day, we decided this is the right way to do things, other people said it was wrong to hold their power.

      In other words, rights are relative?

      Never heard "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner", have you?

      You're nothing but an apologist for totalitarianism.

      But you just happen to agree with the goals of your chosen totalitarianism, so you spout bullshit like "There is no such thing as a natural right."

      Really?

      Without that assumption, we're literally running society like those two wolves and one sheep. There are no longer any fundamental rights - the only rights anyone gets are those that the wolves deign to let you have.

      I think there's just one correct response to you: FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON

      Seriously. That's the only appropriate response to your elimination of all fundamental human rights.

    6. Re:Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just observing reality. All societal concepts are created by man as a matter of fact. Did you even read the rest of the comment or just hit reply after the first sentence?

    7. Re:Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never heard "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" before, but it's a stupid argument. In an ecosystem, there would be tens to hundreds or thousands of sheep to wolves, so I suppose it would an argument the wolves would use to get the sheep to give up before voting.

    8. Re:Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At what point did they suggest the "elimination of all fundamental human rights"?

      Rights are relative, that doesn't mean some are not better than others, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be fundamental human rights.

      If a total world state existed and they removed certain rights from everyone, by definition you wouldn't have those rights, but that doesn't mean you don't deserve them, or that that wouldn't be worth fighting for.

    9. Re:Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Rights are relative"-- wow, you are advocating reversing the Enlightenment?

      Rights are natural, universal and inalienable.

      If you are not free to exercise those rights, it means you are being repressed.

    10. Re:Freedom of Speech by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This is true. I'm all in support of free speech. I don't think some of these neo-nazis should have been silenced. That said however, I cannot deny the feeling of schadenfreude that show up when inconveniences happen to bad people.

    11. Re:Freedom of Speech by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I would suggest only that we have a natural born right to freedom of thought the only way to deprive you of that right being to subject you directly to aggressive brainwashing methods or the direct removal of certain parts of the brain, leaving behind someone without any individuality at all.

      Certainly the things that you may get exposed to, which can be controlled by external forces or powers, can to a very large degree control exactly what you may think about, but short of such aforementioned aggressive methods used to prevent it, one can still always draw their own individual conclusions and create their own unique ideas. Freedom of thought is certainly a natural born right.

      Freedom of speech is not an in inborn right.... like privacy, it is something that as a civilized society we should strive to protect, but it's certainly not something that anyone is born with.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    12. Re:Freedom of Speech by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      A natural right is a philosophical construct. It's an ideal to strive for. But pragmatically speaking, a right doesn't matter if it's not protected. If the people want their rights then they have to demand that the government protect those rights. Instead I see the people becoming willing to give up those rights when it's convenient or they're afraid.

    13. Re:Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. If rights are based on what other people think you should have we are all doomed.
      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence.
      If we think our rights come from the government, society, culture or other people then we have give them the power to take away what they've given.

    14. Re:Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "wow, you are advocating reversing the Enlightenment"

      Not at all, are you only capable of arguing against straw men?

    15. Re:Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with better morale understanding

      I don't think you understand what morale is.

    16. Re:Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's just exercising his natural right to idiocy.

    17. Re:Freedom of Speech by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      Or just observing reality. All societal concepts are created by man as a matter of fact.

      Well, that's the neo-Marxist believe, but they are just as wrong about that as about everything else.

      Most people understand intuitively what science tells us: that morality and social relations are hardwired into humans. Well, except for psychopaths.

  7. Remember when Obama did this? by Kohath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Man Behind Anti-Islam Video Gets Prison Term

    1. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did anyone say the U.S.A. was a free country?

    2. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 0

      The US is becoming less so as the left is becoming more like China's Red Guard with its calls to destroy the Four Olds: Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    3. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Some of us want it to be. But evil people keep opposing us.

    4. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Man Behind Anti-Islam Video Gets Prison Term

      The problem isn't that he got a prison term. He got that for violating his probation on a different matter. The problem is that Obama made the false claim about the video pertaining to Benghazi in the first place, and that the NYT never challenged Obama's claim, nor corrected their own articles after the fact.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    5. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a sad state of affairs when you have to rely on literal Nazis to protect the country from the left's drive to literally erase and rewrite history - but that's where we are today. What's happened to this country?!

    6. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      It's also that he got a prison term. It was politically convenient to put him in prison. There are enough laws to put almost anyone in prison if the government really wants to and spends enough time and money trying to trip a person up.

    7. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Also, Obama gets to tell all the lies he wants. And if you want to complain about it, you're a crazy unhinged person. That's what we learned in 2012. The facts don't matter, especially not to the media.

      It was the final shovel of dirt on the grave of truth in US public discourse.

    8. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      It went to the extreme fringe groups. Today, moderation is seen as belonging to "the other side". I've actually been called a bleedin' hard SJW by conservatives and a nazi by liberals, just because I dared to reject either flavor of Kool-Aid.

      Fuck it, people, if you want a civil war, for fuck's sake fight it and get it over with. We in the middle are going to wait for you to duke it out and when you're done acting like little kids, rebuild the country. As we always do.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's happened to this country?!

      Half a century of socialist and communist infiltration and propaganda from Europe and the Soviet Union, plus massive immigration of people with totalitarian and socialist beliefs.

    10. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As a Canadian, I've always seen both sides of U.S.A. politics as being "right" and "far right". It's a weird state of affairs when the left starts being more insane than your right. Makes me think it's actually the right that's pushing to make the left look like crazies to make the right stronger and weaken the left.

      And as a Canadian, let me apologize for your own problems. #sad

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    11. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      You must be rich if you think you're above it. Or perhaps you think you have a specific racial heritage that won't make you a target of the anti-white haters or the pro-white haters? Or the anti-religious haters?

      Lots of people don't want a war and would just like the haters off the stage. But that's going to take more people saying no to haters and bullies on all sides, not just one side or the other.

    12. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      From over here in Europe their parties look like a far right and a "is this legal/possible/who the fuck votes for this?" right.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm more besides it. A continent away, to be exact.

      Hate all you want, but keep it on your continent. And it seems this time it's our turn to rebuild your continent after the war.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Shorter version: "I'm ignorant of some other country's politics and have trouble capturing the totality of political thought there on an ultra-simplistic linear scale."

    15. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      That's your American point of view talking. It's not ignorance, you guys are debating the differences between two extremely close shades of grey while we actually have colours in other countries.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    16. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, that's true. The centrist and moderates positions are being despised. We're in such a divisive state now that people are only seeing best friends and worst enemies with no one else. Never mind that everyone seems to treat politics as binary, "us" and "them", "left" or "right", "liberal" or "conservative. Nothing is that simple minded. But because it's being treated as one of two choices only, people think that if they know your stance on one issue that they now know your stance on all issues. It also seems to treated as a flaw if someone changes an opinion over time, when it should be a virtue to be able to change views if given newer information.

      This causes litmus tests for political parties become the norm. I've seen groups for women's rights reject conservative women from engaging, because they assume that anyone for women's rights should automatically fit a certain mold even in something so unrelated as tax policy or gun control. Other countries which have more than two viable parties are capable of shifting alliances around with different issues and finding common ground between parties.

    17. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Ok. I'm going to continue to doubt you have a good understanding of any foreign country's internal politics. Consider yourself knowledgeable if you like -- but that seems unwise.

    18. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      With what military? Europe is weak and helpless. You can't even defend yourselves, much less help anyone else. And let's not pretend that Europe gives a SHIT about Americans. You've made your viewpoint quite clear, on every occasion you can. USA out of NATO. Leave you to yourselves, build your own goddamned military. Ami go home.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    19. Re: Remember when Obama did this? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Civil war... Though, I prefer Internal War, or similar. There's nothing civil about war.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-Islam hate speech needs to be censored. They didn't censor the scientific facts behnd 9-11 Truth like fake news in America.

      ae911truth dot org

    21. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Says the guy living in a country where "communism" is evil and universal health care is satan.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    22. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes yes, we get it they're arriving by the boatload and your once formerly homogeneous populations are being enriched with doctors and lawyers. FYI we don't refer to them as colours here. The preferred nomenclature is People of Colour. Now say 3 USAs and beg for the SJW's forgiveness.

    23. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism killed three times as many people as the Nazis. Communism is literally worse than the Nazis.

      You are defending people that are worse than Nazis that would see you shot just for claiming to be educated and you think you have the moral high ground?

      Read some history and grow up.

    24. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      communism = universal health care, i.e. Canada
      communists = USSR

    25. Re:Remember when Obama did this? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you look back to the situation before WW2, the US wasn't really a military nation either. Most of what the US did concerning the war effort happened in that short period between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Question received wisdom on gender differences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    He should have just questioned the received wisdom on gender differences.

    Then he would have been fired from his job, and most of the posters who are overly-outraged at this story would be cheering on his firing.

    Who's more oppressive? "Progressives" or the Thai government?

  9. Left's favorite & unfavorite dictators by unixisc · · Score: 1, Troll

    While you have tinpot dictators like Rouhani in Iran and Maduro in Venezuela actually persecuting people at large who're not opposing the regimes but just going about their daily lives, and in Iran's case, doing it on the basis of religion, who the Left actually lionizes, you have the same Left getting into the Right for attitudes on Putin, Duterte, potentially Maha Vajiralongkorn, who only go after either their critics, or criminals like drug dealers or terrorists.

    I think I've figured how the Left picks its hated dictators. If those dictators are opposed by Muslims anywhere, like in Chechnya, Mindanao or Yala (in these 3 examples), the Left hates them. If these dictators are supported by Muslims or Muslim countries, like in cases of Iran or Venezuela, they love them. Exceptions being cases where the dictators are pro-US, like al Sisi or King Salman, where their being Muslim gets trumped. It explains why the Left was fine w/ Morsi doing a power grab in Egypt, but are furious at al Sisi keeping the Muslim Brotherhood reigned in.

    1. Re:Left's favorite & unfavorite dictators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Venezuela has done one thing right. Their gun violence has dropped by four orders of magnitude when they instituted their complete civilan gun ownership ban.

    2. Re:Left's favorite & unfavorite dictators by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thereby allowing the dictatorship to get away with anything it wants. The older political term for this was Endlösung

    3. Re:Left's favorite & unfavorite dictators by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Venezuela has done one thing right. Their gun violence has dropped by four orders of magnitude when they instituted their complete civilan gun ownership ban.

      Do you have a citation for this? Because this article says the homocide rate has continued to increase. Your claimed 10000 fold drop in gun violence seems wildly implausible, since it is unlikely that most criminals would have surrendered their weapons.

    4. Re:Left's favorite & unfavorite dictators by mjwx · · Score: 1

      While you have tinpot dictators like Rouhani in Iran and Maduro in Venezuela actually persecuting people at large who're not opposing the regimes but just going about their daily lives, and in Iran's case, doing it on the basis of religion, who the Left actually lionizes, you have the same Left getting into the Right for attitudes on Putin, Duterte, potentially Maha Vajiralongkorn, who only go after either their critics, or criminals like drug dealers or terrorists.

      I think I've figured how the Left picks its hated dictators. If those dictators are opposed by Muslims anywhere, like in Chechnya, Mindanao or Yala (in these 3 examples), the Left hates them. If these dictators are supported by Muslims or Muslim countries, like in cases of Iran or Venezuela, they love them. Exceptions being cases where the dictators are pro-US, like al Sisi or King Salman, where their being Muslim gets trumped. It explains why the Left was fine w/ Morsi doing a power grab in Egypt, but are furious at al Sisi keeping the Muslim Brotherhood reigned in.

      Erm, you have that backwards.

      Firstly, theocracy is a far-right ideology. Theocracies are about centralising power and wealth, not distributing benefits.

      Secondly, countries don't pick dictators. At best, they're deceived into voting for them and they take power for themselves. My money is still on the military removing Duerte because the military is controlled by the major political houses of the Philippines (Roxas, Quesons, Aroyos) .

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:Left's favorite & unfavorite dictators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhh. Dont facts, okay? I need to feel Ensäfën

    6. Re:Left's favorite & unfavorite dictators by stud9920 · · Score: 1

      Thereby allowing the dictatorship to get away with anything it wants. The older political term for this was Endlösung

      This is complete and utter bullshit. Firearms or no firearms, the Gestapo (or any) had the means to coerce German Jews into their death. No sane civilian would use a firearm unless under immediate threat. You would have a point if German Jews had received a letter from the Gestapo "we'll come to your home on that date and shoot you/ put you on death row". This was not the case, they were being "relocated" after being stripped of all their civil rights one by one.

      Anyway, except under immediate threat of violence (and even then, your futile act of resistance would be crushed and spun as proof that "Jews are enemies of the state"), your best chance is to take a run for it. Deportation is not an immediate threat of violence. The extermination part was only obvious in hindsight.

    7. Re:Left's favorite & unfavorite dictators by unixisc · · Score: 1

      No, theocracies are about making countries safe-spaces for an entire religion. Like Saudi Arabia and most Muslim countries are for Islam. It has nothing to do w/ distribution of benefits or wealth: oil-rich countries in the GCC do it, whereas poor theocracies, such as Sudan, don't.

      Also, I never mentioned countries picking their own dictators. I was talking about how leftist pick which dictators they like and which ones they loathe.

  10. You think that's bad? Get a load of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone in the U.S. military shared videoclips of American soldiers indiscriminately killing civilians from a gunship, and as a consequence was sentenced not to 2 years, but 35 years. Please, don't make the Thai government out as bad, they are angels in comparison.

    1. Re: You think that's bad? Get a load of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it wasn't the sharing of the videos but them killing innocent civilians.

      Also, citation needed.

    2. Re: You think that's bad? Get a load of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you not heard of Chelsea Manning?

  11. lese majeste is still a thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vajiralongkorn is a poopyhead and has a hard to spell name. I bet he's a foreigner.

  12. At least he is luckier than few... by VivereJay · · Score: 1

    Here's what happens when you post on Facebook (for God's sake!) https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

  13. Vaginalongkorn ? WTFFFFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds like a CUNT TAKING A SHIT
    zxcvxzcv

    1. Re:Vaginalongkorn ? WTFFFFF by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I thought it sounds like a brand of rice.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re: Vaginalongkorn ? WTFFFFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gary is that you? It's ya old buddy Minge.

  14. The King of Thailand sucks my dick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The King of Thailand sucks my dick with his ugly japniigger face

  15. How insecure is a divine king? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    If the words of a mere mortal scare him?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:How insecure is a divine king? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If the words of a mere mortal scare him?

      You must be sanook at parties.

      The thing is, it isn't the King who locks people up.

      The King of Thailand hasn't wielded any real political power since 1932, he's a figurehead much like the royalty of Europe. Thailand has been by large, a ill-functioning democracy interrupted by bouts of military dictatorship. Right now is one of those bouts. The Thai military staged a coup in 2014 when elections just didn't go the way they wanted. Politicians have always used the Leste Majesty laws for political and personal gain, even over the objection of the previous King who died last year. Several times he asked the parliament to remove the leste majesty laws but each time they refused. Did I mention he had no real political power?

      The ruling junta are looking to maintain power any way they can without making their government look too despotic. The previous king was a populist king, doing what was widely considered right by Thais, when people were locked up for Leste Majestey he would immediately issue a royal pardon (one of the few powers the King holds). Not sure about the new king though.

      BTW, the Thais are Buddhists, which is a reincarnation religion. So divine does not mean immortal (or godlike, which is the accurate definition, as Buddhism is an atheist religion), divine means pure. He'll die and be reincarnated like every other Buddhist.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:How insecure is a divine king? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The king has no real power, that is true.
      However Thailand is formed by the will of King Rama the 9th.
      If not for him, the country would be a poor third world country drowned in corruption an a vassal to the USA, like the Philippines e.g.
      Buddhism has gods, I suggest to reread a bit ;) Everyone who waives nirvana and reincarnates as a human (like the Dalai Lhama) is considered a god. But perhaps that is just a playing with words.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:How insecure is a divine king? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then he is unfit for the title of king, for a king that cannot or isn't willing to unite and lead his people out of a tyranny imposed by external or (worse) internal enemies of the people is no king.

      I expect from a king that he is more than a puppet. If that's all he is, replace him with some stuffed animal. It's cheaper and has the same function.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:How insecure is a divine king? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed further up the thread that you made the same defensive denial about the king's power. Does the name Narongdej ring any bells. You know the queens body guard who was murdered. Such a gentle soul that Phumiphon. And the new King, how about the name mor yorng, you know that guy who died a couple of days after being taken into custody, the hasty cremation, no autopsy. Oh, and that prison that the king has in his palace gardens, its starting to get quite a few live in occupants now, perhaps you overlooked those. Do they pay you 10 baht for each posting? You pathetic creature.

    5. Re:How insecure is a divine king? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You may not have noticed the news in Thailand the past year, but the current King is Rama X.

      Buddhism does not have Gods, though Gautama Buddha certainly believed in Gods. He made clear though that it wasn't part of the teaching, and worrying about it brings suffering.

      The Dalai Lama is a Tibetan Buddhist. That's in a whole different branch of Buddhism than Thailand. Thai Buddhism is from the Theravada branch, so the only other place with similar religion is Sri Lanka. In Theravada Buddhism even they generally follow more strictly to the traditional teachings and avoid religious veneration, often referring even to Gautama Buddha as "a monk," or "Siddhartha," his given name.

      Generally Thai people who are devoutly religious can be counted on primarily to venerate their royalty, and give humble respect to religious leaders. Do they also believe in Brahma? Yes, absolutely. As did Siddhartha. But it isn't part of Buddhism.

    6. Re:How insecure is a divine king? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Erm, yes the current king is Rama X, hence I explicitly wrote Rama IX ... no idea what the misunderstanding is.

      A good overview about gods in Buddhism you can find here: https://www.thoughtco.com/gods...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:How insecure is a divine king? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I just explained that Buddhism doesn't have gods, but that most Buddhists including Gautama Buddha believe in Gods, but explicitly told followers not to seek those answers.

      There is no need to then provide a link to try to correct my understanding. If you don't understand, you could ask questions. If you think you do understand, you could express that understanding. But why link? No need for a link, I'm right here and I can explain it to you. If you don't understand it, how would you possibly convince me?

      I didn't read your link but I can almost guarantee by the ignorance it was presented with that it involves one of the Mahayana branches of Buddhism and isn't even the same branch of Buddhism as the Thais follow. Thais are Therevada Buddhists, they follow any of the "sutras" and other stuff added later, they only consider the Pali Canon (the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama) to be religious texts. Any other writings are merely the ideas of some person, maybe educational but not special or part of the religion.

      If you were intending to talk about Rama IX you'll really need more words to establish a point, because he didn't found modern Thailand. If it existed due to him that would require a more existential perspective that would now have transferred to Rama X. If it hasn't transferred, it would have to be a more secular historical perspective, and there he wasn't involved.

    8. Re:How insecure is a divine king? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Rama IX formed modern Thailand by giving advice and the population/governments followed his advice.

      I'm not particular interested in your interpretation of Buddhism, though. And you seem not to know much about "Buddhistic gods", hence I gave you a link.

      Well, if you are not interested in the link, fine :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:How insecure is a divine king? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In that sort of existential argument, it passed to Rama X and now he's giving advice.

      You're not interesting in Thai Buddhism, that's fine don't credit me with the beliefs though! The link you gave says that "no," Buddhists don't have Gods. But it also says that in Buddhism you can define words very very broadly so you can also make the answer to be "yes." But it is clear that for the meaning of "God" used by all the major religions, the answer is no.

      The real problem with the link is that it is about a different religion than Thai Buddhism, which I tried to explain to you. That link talks about Mahayana Buddhism. Thai Buddhism is Theravada Buddhism. All the tantras and related deities in your link are part of Mahayana Buddhism, those are all based on later teachings that contradict what Gautama Buddha taught. It is not part of Thai Buddhism, those are not seen as Buddhist religious works. They diverted 1500 years ago, with the Theravada Buddhists following only the teachings believed to be from Gautama Buddha.

      Links do no good if you don't read them. You just did a google search for a link that you thought would support your position, and didn't even spend enough time with the material to figure out what it says. It is not hard to understand; Mahayana teachings have as much relevance to Thai Buddhism as the New Testament has to Jews. And the difference is almost exactly the same!

    10. Re:How insecure is a divine king? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Thai Buddhism has no gods.
      Basically all Buddhists have no gods.

      They simply accept that there are gods, but they don't pray to them. Then comes the complex stuff with avatars and reborn gods on earth ...

      I dont get what your Rama IX/X thing is about. Thailand today is formed by Rama IX. Rama X did nothing os far, but lets see.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:How insecure is a divine king? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Thai Buddhism has no gods.
      Basically all Buddhists have no gods.

      They simply accept that there are gods, but they don't pray to them.

      Closer, but still off.

      Buddhism has no Gods. Buddhists often do have Gods. Buddhism asserts plainly that it does not address issues relating to Gods other than to teach you that if you have attachment to Gods, you will likely suffer for it. Metaphysical belief in Gods is seen as neutral and subjective; it is the attachment, the idea that belief in Gods is important which they reject.

      You make no point about Rama IX having formed Thailand. His rule started a decade after the modern Thai state is considered to have been formed, so you can't claim he founded it. Therefore, you'd have to say something with meaning. If it existed because he willed it, because he was King, that passes to the new King instantly, there is no action involved. There is not a historically reasonable argument that exists in normal history books that places that sort of credit with Rama IX; he's widely credited with doing good deeds and winning the love of the people, he's widely seen as a King who managed the legacy wealth of the royal family for the cultural benefit of the people, similar to how Queen Elizabeth II is viewed. After military coups it was widely regarded that the King could make a public statement encouraging new elections, and the military would then do it. So he can certainly be given credit for specific acts to maintain the Thai state, but maintaining it implies it existed on its own already. And indeed, he was able to become King of Thailand when his brother died precisely because the country existed. You'd need a real point, supported by actual words, not just a passing claim that is unsupported, because your claim contradicts all of the common perspectives on his rule; even the perspectives that get their metaphysics directly from the monarchy would have a hard time with your claims.

  16. Coming soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're about one BLM spasm away from jailing people here for their "racism."

  17. Hyperbole at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not a crime in Thailand to share an article on Facebook. That's not what the guy was jailed for.

    Journalistic Standards. Slashdot needs to learn some.

  18. Substitute the facts with your opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The facts don't matter, especially not to the media.

    There are many fact checking websites which provide unbiased data regarding the truthfulness of our political leaders. Let's examine a few. Keep in mind that they are comparing 8 years of Obama's presidency to 100+ days of Trump.

    A search of Snopes.com articles concerning Barack Obama (329) vs Donald Trump (865).

    Politifact.com summary of Barack Obama vs Donald Trump. The two graphs are very informative.

    FactCheck.org summary of Obama's Whoppers vs Trump's Whoppers.

    While none of these sites gave Barack Obama a free ride, FactCheck.org declared Donald Trump the King of Whoppers. I think that Burger King has a trademark infringement case here.

    If you dismiss these sites as biased, or blame the mainstream media for twisting the facts, then the problem is probably you. You have let the semantic web tailor an experience that feeds you all of the misinformation (alternative facts) that aligns with your world view. As such, changing your paradigm would be uncomfortable, so you double-down on all of the stories that have been proven false (Pizzagate, Seth Rich's murder, etc...). If these stories rile you up, then the objective is met. The whole point is to stir up the crazies.

    As such, you need to continually verify that you are not being brainwashed by either the right or the left. You need to wait-out sensational stories until they are fully vetted. You need to focus on facts, not bluster on with opinions.

    1. Re:Substitute the facts with your opinion by Kohath · · Score: 1

      They cheerlead for lies and many times reluctantly acknowledge the facts days or weeks or sometimes years later.

      And then change the subject (to Trump or WTF-ever), because the agenda comes first, last, and always.

      (Trump says dumb stuff. He's also bad. So what? We would have Romney as Predident now if the media wanted someone good. They clearly don't -- agenda first, last, and always.)

    2. Re:Substitute the facts with your opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang, you're right, I should have voted for Romney so I didn't have Trump now.

    3. Re:Substitute the facts with your opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you dismiss these sites as biased, or blame the mainstream media for twisting the facts, then the problem is probably you. You have let the semantic web tailor an experience that feeds you all of the misinformation (alternative facts) that aligns with your world view. As such, changing your paradigm would be uncomfortable, so you double-down on all of the stories that have been proven false

      tl;dr:
      Heads I win, tails you lose.

  19. So the same as he UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this news? Its the same in the "free world".

  20. Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a kingdom and you don't mess with the king. Enjoy your America freedom just a bit more.

  21. When you strike at a king, you must kill him. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Ralph Waldo Emerson

  22. I'm not generally pro-repression by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    But I could get behind the idea of jailing people for posting to Facebook.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  23. Inform yourself about Thailand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people don't give a shit about Thailand except for the sun, sex and food, but if you do care to learn more about the political situation here are some good links to English language sources:

    https://uglytruththailand.wordpress.com
    https://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com
    https://www.facebook.com/zenjournalist
    https://www.facebook.com/ann.norman.334

    Two good books to read are "The King Never Smiles" by Paul Handley, and "A Kingdom in Crisis" by Andrew Macgregor Marshall. Both are banned in Thailand. The situation there is much worse than the topic of this thread.

    1. Re:Inform yourself about Thailand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also "The Damage Done" by Warren Fellows.

      The account of him listening to a man scream as they lanced a lump in his neck that was moving - and roaches spilled out, from where something crawled and laid its eggs... is .. uh

      memorable

  24. If we had such a law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump would be convicted of causing embarrassment to himself.

  25. Sounds reasonable. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    I'd apply this to all people who post on Facebook.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video