Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

15 Years In Jail For Clicking 'Like'

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the this-is-not-the-way dept.

Censorship 449

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."

cancel ×

449 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fuck the king (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177356)

Fuck that greasy yellow slope

Re:Fuck the king (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177962)

Ahhh when practiced correctly freedom of speech can bring so much laughter

Why indulge? (5, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177360)

Why do people continue to go to countries that suck?

Re:Why indulge? (-1, Troll)

pro151 (2021702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177380)

Indeed! Why do people continue to go to any of the countries that are hostile to the U.S.?

Re:Why indulge? (5, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177382)

I haven't been to the US since they introduced the eye scan for citizens of my home country at entry.

Shame. It was quite a nice place compared to much of the world.

Re:Why indulge? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38178188)

I haven't been to the US since they introduced the eye scan for citizens of my home country at entry.

I call bullshit.

1. You're from the UK [slashdot.org] ... not some terrorist backwater country.

Recent riots in Britain had few deaths (care to guess why and follow our example?)

2. US collects 10 fingerprints and a digital photograph:

The officer will scan your fingerprints and take your photograph with a digital camera.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_1336.html [state.gov]
http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0525.shtm [dhs.gov]

There was a pilot program like 5 years ago where you could use an eye scan to speed through security (you had to signup for it and submit a scan before hand)... and that was never a general requirement, and it was discontinued.

Re:Why indulge? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178280)

So you are Canadian?

Re:Why indulge? (1)

jimpop (27817) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177384)

To prep for the inevitable ground forces and occuation?

Re:Why indulge? (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177430)

Why do people continue to go to countries that suck?

That's exactly why I haven't been to the US during the past 20 years, but I have been to Thailand twice in that same time.

Re:Why indulge? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177608)

Makes sense, the US doesn't generally let pedo's back in once they skip the country.

Re:Why indulge? (-1, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177822)

Bravo sir! Smarmy anti-American types who think visiting a country best referred to as Sicksextouristland is better than the United States.

Re:Why indulge? (2)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177966)

You know why, right? Many of the Sicksextourists _are_ americans.

Re:Why indulge? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177572)

There are no countries that don't suck. There are only countries that suck comparatively less in certain areas.

Re:Why indulge? (2)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177838)

That needn't be the case - countries are quite capable of learning from each other, just as people are. Of course, capability and willingness aren't generally the same thing, but that's a choice and not an intrinsic property.

Re:Why indulge? (1, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177766)

Yeah, why would anyone visit the US?

Oh, you mean this is Thailand?

Carry on...

Re:Why indulge? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178164)

Better stay out of Europe if lese majeste laws are a concern to you.

Germany, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Switzerland, Poland and the Netherlands have laws of this nature in force.

Re:Why indulge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38178296)

That's ironic considering most of these countries have no "Majeste" to speak of. But yeah, stay away from Spain, that guy murdered his brother.

Re:Why indulge? (0)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178204)

"Why do people continue to go to countries that suck?"

Sex tourism, end of story.

Revered? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177370)

as efforts to defend the widely reviled royal family from criticism have ramped up

FTFY

Re:Revered? (2)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177570)

Actually, you fixed nothing. The Thai king is indeed widely revered.

Re:Revered? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177678)

If that were true this law wouldn't be necessary.

Re:Revered? (4, Insightful)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177724)

Widely revered does not mean universally revered.

Re:Revered? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177760)

    And how would you know that, if it is illegal to say otherwise?

    That said, the king is an old man in poor health. His son is the worst kind of corrupt playboy who deserves to be criticised for many things.

    All these prosecutions are meant to terrorize the population so there will be no dissent when the old king goes.

Re:Revered? (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178080)

Which is probably related to the fact that you can't openly discuss the political role of the king in Thailand.

I prefer this... (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177372)

It's better to be told in advance when you're going to be beaten, have property confiscated or simply be whisked off for saying the wrong thing. Wastes a lot less time than letting you mouth off until you're speaking loudly enough for others to hear.

Bullshit Laws! (2)

Das Auge (597142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177376)

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?

Re:Bullshit Laws! (5, Funny)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177412)

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?

Girth (5, Funny)

Das Auge (597142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177590)

My girth assures me that I am, indeed, an America.

Re:Bullshit Laws! (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177626)

Are you sure you're an America?

He's from the RIAA. He speaks for the whole country whether the rest of them like it or not.

Re:Bullshit Laws! (4, Informative)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177882)

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.

democracy (2, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177388)

efforts to defend the widely revered royal family from criticism have ramped up.

That, right there, is the critical point. From my visits to Thailand, I also got the impression that they really love their king.

As a democratic country, they can agree to not wanting to have criticism of the royal family, can they not? Remember that this is not the USA - there is no 1st amendment in Thailand. With that in mind - test yourself on how devoted you really are to the concept of democracy. If you think that there are limits to what a democracy can democratically decide to do - who gets to set those limits?

Re:democracy (5, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177476)

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?

Re:democracy (5, Insightful)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178038)

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.

Re:democracy (3, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178160)

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.

Re:democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38178268)

In the US the press may be free from government interference but they are not free from corporate/monied interest interference.

Re:democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177480)

That's the problem with democracy. Read "In Defense of Anarchism" by Robert P. Woulfe.

Re:democracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177610)

Better than the plurality of problems with anarchism.

Re:democracy (2)

k8to (9046) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177484)

I think it's obvious that democracy isn't a proof against bad results, and anyone who says otherwise is usually politically grandstanding, or hiding something, or both.

The who gets to set the limits problem is pretty thorny though. Our (US) byzantine system of procedure for doing it seems better than a simple vote, or a simple law pass, or a single office or bureau getting to pick. But it has problems too.

Re:democracy (2)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177950)

I'm not so sure. The US system has multiple entities, all elected by the same group of people, making the laws, certifying the laws and then evaluating the legality of those laws. (Well, for those judges who are elected, it's the same group of voters.) This means there are no meaningful checks and balances, which ultimately means everything really is decided by a simple vote. It merely has the illusion of not being.

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. His theory was that democracy ultimately degenerates into a semi-dictatorship the moment a populist leader takes charge of a nation where the majority are ill-informed and poorly equipt to judge the merits of any argument. I would agree that this is part of the solution, though there's plenty of evidence that highly educated people are no less likely to be swayed by illogical but emotively convenient arguments and that prejudices are actually more firmly fixed rather than remedied through intellectual debate. There needs to be an additional ingredient.

The UK's approach, the House of Lords, has some nice elements. It's theoretically a meritocracy, since you don't just get given titles you have to earn them. It's also partially isolated as those who agree to hold title are (ok, were) barred from voting or standing in local or national elections. It meant that the views of the Lords could not dominate or sway the views of the general populace AND that the general populace had no means of dominating or swaying the views of the Lords. If the two Houses agreed, it was because there was something to the arguments put forward beyond being advocated by a rich lobbyist. Not always a whole lot more, but at least something. The system was flawed, yes, and has become increasingly so, but a consensual split-brain approach is definitely worth further examination by other democracies.

It is better to learn from the mistakes and strengths of these ideas than to stagnate.

Re:democracy (2, Insightful)

Chewbacon (797801) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177490)

As far as asking us to respect the king they love so much, keep in mind Americans have come to love their freedom of speech. That said: Fuck that king. I'll shit in his shoes. Bet he has a severe case of short dick syndrome. You can tell him I said it.

Re:democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177588)

Would I have to avoid Thailand after modding this up?

Re:democracy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177752)

No, you don't have to do anything. The CIA will render you to the nearest Thai airport and hand you over to their system of justice, free of charge.

Re:democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177748)

"Fuck King-shit Bhumibol and all his family of scumbag"

Now I should remind never to step in Thailand.

Re:democracy (4, Informative)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177826)

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.

Re:democracy (2)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178000)

The King likes to maintain the fiction that he has nothing to do with these laws, or with the army overthrowing the elected government whenever he feels like it. He might usually issue pardons, but he does not always do that. How is that "not being above criticism"? Sometimes he pardons someone after they've been harassed by the judicial system ... and sometimes he doesn't. Better stay on his good side, eh?

Re:democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177504)

So democratic ideals involve silencing opposing voices?

Re:democracy (1)

awrowe (1110817) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178258)

Not usually a conspiracy theorist but if you don't recognise that this already happens in every western 'democracy' you care to name, then you need some observation training.

In this instance, Thailand is simply being more open about the process.

Re:democracy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177518)

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" [wikipedia.org] .

Re:democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177750)

Very true. The thing is in the US you have tyranny of the majority too... I know of no country where this isn't true. Not in Europe, not in Australia, and definitely not in the US. Who is left? I'm literally afraid to point out one of the most apparent examples of this so I won't. People are killed by or at least through government actions (the result of the legal process) for undesirable speech in the US and the majority supports it. The method is indirect and always inhumane. Most of Europe will lock you up too for a number of different speeches one might give that are today very unpopular. There are other communications which Europeans censor and lock people up over. I almost forgot. Canada also has a few similar laws. In fact... many 1st world countries now have in place systems to censor. The excuse seems to be the same. None-the-less we live in a world which can't stand certain ideas.

Re:democracy (0)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177936)

"Individual rights" being defined either by the majority or by a sufficiently loud minority.

Thanks for playing.

Re:democracy (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178058)

Or in a very difficult to amend Constitution.

Re:democracy (4, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178064)

I question the "absolute" part. There has to be a sensible balance between individual rights and governmental rights. If liberty tops all other factors, the government can do nothing because there are no rights left to be had. There are only so many to go around. Government should not have excessive rights, it shouldn't even have 50% of the rights, but it can't have none at all. The same is true of any other collective entity (corporations, special interest groups, etc). They, too, should have rights but by giving them rights that can't be infringed, you have to take away the right to infringe on those rights from everyone else. It isn't zero-sum, but it IS bounded.

The problem in the US and other Western democracies is that the rights of entities other than individuals have become excessive. That is a natural property of the free market, since corporate rights are cheaper than individual rights and a "free market" implicitly gives 100% of the liberty to the corporate entities. You've got to have a system where rights to non-individuals are only given according to a demonstrated and legitimate need rather than a desire.

Thailand's system is improperly balanced, but it would be unfair to say it's any worse balanced than anyone else's. It's merely easier to see for most of us because we're on the outside of Thailand. Outsiders always spot flaws and defects with greater ease than insiders.

Re:democracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177522)

Thailand has taken lese majesty really seriously for a long time, but there's more to it now.
The ruling junta has been using this law to prosecute a lot of their political opponents in the king's name, pretending that criticizing them is the same as offending him.

"No person, no idea, and no religion deserves to be illegal to insult." --RMS

Who is "they" (1)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177550)

I've never been to Thailand, so maybe they really are enamored with the king. However, when it's illegal to say otherwise, who won't say they love the king? This reminds me of Napoleon Bonaparte's election, where voting consisted of checking yes or no to the question "Do you vote for Napoleon? Sign here."

Re:Who is "they" (0)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177604)

Thai people outside of the country, who are not subject to the laws, also adore him. He is genuinely and truly very well liked. The laws are a consequence of him being liked, not the other way around.

Re:Who is "they" (1)

k8to (9046) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177644)

I hadn't heard of the irregularities in Napoleonic elections. Some googling turned up Victor Hugo's writings on the topic. http://www.online-literature.com/victor_hugo/napoleon-the-little/45/ [online-literature.com]

Are there other places I should read?

Re:Who is "they" (3, Informative)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177850)

Just to expand on this slightly: The Napoleon in your link is Napoleon III [wikipedia.org] , the bumbling fool who fancied himself a military genius but pretty much lost all his major war adventures. He was nothing like Napoleon I [wikipedia.org] , who lived 50 years earlier, and brought the ideals of the French revolution to all of Europe.

Re:Who is "they" (1)

Nick_13ro (1099641) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178150)

Just to expand on this slightly: The Napoleon in your link is Napoleon III [wikipedia.org] , the bumbling fool who fancied himself a military genius but pretty much lost all his major war adventures. He was nothing like Napoleon I [wikipedia.org] , who lived 50 years earlier, and brought the ideals of the French revolution to all of Europe.

You're funny. Napoleon the III was indeed a military disaster compared with Napoleon I, but Bonaparte certainly was no champion of revolutionary ideals. He was only a champion of himself. He undermined the old regime only to the extent required to keep his own dynasty afloat. He made kings of his relatives and he crowned himself emperor. Not to mention he made quite clear his opinion about revolutionary ideals: “Vanity made the [French] Revolution; liberty was only a pretext.” And he was right too. If anybody cared about any liberty nonsense he could not have ended up being worshiped. People cared about the liberty propaganda to the extent that it massaged their egos and boosted their sense of self worth. Napoleon's merit was realizing that and managed to do a better job at it as an autocrat than any elected professional liars.

Re:democracy (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177554)

If you have elections but it's illegal to criticize the government or the heads of state, is that a democracy? You can vote, but I can't tell you why you should be voting? To me that is a joke election, like the one-party states like to hold to show their 99% approval rate.

Re:democracy (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177614)

The king is not elected, and he has no real power. There is no law against criticizing the elected government, and I gather it is pretty popular to do so.

Re:democracy (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177800)

The King most definitely has power.

Re:democracy (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178024)

Lese majeste laws are pretty common in Europe. For example people have been fined in Poland for dissing visiting monarchs, the Pope etc.

Re:democracy (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178102)

The Bush-era advocacy of the harassment, arrest and even assassination of critics of the government meant that it was illegal for 8 years to criticize the government or the head of state. It's extremely dubious as to whether it's legal now. By your argument, the US ceased to be a democracy during that time and possibly into the present. Certainly the Occupy protesters in Oakland would argue that the US has ceased to be a democracy on those grounds.

At the same time, can you honestly tell me that the US is no different from the one-party states you refer to? It may have a lot of similarities at present (detention without review, torture, police brutality, espionage against its own citizens, etc) but it's still no Iran.

So clearly it's not an on/off thing, it's a spectrum. The US has slid down that spectrum but is still over the halfway mark. Only just, but nonetheless. As such, then yes. Something CAN be a democracy and not have all the attributes one might consider ideal.

Re:democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177630)

Total Godwin trap

Anyway. Its extremely rare to find anyone advocating democracy without a (potentially unwritten) constituional framework that restricts the majority from imposing gross restrictions on "natural" rights. Nobody thinks democracy works at all reasonably without checks and balances, human rights legislation, independent judiciary, free press, rule of law, blah blah blah. And as to who ultimately dynamically sets those limits - its generally the conscience of the military top brass / inteliigence services deciding to have a coup, measured against the likelihood of successful all out rebellion (which normally entails widespread desertion or foreign support) . Which is why its so important not to have an insane military, or rather one far more committed to the ideal of the nation as a concept than to any political or religious ideology.

Re:democracy (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177686)

As other people aready said, Democracy needs a minimum set of liberties to work properly. I just don't know if the liberty to remove those liberties should be granted. There are countries that have them, others that don't, and when a set of strong enough people decides they should go without Democracy, they get their wishes anyway, whatever the rules say. By the other way, that limitation could damage a country, but that is also hypotetical.

One thing is for sure. Once a country doesn't respect that minimum set of liberties, it stops being a Democracy, so the question has no meaning in that context.

Also, there are a couple of factors missing here. The royal familiy wouldn't be doing such kind of thing if they were really loved by the people, and there is nothing forcing anybody to travel to an undemocratic country.

Re:democracy (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177872)

The King is a constitutional monarch like Queen Elizabeth. He has no control over what laws are passed or how they are enforced. The only point he has any power to step in is after people have been sentenced when he routinely pardons them.

Re:democracy (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178040)

Here are a few things to think about from you post.
1. Who decides what the "minimum set of liberties" is? Not being able to publicly criticize the ceremonial head of state does not make Thailand undemocratic. The Thai people could elect a government who could strike down the law. They have democratically chosen not to do that. What you think is the "minimum set of liberties" is you own personal opinion may be different that other people in the world.

2. The royal family is not the body that is bringing charges or prosecuting people; the elected government is. We have no information on whether or not the royal family agrees or disagrees with these charges. The king can not change laws; only the democratically elected government can.

3. I doubt very much if anyone would be arrested for stating "Abolish the lese majeste laws because they are being misused" as it is a comment about the law and not the royal family. One could be arrested for saying "Abolish the lese majeste laws because the royal family are idiots" because that comment breaks the law.

Re:democracy (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178142)

If you divide up liberties rather than giving them all to one group, then no one group ends up with the liberty to remove the minimum set of liberty. The more you split the brain and require a consensus between those divisions that cannot influence each other in order to remove any liberty at all from anyone for any reason, the more likely it is that such power will be used sensibly. Consensus politics tends to fail when camps do have influence across partitions because then the consensus doesn't really exist. One group is making all the decisions.

Re:democracy (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177782)

Or maybe you just got that impression because everybody who does not really love their king risks life in jail?

Re:democracy (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177784)

Thailand isn't particularly democratic. There are elections, and occasionally populist politicians win, but there's an entrenched, deeply conservative, power base that includes the King, the military, and some political parties. The fact that there's a coup or a threat of a coup whenever reform looks possible indicates they still have a lot of clout.

Re:democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177884)

A question for the posters from the UK in the audience: with due consideration, how much could having laws regarding saying things that might put the monarchy in dim view reduce your GDP?

Re:democracy (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177954)

Well, first of all being a legal state limits a democracy. You can't just have a vote on who to exile/execute like in the good old days in ancient Athens. Even the majority has to respect the rights of an individual. And free speech should be a universal human right.

Re:democracy (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178068)

I'm committed to the concept of constitutional democracy, in which the ability of the voters to pass legislation that violates certain inalienable rights, is restricted. Ironically, those restrictions can be enacted democratically, if you outline them abstractly without cases of special pleading, and explain why (for example) the right to free speech protects everyone, and the downsides of it (e.g. you have to let people say that they don't like the king) can be addresses by... more free speech (e.g. the people who love the old guy can say so too).

Re:democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38178136)

I hear that the King doesn't care for these laws; its the government and police that draw them up.

Re:democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38178234)

"The King Never Smiles" is an excellent read to find out why Thais love their king so dearly.

law used for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177394)

that law is used for getting competition jailed for 15 years

Pesky foreigners (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177420)

Don't they know their laws don't apply to Americans!

Re:Pesky foreigners (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177818)

If you visit them they do while you are there...

The King of Thailand can suck my balls. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177444)

When I first saw this story a month or two ago I thought the same thing only a little more forceful: release him or we send a SEAL team to do it.

Re:The King of Thailand can suck my balls. (1)

slippyblade (962288) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177544)

Except that in the Good 'Ole USofA we routinely arrest and detain, often without trial, citizens of other nations. We cover it up with nonsense like "security" and "copyright". If we feel the need to get outraged by this kind of behaviour we need look no further than our own shores.

Very true. (4, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178208)

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.

when in rome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177546)

... bow to the emperor as the romans do. If you can't, stay in your own country.

Fuck the king of Thailand (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177548)

Fuck the king of Thailand
And while we're at it, fuck all the king and queens in the world, off with their heads, if they don't like it they can abdicate.

Re:Fuck the king of Thailand (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177812)

Why not extend that to presidents? They can just not get elected if they don't want to be assasinated.

Re:Fuck the king of Thailand (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177960)

A reverse lottery? Oh, memories of a Sliders episode... to adapt:

For power and wealth you must buy lottery tickets. Each week, a set of winners is chosen... and euthanised[tm].

All in favour?

Re:Fuck the king of Thailand (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38178196)

I'd prefer 'after-elections'. 4 years or so after your term of office ends there is an election where people vote if they were satisfied with what you achieved in office. If they are not, you're sent to prison for low level positions, and executed for anything high up.

Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177586)

Did the US citizen post the link while in thailand or while elsewhere?

Re:Question... (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177904)

The link in the summary provides all the details. Click and ye shall find.

Obligatory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177592)

I fart in king Bhumibol's general direction. His mother was a binturong and his father smelt of durians.

live in thailand? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177642)

Do you live in Thailand and you hate your neighbor? tell the police that the neighbor said something bad about the king they will jail him/her and he/she will probably die in jail !

Re:live in thailand? (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177886)

Don't think it hasn't been done. It's one of the many ways the law is abused.

Ought to add another 25 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177656)

for flaunting local laws (and trying to piss on something, someone else values).

Christ... the state basically murders you for less here... lol... circumvents of course... but in the end, lol!

Way to go, Thailand. (4, Funny)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177764)

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.

Quick! (0)

RandomAvatar (2487198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177780)

Everyone post, like, and share articles that are unflattering to the Thai monarchy!

Re:Quick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177878)

Unless you're in America. If you are and post such things to FB then US police will show up just to pepper spray you in the face.

Cnut's (1)

Blade (1720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177938)

Someone needs to show these guys some useful fables.

Insult #47 (3, Funny)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177956)

Personally, I believe the King carrying such a long sword clearly is a futile attempt to compensate for other shortcomings.

Re:Insult #47 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38178220)

Like!

All hail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177976)

King Bum Ball? Are you sure this didn't happen in State College, PA?

What I feel is very wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38178184)

What I think is extremely wrong with the case of the US Citizen is that the comments he made were made here in the US, where it is protected speech... He then later travels to Thailand, and is arrested... He broke no laws while in Thailand, but was arrested for something he did in the US...

I would hope that the US bans travel to Thailand until this is resolved... or at least posts some sort of travel advisory... Any sort of economic sanctions? maybe stop US companies from exporting to or importing from Thailand?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>