Recently, charges were laid against a popular Thai Youtuber because she criticized a dress worn by Ms. Thailand. The dress in question is designed by a fashion company run by a member of the royal family, Princess Sirivannavari Nariratanna. National law makes it illegal to criticize or speak ill of the royal family, although this only applies to the king, queen, and immediate successors to the throne. Sirivannavari Nariratanna is not an immediate heir, but there is still an argument to be made that she has been defamed. She has filed no lawsuit, but Thai law allows for people to sue for defamation on behalf of others.
As an American, I look at this and think that these are some odd laws. I enjoy living in a country where I can call out president D.J. and make fun of his hair, and I can call our oldest Supreme Court justice "Skeletor" if I'm feeling facetious or "The Notorious RBG" if I'm feeling reverent. Upcoming speaker of the house? She's Italian, I'll call her Nanny Pepperoni. I can refer to Alxandria Ocasio-Cortez as Alexandria Santa-Anna-Pinta-Nina-Maria-Quintinilla-Poco-Loco-en-el-Coco-Buffalo-Buffalo-Buffalo-Buffalo-Buffalo-Buffalo-Buffalo-Buffalo-Pinocchio-Picasso-Ocasion-Cortez. I can (and have) tell Steve King to his face that he's ugly.
So long as I stick in this country, I can call Princess Srivannavari Nariratanna simply "Siri."
Coincidentally, also the name of my girlfriend.
But if I were to move to Thailand, then I'd possibly be in trouble, if abbreviating her full noble name was considered a disrespectful slur.
It's interesting, because when I first saw the headline, I thought that someone was fined in the United States for criticizing a dress. Obviously, there is no legal basis for fining someone for disliking a dress, none whatsoever, so I thought that the story was ridiculous. However, when I found out that this was under Thai jurisdiction, I conceded that this person was subject to Thai law.
Granted, as a very Western individual I find this a bit strange. I would also make the case that this is against natural law, as Western philosophers have opined in past centuries. However, national law in Thailand is what it is, and I do believe that it should be supported and followed. I might vote for something else, but the actual people implementing the law need to simply follow the authority commissioning them.
Long story short, if this person wanted to criticize a dress made by fashion company run by a tertiary royal, she should have done so outside of her country's jurisdiction. Otherwise, she did technically break the law and does have to pay the legal penalty for that. Since I would argue that the national law in this case goes against natural law and humankind's inherent right to freedom of speech, though, I do think that an appropriate course for action in defying her country's laws lies in a form of civil protest, or in applying for asylum in another country that will recognize her rights. Should she opt for the latter, I suppose that she's free from Thai jurisdiction, although the country letting her in would explicitly have to take her on asylum claims so that it wouldn't have to honor any agreements to return criminal expats (if it had agreements with Thailand to begin with).
Anyway, I bring this up if only because it raises some interesting legal conversations. I do find courtroom topics and legal philosophy all very interesting. There's a certain intellectual feast to be had, and people like me who love the generating discussions with the Socratic method thrive off of this.
24601
- 2
2 Comments
Recommended Comments