Jump to content
  • entries
    697
  • comments
    2,107
  • views
    448,854

Free Speech in Thailand


Jean Valjean

3,746 views

:kaukau: 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

  • Upvote 2

2 Comments


Recommended Comments

+1 for the sentiments of the freedom of speech, but a symbolic -1 for not having the same beliefs as me when it come to respecting certain laws, but I take back a -1/2 because I can tell your belief is thought-out and fair.

 

Anyway, here's the first quote that came to mind while reading this:

 

An associate at a Washington law firm once told me that a Chinese intern at the same firm confessed her perplexity that many Americans criticized President Clinton so harshly and vocally. When told this was common she replied, “But why does the government let them?” Now that’s the voice of the statist.

Link to comment

While royal stuff is interesting to me as it is alien to everyday American life, situation s such as this shows its evil and reminds that the placement of individuals above others based on blood to be as much of an abomination of Man like slavery. It is the interest of America to protect such freedoms from frivolous antiquities such as this law. But in our rush to defend the sentience of all humans, we must also come to recognize that not everyone wants the responsibility of inherent freedom and others are simply unable to do so because the safety of family comes before everything in the face of heighty, bloody bullies.

 

I hope that she is spared any harsh treatment for such a minute offense, God bless this soul.

it reminds me of the despotic barbarians in Pakistan calling for the death of that one woman because she thought differently (at least her views are more logical than that dry sea of madness).

 

 

 

+1 for the sentiments of the freedom of speech, but a symbolic -1 for not having the same beliefs as me when it come to respecting certain laws, but I take back a -1/2 because I can tell your belief is thought-out and fair.

 

Anyway, here's the first quote that came to mind while reading this:

 

An associate at a Washington law firm once told me that a Chinese intern at the same firm confessed her perplexity that many Americans criticized President Clinton so harshly and vocally. When told this was common she replied, “But why does the government let them?” Now that’s the voice of the statist.

 

Fascinating quote

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...