Webmaster Convicted For Not Being Fast Enough In Deleting Comments That Insulted Thai King
from the but-given-a-suspended-sentence dept
For a few years now we've covered how the Thai government's ridiculous "lese majeste" laws that forbid insulting the monarchy have been used repeatedly to censor open forums and arrest or intimidate critics. In one case, which we wrote about a few years ago, the webmaster for the popular Thai site Prachatai was arrested for failing to delete comments of users on the site (not written or approved by her) that were deemed offensive to the monarchy fast enough. The post and the comments happened in 2008... but the woman, Chiranuch Premchaiporn (and better known as Jiew), wasn't arrested until 2010, right after she returned from a trip abroad where she was speaking about the importance of internet freedom.With an awful lot of public attention on the trial -- and just as the World Economic Forum was about to meet in Bangkok -- the court found her guilty -- but also gave her a suspended sentence and a small fine. While that beats the 20 years in prison she could have faced, plenty of people are still pointing to the massive chilling effects such a conviction has on a free and open internet. Certainly, webmasters will have tremendous incentive to limit interaction and comments from the public.
At a time when countries who want to thrive and flourish should be encouraging greater and more widespread use of the internet, convicting a webmaster because the government doesn't like some comments that others left on a website is exactly the wrong approach. It goes against basic principles of free speech and properly applying liability. Yes, lots of countries (including the US at times) have been chipping away at such basic and fundamental ideas online, but it's still disappointing to see countries effectively guaranteeing a lack of openness and innovation within their own borders thanks to moves like this one.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, chiranuch premchaiporn, jiew, prachatai, thailand, world economic forum
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Thai King fits that description.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There, hope you don't have any plans to go to Thailand any time soon, Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rules in Thailand are very well understood
But that doesn't make you right when you call the Thai people stupid for sticking with a monarchy. Thailand is the only Asian nation to have gone several centuries without being occupied by a foreign power. Thailand serves some of the best food in the world, and is the breadbasket of Asia. Thailand is not a stinking cesspool of filth and genocide like Cambodia, and is considerably more free than Burma, Cambodia or Laos, its closest neighbors.
Yes, maybe it sounds silly to have laws protecting a monarch, but when's the last time you heard of a Thai college student being fined $675,000 for illegal downloading? Also, no one ever goes to prison for getting or providing an abortion in Thailand.
Thailand's not a perfect country, but at this point in time it would behoove most Americans to STFU about other countries and their practices, most of which pale into insignificance when compared to our Wall Street driven mores.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The rules in Thailand are very well understood
Also the king and queen are generally well liked among Thai people so they must be doing something right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The rules in Thailand are very well understood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The rules in Thailand are very well understood
how the fuck would you know, nobody is allowed to say otherwise or they go to jail for 20 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The rules in Thailand are very well understood
Its not like the gestapo will inform on you...
You wouldn't say or write it in public if you disagree with the monarchy, but among trusted people you are free to say what you like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The rules in Thailand are very well understood
More stupid is convicting someone for it when they didn't even did the deed, that just adds to the overall farcical side of such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The rules in Thailand are very well understood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The rules in Thailand are very well understood
An unjust law is no law at all.
As to everything else you said, it is irrelevant. Just because other countries are worse, or have other faults, does not excuse having a law with penalties of up to 20 years in prison, and convicting someone of it, for not censoring someone else who is making fun of the king.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The rules in Thailand are very well understood
Not deleting comments fast enough? That should never be a violation of the law. If she had made the comments, you'd have a point. But she didn't. So there is no way to view this as reasonable.
But that doesn't make you right when you call the Thai people stupid for sticking with a monarchy.
When did I do that? Seriously. Why put words in my mouth? You set up a strawman here and then knocked it down.
Thailand is the only Asian nation to have gone several centuries without being occupied by a foreign power. Thailand serves some of the best food in the world, and is the breadbasket of Asia. Thailand is not a stinking cesspool of filth and genocide like Cambodia, and is considerably more free than Burma, Cambodia or Laos, its closest neighbors.
None of which has ANYTHING to do with the case at hand.
Yes, maybe it sounds silly to have laws protecting a monarch, but when's the last time you heard of a Thai college student being fined $675,000 for illegal downloading? Also, no one ever goes to prison for getting or providing an abortion in Thailand.
Are you seriously suggesting that one can't criticize both attacks on internet freedom through copyright law and through intermediary liability from lese majeste? Really?
Thailand's not a perfect country, but at this point in time it would behoove most Americans to STFU about other countries and their practices, most of which pale into insignificance when compared to our Wall Street driven mores.
Ah yeah. Hush up as other countries do bad things. Sorry, but no. I speak out when I see bad things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The rules in Thailand are very well understood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The King and Queen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The King and Queen
"Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith"
the title is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' not 'England'. the status of england and Scotland as Countries or whatever is a bit weird, but they're not separate Kingdoms anymore, as i understand it. (wales was annexed by england before the act of union. it's a principality rather than a kingdom and not independent, to my understanding.)
that said, the Queen's titles in NZ run thusly: "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith"
though according to Wikipedia, 'and Her other Realms and Territories' can be replaced with a full list of them, excluding the one already named at the beginning, in order they became dominions (starting with the UK) for those that did, then of those that did not, the order i which they became independent countries rather than colonies...
and that's only counting her titles as 'head of state'... then there's all the fun lower ranking ones... various orders and military units ... (i vaguely recall something about having the rank of admiral in a landlocked US state...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The King and Queen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The King and Queen
There's a difference between telling lies and having an opinion. Except in Thailand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So punish the idiot who made the comment, not the person who provided the platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
after all, the vast majority of commonwealth nations will have a King when the current Queen dies. (some of them are republics. not many though. and i Think there's one or two that have their own monarchies that attached themselves to the commonwealth/empire as a better alternative to being snapped up by the US or various other empires.) this includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa unless i missed something, the UK, and a number of small island nations who's names escape me at the moment.
there's a few non-commonwealth (i think) pacific island nations that still have active monarchies too.
and that's jut the places i remember off the top of my head.
i assume your XXI meant 21st century?
(it still amuses me that, with the commonwealth, while everyone knew and accepted who would be the next head of it (obviously the next monarch of the vast majority of it's member states) there was some confusion as to Why. succession had never come up before and no one had got around to Bringing it up to make a rule for how it was decided, so there was some confusion as to whether it would be by vote amongst the member states (the ruler of the vast majority of them would win by default) or if the position was hereditary. not actually sure how (if?) that was resolved, to be honest.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gotcha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems to me that freedom of speech has been a rallying cry for many an uprising around the world.
Back to High School Social Studies for you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This comment, by an anonymous commenter on an American website, has been made available to you courtesy of the Constitution of the United States of America.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
While I agree that the US shouldn't push their laws onto other countries, the ideals of free speech is pretty prevalent worldwide.
From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gwiz just ended the discussion on free speech!
Please stay and try the veal! Don't forget to tip your waitress!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The king is a fink!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry! I couldn't resist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]