JensenZ

11 hours ago, RefinedGentleman said:

A tourist thrown in jail for posting a bad review? Imagine the losses this resort will see as a result of this story making international news. Now compare that to the corkage fee they wanted. Dumb! Add in the already difficult climate with Covid and tourism and it's even dumber. Whatever you might think of this American guy, the resort has completely screwed themselves with their actions.

 

In Thailand this is a criminal case, to be tried in a court of law. Tourism and what is good or bad for it is a political issue. They cannot change the laws just to help out one foreigner. Normal legal procedures are being followed here, so who exactly is being dumb and dumber? These laws have been around for a long time, long before covid struck, and of course the lawyers and the court are only considering the case, not any consequences it may have on tourism. That's an issue for the politicians to resolve, and would require the laws to be changed.

There is no free speech in Thailand. If they want that, they have to find another country to expat in.

1 hour ago, Mick501 said:

as a frequent user and reviewer on TripAdvisor, you always have to take 1 and 5 star reviews with a grain of salt.  Most 1 star reviews are down to a single bad experience and in many cases offer little or no useful information (as in this case).  Also need to look at the amount of reviews by the author.  In this case, it is his first review, which also raises alarm bells.

As a sophisticated evaluator of reviews. you might not take much notice of a 1 star review, but many would. At the very least, such a review might leave some undecided viewers uneasy, and they might move onto the next hotel in their search (which has no 1-star reviews) as there is never any shortage of options. "Why take the chance", they might think. It is a competitive market and hoteliers take 1 star reviews very seriously, as they should.

2 hours ago, snowgard said:

Not easy to find the right answers, but only in europe it is in 23 countries a criminal offence. 

https://www.rcmediafreedom.eu/Publications/Reports/Criminal-Defamation-Laws-in-Europe

Thanks for doing the research. We can now state with some certainty that criminal defamation is not unique to Thailand.

19 minutes ago, polpott said:

Name one Western country where defamation is a criminal offence,

Interestingly, apparently they can be.

As an Australian, I investigated the offense in Australia and people have served prison time. I have no idea about other countries.

This is what I read: (I hope this is not going too far off-topic).

https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html#:~:text=Australian laws include offence provisions,reputation and penalties are monetary.&text=Criminal prosecution for defamation is rare in Australia.

Civil and Criminal Defamation

Australian laws include offence provisions for civil defamation and criminal defamation.

Civil liability arises from publications likely to harm a person's reputation and penalties are monetary.

Criminal liability arises from publications that affect the community, such as those that have a tendency to endanger the public peace, and penalties in most jurisdictions include imprisonment. Generally, proceedings for criminal defamation are commenced by law enforcement authorities. (In most jurisdictions, a private prosecution concerning criminal defamation requires the prior consent of, for example, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General, or a court order.)

Criminal prosecution for defamation is rare in Australia. However, within the last decade (since 1990) people have been imprisoned in Australia for criminal defamation (the most recently notorious being former WA Liberal Premier, Ray O'Connor).

There are significant differences between civil and criminal defamation law relative to liability, defences, etc. The remainder of this document addresses civil, not criminal, defamation laws.

2 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Doesnt seem that way , the hotel wants him to stop his campaign against them and for him to pay for any damage he has caused

It is that way. The hotel tried communicating with him first, asking him to remove the reviews and to cease publishing more in the future. He refused so the hotel had no other recourse. They were reasonable at the start, now he has to pay.

17 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

I think there are so many putzes on this thread who are defending an indefensible situation under Thai law.....in a civilised country this is no way too sort out this problem

Firstly it highlights the dreadful standards of customer service and fair trading in this country and secondly in what country is anyone ARRESTED for slander or libel"? It's a civil offence for the most part.

 

Basically this is a classic example of the lack of civil rights in Thailand.

This case does in no way highlight "dreadful standards of customer service and fair trading in this country".

All it is, on the face of it, is one customer making his own personal feelings known in some online reviews. Do you believe all you read online? It is one person's opinion and he could have said anything at all.

It only highlights one thing. It is easy for anyone, at a keystroke, to destroy anyone's reputation online, requiring no evidence whatsoever. This actually makes the Thai law seem reasonable in this case.

8 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Again you have missed the point - Face may or may not be money - it doesn't matter what he wrote and your opinion is subjective - the hotel is basically suing for loss of face so it doesn't matter if it is fact or fiction or somewhere in between - it is a flaw in Thai law.......

It looks like you're the one missing quite a bit here.

This is all about money. If it repairs some people's faces, then that's an added bonus. There will be two money grabs here. First, in a court mediation session before the criminal case proper goes to trial, and after the criminal case, there will be a huge demand for damages in a civil case. The lawyer will take a healthy percentage too.

36 minutes ago, snowgard said:

I don't know why the most people on TV believe: "This is only in Thailand!!!"

This is not true!!! In almost ALL countries now business owners start defamation cases against people who made false reviews. But you all close your eyes for this.

If you want to see the reality just google for: defamation case false review

Actually, you could be wrong here. Defamation is always a criminal offense in Thailand whereas in other countries it is mainly a civil matter, and very rarely criminal. This could very well be a "this is only in Thailand" issue.

Of course there are 195 countries, so who knows? It would take a lot of research to single Thailand out. Thailand does have some "only in Thailand" laws.

17 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

You've already stated the fact and you suggest speaking Thai is disadvantageous to the Yank. 

Even if he could speak Thai he would be better off not to, as it's unlikely his Thai would be advanced enough to include legal Jargon. His lawyer should do all the talking and he should have an interpreter there.

The case will not proceed until he's had the opportunity to mediate with the plaintiff, so the language problems are not a consideration until he's really in the sh*t.

1 minute ago, Rockbottom said:

I've been here 25 years and worked for and hired Thai people. Seems to me after 16 years you still don't get it. Take 10 more.

Irrespective of vast knowledge of and experience with Thais...

This case is about money, not face.

Maybe disagreeing with you affects your face.???? Been here too long maybe?

6 minutes ago, Rockbottom said:

Disagree. You obviously don't know what the Asian concept of saving face is.  Saving face is a big time concept to Thais which is why they avoid confrontation and endeavour not to embarrass themselves, their family, friends, business or other people. The hotels reputation and appearance is an extension of who they are. Think circular not linear. 

You're right, I've only lived full time in Thailand for 16 years (over 20 years in Asia - as you mention Asian), so I have much yet to learn. Maybe in another 10 years I might get to your level of understanding, or I'll die first LOL.

But you are totally wrong about this case. It's a push for compensation. Money trumps face everyday. He contacted his lawyer - the lawyer can see the potential of a big payday and they go for it.

2 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

You really think Don Mega posting on an open wifi from his home country will run into issues trying to re-enter Thailand after posting a defamatory review on a website, How would they find out the ID of Don Mega ?

 No, you should be ok, but there is a risk that some people could be identified by some hotels.

Just now, polpott said:

Apparently he posted a more vitriolic review which was removed by TripAdvisor. He then reposted the one above.

LOL > they weren't smiling enough. Some nationalities don't want hotel staff smiling at them all the time - it's a cultural thing and people differ in their interpretation of a smile. Personally, I don't like over friendly hotel staff. Cordial and efficient is quite enough for me.

1 minute ago, Don Mega said:

Tourists posting from their home country won't be affected, Expats living and working Thailand should know better.

They could be as they might return. 

31 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

This is the crux of the matter.....whether the things he alleged are true or not, he has probably :damaged the reputation" and this is how most people in Thailand use the law to save face or "protect their reputation"

 

Any debate about how valid his claims were or their veracity is totally beside the point.

 

There have been many examples of this over the years - I remember a case of an English person exposing exploitation in a fruit factory, but this didn't stop him from being arrested.

 

In Thailand truth takes second place over face.

 

What is needed now are multiple warnings about this hotel to visitors as to what might happen if they stay there and are unhappy with the service.

 

My guess is that they have compounded the situation by taking this action

The feelings of Mr Barnes, as written in his review, are not any kind of truth. They are just how he felt. He made subjective opinions about how he felt about the staff and his treatment at the hotel. Should a person be able to damage the reputation of an hotel based on his subjective feelings. There are always difficult guests at every hotel.

This has nothing to do with saving face. Damaging an hotel's reputation affects their profitability. This is about money, not face.

51 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

That’s why it needs to be proved he was lying. You take him to court and sue him. This is a civil matter. Not a criminal one. 

Not in Thailand. This is a Criminal case (defamation) AND a civil case will follow for damages.

Nothing needs to be proven other than if the reviews published online defame the business. It's clear they do. What actually happened will not need to be discussed. The lawyers have one easiest cases they could wish for.

A lot of Westerners get very upset when they learn the details of Thailand's defamation laws. In fact, I know of one person in Phuket that served 2 years for defaming his ex-wife.

There is some logic to Thailand's defamation laws. If a person, such as Mr Barnes, has unreasonable expectations about what level of service he expects at a hotel, and then roasts the hotel online with very bad reviews, then this is clearly unfair. Mr Barnes should not have been upset when they charged a corking fee as it is standard practice at many hotels. His opinion of the attitude of the staff is clearly subjective, and they were probably reacting to his bad attitude. Then he decided to opine on the way the management treated their staff - clearly none of his business and unrelated to the level of service the hotel provides.

What other logic is there for such harsh laws? Well, perhaps they believe in Thailand, instead of destroying a person or company's reputation over a dispute of some kind, they believe people should be able to work things out in other ways. Certainly online hotel reviews are subjective and often negative reviews are published unfairly... but as soon as they are published they are hurting the hotel, whether they are true or not. This leaves the opportunity for any person to hurt a business in just a few keystrokes.

I would suggest that hotel booking sites block reviews to all hotels in Thailand to avoid such unwanted consequences. They should just make a note that defamation laws in Thailand are harsh and put the reviewer at risk of fines and imprisonment for bad reviews.

11 minutes ago, NoComment said:

Expat should know better and why bother? He has not proved anything to anyone else!???

3 sides to the story; his siide, their side and the truth.

Unfortunately there is only one side to the story in a defamation case. What he published online is the ONLY story. Even if his complaints could be validated, it's irrelevant. Even the truth is not a defence here... this is Thai law. When you live here, you're under Thai law whether you like it or not.

14 hours ago, mixed said:

Pitbulls are becoming increasingly common here, often running loose. The ones in our area have killed several dogs and bitten a few ppl, nothing ever happens to the owners. I'm not someone who hates the breed, but similar to Rottweilers they should never roam loose. Also, three dogs is a pack, then you have real problems.

 

Yeah, but did a foreigner own the pitbulls? Foreigners are held to a much higher standard. They cannot own dangerous dog which bite people and kill other dogs. Next thing they'll kill a baby or child... maybe the owners of these pitbulls are rich and can bribe the police.

On 9/24/2020 at 7:49 PM, teacherclaire said:

Psst. If you don't test people, you'll have 0 percent. And a few positive patients might not even be mentioned, it destroys the good looking result.

 

MTGA. Make Thailand Great Again. Get rid off the soldier who plays politician. 

 

   

That's right... they are now using Myanmar as an excuse. Good enough for the PM to hold on to his sweeping dictatorial powers for another month at least.

Is this an additional office or has the main office on Soi 5 temporarily closed down for some reason?

On 9/18/2020 at 10:24 AM, steven100 said:

RIP Pattaya ....  sadly,  your days are numbered.

Absurd! Pattaya is going nowhere. Even without a single International tourist, it will survive, just like 100's of other Thai cities. It would look a bit different and perhaps better. Apart from that, the expat community in Pattaya will survive, and in fact life is better for expats now than it ever has been.