Sonthi Gets Two Years In Jail On Libel Suit

[jayjayjayjay]

Does anyone actually serve time in these cases?

Probably not, but would be funny to see Taksin, his wife and Sonthi in the one cell together... 555

[Prakanong]

The report is INCORRECT

Why dont the reporters check their dictionary !

LiBEL involves publishing IN WRITING . Sontee spoke at a rally.

The word that should have be used is as correctly mentioned below in the Bangkok Post what clearly has an English proof checker

In English law you can only claim damages for Slander when you show the financial loss you have incurred.

A disgraceful law if you cannot speak your mind ...a disgraceful decision

Activist Sondhi gets 2 years for slander

(Bangkok Post)

Sorry in English law you do not have to show financial loss - you can also show a reasonable person to think less of a person.

"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

American law is slightly different

"Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault."

Also "Phumtham told court that Sonthi made the defamation during his television talk show conducted in Wat Pa Ban Tat Temple in Udon Thani province in November 25, 2005."

Therefore as it was on broadcast television could it not be argued it is not indeed libel?

"Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc and the like, then it is considered libel."

Any lawyers know better than my paltry internet search?

Sorry...my memory from my law college days was indeed correct and you are WRONG

"A slander claimant will need to prove that the defamatory allegations caused actual damage,"

In practice this does mean FINANCIAL LOSS

So you are a lawyer are you - why did you not answer the question regarding your quals on another thread then?

So you are right and this UK Law firm is wrong? It would seem they are saying you do not have to prove financial loss as the "Or" implies there are other reasons so maybe you are wrong matey boy and your memory from your law school days is playing tricks on you.

Proving financial loss is only one out of the few listed below.

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/defamation.htm

"In order for an individual to have a successful action for defamation he / she would need to prove all three of the following points:

• The statement itself was defamatory. This means that the statement would be likely to lower the person concerned in the estimation of what a Court would call "right thinking people". A mere insult is insufficient.

• It would also need to be shown that these statements had been communicated to a third person. If someone had simply insulted someone to their face this would not entitle them to sue.

• It would also need to be shown that the third party would be able to identify the individual from the statements.

In a case for slander the defamed person would also need to show that:-

• He / she has suffered an actual financial loss as a result of the statements; OR

• That the statements have implied that he / she has committed a criminal offence; OR

• The statements have actually harmed a business, trade or professional reputation; OR

• The statements suggest that he / she has a contagious disease; OR

• The statements imply that she has immoral conduct (this only applies to women or girls, the immoral conduct would usually be of a sexual nature).

Thank you for you apology in advance!

[jbowman1993]

The report is INCORRECT

Why dont the reporters check their dictionary !

LiBEL involves publishing IN WRITING . Sontee spoke at a rally.

The word that should have be used is as correctly mentioned below in the Bangkok Post what clearly has an English proof checker

In English law you can only claim damages for Slander when you show the financial loss you have incurred.

A disgraceful law if you cannot speak your mind ...a disgraceful decision

Activist Sondhi gets 2 years for slander

(Bangkok Post)

Sorry in English law you do not have to show financial loss - you can also show a reasonable person to think less of a person.

"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

American law is slightly different

"Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault."

Also "Phumtham told court that Sonthi made the defamation during his television talk show conducted in Wat Pa Ban Tat Temple in Udon Thani province in November 25, 2005."

Therefore as it was on broadcast television could it not be argued it is not indeed libel?

"Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc and the like, then it is considered libel."

Any lawyers know better than my paltry internet search?

Sorry...my memory from my law college days was indeed correct and you are WRONG

"A slander claimant will need to prove that the defamatory allegations caused actual damage,"

In practice this does mean FINANCIAL LOSS

So you are a lawyer are you - why did you not answer the question regarding your quals on another thread then?

So you are right and this UK Law firm is wrong? It would seem they are saying you do not have to prove financial loss as the "Or" implies there are other reasons so maybe you are wrong matey boy and your memory from your law school days is playing tricks on you.

Proving financial loss is only one out of the few listed below.

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/defamation.htm

"In order for an individual to have a successful action for defamation he / she would need to prove all three of the following points:

• The statement itself was defamatory. This means that the statement would be likely to lower the person concerned in the estimation of what a Court would call "right thinking people". A mere insult is insufficient.

• It would also need to be shown that these statements had been communicated to a third person. If someone had simply insulted someone to their face this would not entitle them to sue.

• It would also need to be shown that the third party would be able to identify the individual from the statements.

In a case for slander the defamed person would also need to show that:-

• He / she has suffered an actual financial loss as a result of the statements; OR

• That the statements have implied that he / she has committed a criminal offence; OR

• The statements have actually harmed a business, trade or professional reputation; OR

• The statements suggest that he / she has a contagious disease; OR

• The statements imply that she has immoral conduct (this only applies to women or girls, the immoral conduct would usually be of a sexual nature).

Thank you for you apology in advance!

Again, stop posting UK law here. This is not the UKVisa, its not a UK case, and the people involved are not citizens of the UK.

Daft buggers (some UK slang for your UK lovers out there)

[Johpa]

Again, stop posting UK law here. This is not the UKVisa, its not a UK case, and the people involved are not citizens of the UK.

Daft buggers (some UK slang for your UK lovers out there)

Although, as a footnote to this discussion, UK Internet libel law was based upon a case related to Thailand.

[Tony Clifton]

One, I believe that Sondhi has posted bail [200,000 bond] and so may already be out.

Two, In Thailand the most likely charge will be defamation since this is a criminal law matter, not civil, [bangkok Criminal Court] therefore the spats about libel and slander are irrelevant.

Regards

He was on air, live last evening.

[Prakanong]

The report is INCORRECT

Why dont the reporters check their dictionary !

LiBEL involves publishing IN WRITING . Sontee spoke at a rally.

The word that should have be used is as correctly mentioned below in the Bangkok Post what clearly has an English proof checker

In English law you can only claim damages for Slander when you show the financial loss you have incurred.

A disgraceful law if you cannot speak your mind ...a disgraceful decision

Activist Sondhi gets 2 years for slander

(Bangkok Post)

Sorry in English law you do not have to show financial loss - you can also show a reasonable person to think less of a person.

"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

American law is slightly different

"Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault."

Also "Phumtham told court that Sonthi made the defamation during his television talk show conducted in Wat Pa Ban Tat Temple in Udon Thani province in November 25, 2005."

Therefore as it was on broadcast television could it not be argued it is not indeed libel?

"Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc and the like, then it is considered libel."

Any lawyers know better than my paltry internet search?

Sorry...my memory from my law college days was indeed correct and you are WRONG

"A slander claimant will need to prove that the defamatory allegations caused actual damage,"

In practice this does mean FINANCIAL LOSS

So you are a lawyer are you - why did you not answer the question regarding your quals on another thread then?

So you are right and this UK Law firm is wrong? It would seem they are saying you do not have to prove financial loss as the "Or" implies there are other reasons so maybe you are wrong matey boy and your memory from your law school days is playing tricks on you.

Proving financial loss is only one out of the few listed below.

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/defamation.htm

"In order for an individual to have a successful action for defamation he / she would need to prove all three of the following points:

• The statement itself was defamatory. This means that the statement would be likely to lower the person concerned in the estimation of what a Court would call "right thinking people". A mere insult is insufficient.

• It would also need to be shown that these statements had been communicated to a third person. If someone had simply insulted someone to their face this would not entitle them to sue.

• It would also need to be shown that the third party would be able to identify the individual from the statements.

In a case for slander the defamed person would also need to show that:-

• He / she has suffered an actual financial loss as a result of the statements; OR

• That the statements have implied that he / she has committed a criminal offence; OR

• The statements have actually harmed a business, trade or professional reputation; OR

• The statements suggest that he / she has a contagious disease; OR

• The statements imply that she has immoral conduct (this only applies to women or girls, the immoral conduct would usually be of a sexual nature).

Thank you for you apology in advance!

Again, stop posting UK law here. This is not the UKVisa, its not a UK case, and the people involved are not citizens of the UK.

Daft buggers (some UK slang for your UK lovers out there)

Ok then tell us the thai law relating to this then?

Do they have to prove financial loss or not?

[A_Traveller]

Ok then tell us the thai law relating to this then?

Do they have to prove financial loss or not?

Defamation under Penal {Criminal} Code Sections 326 to 333.

AFAIK there is no financial loss requirement, the code deals with loss of reputation.

Regards

PS I have always had trouble in finding an English on-line translation of the code so I am referring to the written version. The Ministry of Justice, for example, seems to have no English language section, though that is not unreasonable since this is Thailand after all. and Thai is the primary language for all legal matters.

/edit AFAIK & PS//

Edited March 30, 2007 by A_Traveller

[Jai Dee]

Sondhi guilty but gets bail

The Criminal Court yesterday sentenced media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul to two years in jail following his conviction for libel against former deputy transport minister Phumtham Wechayachai.

The court battle centred on Sondhi's remarks as part of his crusade against the Thaksin Shinawatra government.

After the verdict, Sondhi sought and received Bt200,000 bail pending his appellate review. Emerging from the courtroom, he said he respected the judicial decision, although he would appeal it on grounds that some of his comments might have been lifted out of context. "I have been to court hundreds of times as a defendant, so I am not worrying and will duly appeal my verdict," he said.

The court found Sondhi guilty of making malicious comments aired and published by media outlets under his Manager Group.

In his talk show, broadcast live from Udon Thani in November, 2004, Sondhi portrayed Phumtham as an "ex-Communist who has no loyalty to the monarchy and is not an adherent of democracy".

He also linked Phutham to a Swedish-based website, manusaya.com, which circulated comments deemed offensive to the Royal Family.

The court ruled in favour of the prosecution, which proved that Sondhi's remarks could not be substantiated.

Although the prosecution listed Sondhi and nine accomplices as defendants, the court penalised Sondhi and ordered the show's broadcaster - ThaiDay Dot Com Co - to pay a fine of Bt200,000 and destroy all VCDs and DVDs of the show.

Source: The Nation - 30 March 2007

[jdinasia]

Sondhi guilty but gets bail

The Criminal Court yesterday sentenced media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul to two years in jail following his conviction for libel against former deputy transport minister Phumtham Wechayachai.

The court battle centred on Sondhi's remarks as part of his crusade against the Thaksin Shinawatra government.

After the verdict, Sondhi sought and received Bt200,000 bail pending his appellate review. Emerging from the courtroom, he said he respected the judicial decision, although he would appeal it on grounds that some of his comments might have been lifted out of context. "I have been to court hundreds of times as a defendant, so I am not worrying and will duly appeal my verdict," he said.

The court found Sondhi guilty of making malicious comments aired and published by media outlets under his Manager Group.

In his talk show, broadcast live from Udon Thani in November, 2004, Sondhi portrayed Phumtham as an "ex-Communist who has no loyalty to the monarchy and is not an adherent of democracy".

He also linked Phutham to a Swedish-based website, manusaya.com, which circulated comments deemed offensive to the Royal Family.

The court ruled in favour of the prosecution, which proved that Sondhi's remarks could not be substantiated.

Although the prosecution listed Sondhi and nine accomplices as defendants, the court penalised Sondhi and ordered the show's broadcaster - ThaiDay Dot Com Co - to pay a fine of Bt200,000 and destroy all VCDs and DVDs of the show.

Source: The Nation - 30 March 2007

Solves all the debate now doesn't it

[Prakanong]

Ok then tell us the thai law relating to this then?

Do they have to prove financial loss or not?

Defamation under Penal {Criminal} Code Sections 326 to 333.

AFAIK there is no financial loss requirement, the code deals with loss of reputation.

Regards

PS I have always had trouble in finding an English on-line translation of the code so I am referring to the written version. The Ministry of Justice, for example, seems to have no English language section, though that is not unreasonable since this is Thailand after all. and Thai is the primary language for all legal matters.

/edit AFAIK & PS//

Thanks for trying - it does help without getting sidetracked into foreign laws.

[jomama]

The report is INCORRECT

Why dont the reporters check their dictionary !

LiBEL involves publishing IN WRITING . Sontee spoke at a rally.

The word that should have be used is as correctly mentioned below in the Bangkok Post what clearly has an English proof checker

In English law you can only claim damages for Slander when you show the financial loss you have incurred.

A disgraceful law if you cannot speak your mind ...a disgraceful decision

Activist Sondhi gets 2 years for slander

(Bangkok Post)

Sorry in English law you do not have to show financial loss - you can also show a reasonable person to think less of a person.

"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

American law is slightly different

"Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault."

Also "Phumtham told court that Sonthi made the defamation during his television talk show conducted in Wat Pa Ban Tat Temple in Udon Thani province in November 25, 2005."

Therefore as it was on broadcast television could it not be argued it is not indeed libel?

"Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc and the like, then it is considered libel."

Any lawyers know better than my paltry internet search?

Sorry...my memory from my law college days was indeed correct and you are WRONG

"A slander claimant will need to prove that the defamatory allegations caused actual damage,"

In practice this does mean FINANCIAL LOSS

So you are a lawyer are you - why did you not answer the question regarding your quals on another thread then?

So you are right and this UK Law firm is wrong? It would seem they are saying you do not have to prove financial loss as the "Or" implies there are other reasons so maybe you are wrong matey boy and your memory from your law school days is playing tricks on you.

Proving financial loss is only one out of the few listed below.

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/defamation.htm

"In order for an individual to have a successful action for defamation he / she would need to prove all three of the following points:

• The statement itself was defamatory. This means that the statement would be likely to lower the person concerned in the estimation of what a Court would call "right thinking people". A mere insult is insufficient.

• It would also need to be shown that these statements had been communicated to a third person. If someone had simply insulted someone to their face this would not entitle them to sue.

• It would also need to be shown that the third party would be able to identify the individual from the statements.

In a case for slander the defamed person would also need to show that:-

• He / she has suffered an actual financial loss as a result of the statements; OR

• That the statements have implied that he / she has committed a criminal offence; OR

• The statements have actually harmed a business, trade or professional reputation; OR

• The statements suggest that he / she has a contagious disease; OR

• The statements imply that she has immoral conduct (this only applies to women or girls, the immoral conduct would usually be of a sexual nature).

Thank you for you apology in advance!

Thank you for your post. Of course I am writing about US law, not Thai law, but I think its useful for people to know what the thinking is in the US on this interesting subject.

I have been a journalist several decades, and my journalism law classes are a bit dim in my memory, but as I recall there is another standard that must be met:

If one is talking or writing about a public figure, it has to be proven that the writer or speaker knowingly published or communicated a falsehood to a third party. This is to prove malice. Mistakes don't count.

What this means is that if one has become a public figure, one gives up significant rights to privacy.

In the case of a private citizen who has been defamed, the standard of proof is much lower.

I believe that the Thai police often defame people, by alleging that victims were drug addicts or had "incurable diseases" or ..... these are people who did not seek to become "public figures" but were thrown by circumstance into the public domain.

Another facet of US law says that dead people cannot be defamed.

It is correct that all defamation cases are civil. In the US there is a criminal defamation law that relates to fomenting public unrest, but it has not been used since a famous case in the early 1800s in which the defendant was acquitted.

Just one other note: Yes, statues vary from state to state in the US, but Supreme Court rulings are in effect law, which is part of the checks and balances system that is the brilliance of the government created by Thomas Jefferson and the rest.