Lawyer who leaked Joe Ferrari tape sued for defamation

[mvdf]

1 hour ago, bkk6060 said:

I do not see how defamation can apply in this case but maybe the law here is different.  There was no libel or slander or comments just a video which people can come to their own conclusion.

 

Falsity - Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement is not considered defamation. Additionally, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.

 

Here defamation means "messing with someone else's rice bowl"

 

[ronster]

So the other lawyer is bitter he missed out on the cash the clip is generating from being shown everywhere and publicity. Although releasing that clip you would think the lawyer would have left the country first before the goon squad come looking for him !

[rwill]

1 hour ago, brucegoniners said:

Lol. For what? Spreading the truth?

If you have not realized by now that gets you thrown in prison here.

[hotchilli]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

A defamation complaint was filed on Friday against the lawyer who released the clip of Joe Ferrari murdering a drug suspect.

Thailand certainly has a strange system of what's right and what's wrong.

This lawyer should be given Thailands highest award for bravery.

[hotchilli]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

I think that the car manufacture Ferrari cars and luxury items should sue Joe for using their trademark name... 

And damaging their image... that's a good one.

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, bkk6060 said:

I do not see how defamation can apply in this case but maybe the law here is different.  There was no libel or slander or comments just a video which people can come to their own conclusion.

 

Falsity - Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement is not considered defamation. Additionally, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.

Those rules of defamation do not apply in Thailand, you can be sued for printing/publishing anything which "shames"/ exposes police government officials to adverse comments no defence of truth.

 

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Thailand certainly has a strange system of what's right and what's wrong.

This lawyer should be given Thailands highest award for bravery.

He will be,(not). He will become either a pedestrian or traffic accident, or scuba diving and his tank will run out,  give it two weeks until the press find some other titbit to amuse themselves with

[watgate]

I would only add that I am extremely impressed with all the comments and am amazed at how skillfully posters can express themselves and drive home their points so effectively.

[MartinL]

53 minutes ago, Nip said:

That's very fn harsh on the Muppets. You could be sued for defication. 

If they ever sued for that, we'd all be in the <deleted>!!

 

Oh sorry, I read an 'e' instead of an 'i' in the middle of that last word.

[metisdead]

A post using a trolling image has been removed. 

[Seismic]

4 hours ago, ukrules said:

I have a feeling it will be different this time, this video evidence will be famous throughout the entire world.

 

Everyone will know what they're all about now.

 

Dream on. Everyone has known for decades, it hasn't made any difference.

[mikebell]

It's the second step in any police cover-up.  The first is bribery/intimidation.

[IamNoone88]

Dangerous territory. Mr Decha cannot let the accusation pass and must defend his reputation against asking for a bribe. On the other hand, if Mr Sittha has evidence, the case could well backfire.

[thurien]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

I think that the car manufacture Ferrari cars and luxury items should sue Joe for using their trademark name... 

sue him for defamation, too: This is a Thai standard procedure

[Seismic]

2 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

I do not see how defamation can apply in this case but maybe the law here is different.  There was no libel or slander or comments just a video which people can come to their own conclusion.

 

Falsity - Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement is not considered defamation. Additionally, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.

Sections 326–328 of the Thai Criminal Code establish several defamation offences with sentences of up to two years’ imprisonment and fines of up to 200,000 Thai Baht . The defences to defamation charges provided by the Criminal Code fall far short of international standards. Moreover, private parties may initiate criminal proceedings against others by filing a complaint with the police or directly with courts. These factors open the door to the arbitrary and abusive application of the law against activists, journalists, whistleblowers, and others working to advance the public interest.

[GreasyFingers]

Don't you just love AI applied to find the right advertisements. On this page is an ad to "Start your romantic adventure in Nakon Sawan".

[sammieuk1]

Lawyer eyes up free Lambo when the carpet gets lifted no doubt ????

[thailand49]

ONLY IN THAILAND!

[Whale]

People really should read the article on The Enquirer before making their assumptions about what this is about. Its a bona fide case for slander IMHO. Just read the article.

[smedly]

Sittha told the media on Tuesday that he got the clip from a low-ranking officer and before he released the clip, the low-ranking officer has sent the video to Decha first but he refused to released it to the public because we wanted to blackmail Joe for money.

Decha denied the claim. He said that he received the clip from a high-ranking police officer minutes before Sittha received it but decided not to make it public because the case was under investigation and he does not want to tamper with the evidence.

 

Sounds to me like Decha is up to his neck in this along with the scum cops 

[rott]

3 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Sued for defamation? What? Mr. Joe was pretty good at making himself look bad. No chance that telling the truth can be a case of defamation. If they do that they will only dig a deeper hole for the force. And, I believe it´s deep and ugly enough already.

Google Thai Criminal Code, sections 326 and 330 Defamation. 

Why do you think people do not want to publish too much. 

[ben2talk]

The law is written by the guilty to protect the guilty.

[Gottfrid]

21 minutes ago, rott said:

Google Thai Criminal Code, sections 326 and 330 Defamation. 

Why do you think people do not want to publish too much. 

Really? You are not very good at read and understand, right? I have read that law long time ago and many times. In this case the only section you will have to take into consideration is Section 330, that regards if the statement, or in this case material, is true or false.
 

Anyway, maybe you are out of the opinion that the video is false, private or does not have a public interest? At least it sounds like that reading you quote. Very sad if that is the situation.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Gottfrid

[brianthainess]

3 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

Falsity - Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement is not considered defamation. Additionally, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.

That is in the real world and does not apply to Thailand.

[wwest5829]

3 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

I do not see how defamation can apply in this case but maybe the law here is different.  There was no libel or slander or comments just a video which people can come to their own conclusion.

 

Falsity - Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement is not considered defamation. Additionally, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.

This definition, I am familiar with as an American but I have been retired in the Kingdom of Thailand over a decade now and this definition does not apply here. If what you say, do or expose causes a loss of standing here, you can be held accountable for damages ... true or not. Quite a shocker for those from countries where western jurisprudence holds sway.

[Misterwhisper]

3 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

I do not see how defamation can apply in this case but maybe the law here is different.  There was no libel or slander or comments just a video which people can come to their own conclusion.

 

Falsity - Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement is not considered defamation. Additionally, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.

I don't think you have seen the Thai definition of "defamation" yet.

[Sir Swagman]

“..........You can’t handle the truth.” Defamation for this......truly mad.

[BKKBike09]

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

You have more faith than me. When a fella from a prominent family kills a police sergeant in front of 30 plus witnesses, goes on the run, all witnesses withdraw their statement and he gets off with it. Then ends up as a government minister. No it is not a Holywood comedy but what happened here.

I hope you are right but I have serious doubt.

It's off topic, but thank you for the reference to that family because in their case, the Hollywood comedy also extends to the other brother famously promoting bathroom hygiene, back in 2008, as 'Mr Happy Toilet', posed like a king on the throne ...

 

In dark times like these it always brings a smile to my face.

 

[rott]

24 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

Really? You are not very good at read and understand, right? I have read that law long time ago and many times. In this case the only section you will have to take into consideration is Section 330, that regards if the statement, or in this case material, is true or false.
 

Anyway, maybe you are out of the opinion that the video is false, private or does not have a public interest? At least it sounds like that reading you quote. Very sad if that is the situation.

Section 326 states that one person may not impute to another anything that may impair his reputation. 

 

Do you understand the basis of the legal claim here.?

 

It appears to be a pity that your brain is not as sharp as your mouth. 

[johnnybangkok]

So many posters jumping in without having read the full article.

 

'Sittha told the media on Tuesday that he got the clip from a low-ranking officer and before he released the clip, the low-ranking officer has sent the video to Decha first but he refused to released it to the public because we wanted to blackmail Joe for money.'

 

The defamation is NOT because he released the video but because Sittha has accused him of attemted blackmail - '“I have filed a complaint to prosecute Mr Sittha for defamation and violation of the Computer Crime Act after he accused me of trying to blackmail the former chief of police at Muang Nakhon Sawan police station,” he said.