Experts Warn Of Thai Govt 'Intimidation' Of Internet Users

[geriatrickid]

'ThaksinKharma' you come up with some amazing comments and in particular, I refer to the following gems;

1. Knowing the law is different than complying with the law.

2. Whether one agrees with the LM laws or not, all are expected to comply with them and when an entity such as the prachatai forum fails that, that they are held accountable for that breach should not come as a surprise. Again, one's own personal feelings, including mine, about the appropriateness of LM laws isn't at issue. It's whether the the laws were broken or not and for that a court will determine if they were or not.If the country wishes to change those laws, there are legal avenues to pursue that desire. In other words, I'm not saying the law is right or wrong, but simply that that is the law of this country as it stands now and that if people choose to break that law in the interim, then there are repercussions for doing so, the same as any other law-breaking action.

On point 1, did you train under Mr. Bumble? He did state that;

If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass, a idiot! If that's the eye of the law, then the law is a bachelor. And the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience.

On point no.2, You may wish to read up on the Nuremberg trials and what happened to the people that wrote and enforced those laws. Wilhelm Frick made the same argument as you. He ended up dangling from the end of a rope. His buddy Hans Frank tried using the same argument too. Know what? It got him the same result and he also did the hangman's dance.

There are laws and there is justice. If a law violates basic rights and freedoms declared in a constitution, and there is no "imminent threat" to public safety that would justify the supension of those rights and liberties, and it serves as a pretext to interefere with basic rights and freedoms, then the law can be considered to be unjust and worthy of disobedience. Quite the dilemma isn't it? South Africa had apartheid era laws and the US south had Jim Crow laws. Should those laws have been upheld and respected?

You have backed yourself on to the edge of the cliff with your argument. As you fall over the edge, you may wish to consider the following;

An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.

Mohandas Gandhi

An unjust law is no law at all.

St. Augustine

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Because of you, I just did. I'm bored enough to destroy that piece of filth - it's stupidity on a level even Sarah Palin would ridicule.....

I think in this very revealing reply you have made my point more comprehensively and conclusively than I ever could.As I mentioned earlier there are many that "just know" the details of the massacre and they will not be swayed by argument or evidence, even in the unlikely event of an independent investigation.Nobody claimed Robert Amsterdam's piece was other than a partisan argument, but even sceptics accept some important points were raised and unanswered questions posed.

But for you it is just a "piece of filth", "moronic drivel" etc.

No. It is lies and filth. That is fact.

See how I provided arguments? With supporting evidence? Do you think you could - just maybe - *attempt* to do the same in response? If you don't, I have no interest in discussing the issue with a blinded and brainwashed Red who can't be brought to the water, let alone influenced to drink.

This is your Robert Amsterdam - his writing is terrible, even for partisan idiotic propaganda. He uses far too many emotive words - as do you, I notice (massacre? you should refresh yourself on the definition) - he twists the facts so brazenly he would lose most objective readers by that point, as he's simply not putting together a coherent argument. It's too easily shot to pieces like I'm about to give a couple examples of.....

The Red Shirt rally was sixty-six days old (1) on May 19, 2010, when armored vehicles rolled over makeshift barricades surrounding Bangkok's Rachaprasong intersection and penetrated the Red Shirts' encampment. Weeks earlier, on April 10, 2010, units had carried out a failed attempt to disperse a Red Shirt gathering at the Phan Fa Bridge, resulting in the death of twenty-seven people. (2) At least fifty-five more people died in the dispersal of the Ratchaprasong rally between May 13 and May 19. (3) By the time the site of the demonstrations was cleared, several major commercial buildings stood smoldering (4), more than eighty people lay dead (5), and over fifty alleged UDD leaders faced possible death sentences on "terrorism" charges. (6) Hundreds of other protesters remain detained, for violating the Internal Security Act and the Emergency Decree, which the Thai authorities wield in an effort to criminalize legitimate political protest. (7)

Asking me to pick apart this idiocy degrades us both. But I got nothing better to do....

(1) 66 days old, correct. 66 days of patience from the 'Establishment', who were prepared to let the economy suffer greatly - purely to avoid the loss of Red Shirt lives [who were trying desperately to force the government's hand into giving them the massacre Thaksin so desperately wanted - the massacre he planned to spin to the world as 'proof' of his claims].. 66 days of Abhisit holding back the Army from doing a job they *could* have done in about 1-2 hours. Do you understand how 'effective' tanks and fully trained divisions would be against thousands of [*ostensibly* (ahem) unarmed] peasants? The 'peaceful' protesters Thaksin would like to portray them as being? Trust me on this, I'm a former military officer, every one of those 66 days is purely restraint shown by those with the power to clear unarmed men, women and children in minutes if casualties were not an overly concerning issue.

(1a) Using children as human shields is f despicable. I don't care if you're fighting for freedom, democracy, idiocy, corruption or ice cream f cake - you do not use children as human shields. Anyone who would are filthy scum. The fact that so many of the Western media 'overlooked' this fact for so long.....it's nauseating. How about you Sir, do you find *that* objectionable?

(2) 27 people died that day, when divisions of heavily armed troops attempted to disperse suicidal protesters. I think you need to understand something - the fact that only 27 peasants died in a fight against armed soldiers is testament to unbelievable restraint [from the heavily armed soldiers]. And if you don't understand that fact, you need to educate yourself as to the realities of the application of automatic gunfire [rubber bullets or real, doesn't matter] directed at unprotected human skin.

And everyone who is not brainwashed is aware of the extensive leadup to that day of skirmishes. A patient Abhisit doing everything [and more] that he could to prevent the loss of any life, even to the detriment of the economy [which the Reds were attempting to suffocate in the hope of inducing the aforementioned massacre for Thaksin].

(3) 55 poor souls fell that week. Again, one has to understand how tiny that number is - when you send armed soldiers up against the parents of the little girl above. If the soldiers weren't so fanatical about *not* returning fire on partially armed [Molotov cocktails, some pistols, rocks etc] attackers - had the soldiers *not* cared more about the welfare of the children than their parents who were happy to use them as human shields - that number would not have been 55. It would have been 555 or 1555.

(4) This is the most nauseating sentence in perhaps the entire article. And it's just vomit-inducing and nauseating. For what I would hope are obvious reasons. If not obvious to you, I suggest you have another watch of this short speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M9XiJoWSSs&feature=player_embedded

(5) This is just shockingly bad writing. It's a blatant and clumsy attempt to double the casualty figures.

(6) Firstly, some of those leaders should face the death penalty. Don't make me post that video again. Secondly, they're going to get slaps on the wrist and mercy they certainly do not deserve - just like Thaksin was shown mercy he did not deserve. Spinning the death penalty into that paragraph along with "terrorism" in parentheses just makes me want to vomit.

Setting Bangkok alight after being promised safe passage home - a plot they had planned months in advance - was the dictionary definition of terrorism. You know what would happen if you tried that shit in the UK, USA, Australia, EU? Unbelievable.

(7) The ISA and Emergency decrees covering select areas were only utilised in an attempt to prevent the 'protesters' from remaining in vital areas for too long. They were not on a peaceful march *through*. They were attempting to hijack key positions for maximum [negative] impact on commerce and traffic. The former is honourable political dissent. The latter is criminal hooligan behaviour with terrorist / destructive aspects in the overall strategy.

"criminalize legitimate political protest"?

No no no. There is not a country in the world where you and 5000 others could hold the capital city's CBD hostage to your [irrational and implausible] demands including the immediate dissolution of a sitting Parliament you and your friends don't really care for.

Not a COUNTRY in the entire WORLD where you would simply be allowed to damage the country's for months, indefinitely. This is FACT. Try it in the US sometime. See if only 80 of your 5000 friends are killed.

[philw]

Because of you, I just did. I'm bored enough to destroy that piece of filth - it's stupidity on a level even Sarah Palin would ridicule.....

I think in this very revealing reply you have made my point more comprehensively and conclusively than I ever could.As I mentioned earlier there are many that "just know" the details of the massacre and they will not be swayed by argument or evidence, even in the unlikely event of an independent investigation.Nobody claimed Robert Amsterdam's piece was other than a partisan argument, but even sceptics accept some important points were raised and unanswered questions posed.

But for you it is just a "piece of filth", "moronic drivel" etc.

No. It is lies and filth. That is fact.

See how I provided arguments? With supporting evidence? Do you think you could - just maybe - *attempt* to do the same in response? If you don't, I have no interest in discussing the issue with a blinded and brainwashed Red who can't be brought to the water, let alone influenced to drink.

This is your Robert Amsterdam - his writing is terrible, even for partisan idiotic propaganda. He uses far too many emotive words - as do you, I notice (massacre? you should refresh yourself on the definition) - he twists the facts so brazenly he would lose most objective readers by that point, as he's simply not putting together a coherent argument. It's too easily shot to pieces like I'm about to give a couple examples of.....

The Red Shirt rally was sixty-six days old (1) on May 19, 2010, when armored vehicles rolled over makeshift barricades surrounding Bangkok's Rachaprasong intersection and penetrated the Red Shirts' encampment. Weeks earlier, on April 10, 2010, units had carried out a failed attempt to disperse a Red Shirt gathering at the Phan Fa Bridge, resulting in the death of twenty-seven people. (2) At least fifty-five more people died in the dispersal of the Ratchaprasong rally between May 13 and May 19. (3) By the time the site of the demonstrations was cleared, several major commercial buildings stood smoldering (4), more than eighty people lay dead (5), and over fifty alleged UDD leaders faced possible death sentences on "terrorism" charges. (6) Hundreds of other protesters remain detained, for violating the Internal Security Act and the Emergency Decree, which the Thai authorities wield in an effort to criminalize legitimate political protest. (7)

Asking me to pick apart this idiocy degrades us both. But I got nothing better to do....

(1) 66 days old, correct. 66 days of patience from the 'Establishment', who were prepared to let the economy suffer greatly - purely to avoid the loss of Red Shirt lives [who were trying desperately to force the government's hand into giving them the massacre Thaksin so desperately wanted - the massacre he planned to spin to the world as 'proof' of his claims].. 66 days of Abhisit holding back the Army from doing a job they *could* have done in about 1-2 hours. Do you understand how 'effective' tanks and fully trained divisions would be against thousands of [*ostensibly* (ahem) unarmed] peasants? The 'peaceful' protesters Thaksin would like to portray them as being? Trust me on this, I'm a former military officer, every one of those 66 days is purely restraint shown by those with the power to clear unarmed men, women and children in minutes if casualties were not an overly concerning issue.

(1a) Using children as human shields is f despicable. I don't care if you're fighting for freedom, democracy, idiocy, corruption or ice cream f cake - you do not use children as human shields. Anyone who would are filthy scum. The fact that so many of the Western media 'overlooked' this fact for so long.....it's nauseating. How about you Sir, do you find *that* objectionable?

(2) 27 people died that day, when divisions of heavily armed troops attempted to disperse suicidal protesters. I think you need to understand something - the fact that only 27 peasants died in a fight against armed soldiers is testament to unbelievable restraint [from the heavily armed soldiers]. And if you don't understand that fact, you need to educate yourself as to the realities of the application of automatic gunfire [rubber bullets or real, doesn't matter] directed at unprotected human skin.

And everyone who is not brainwashed is aware of the extensive leadup to that day of skirmishes. A patient Abhisit doing everything [and more] that he could to prevent the loss of any life, even to the detriment of the economy [which the Reds were attempting to suffocate in the hope of inducing the aforementioned massacre for Thaksin].

(3) 55 poor souls fell that week. Again, one has to understand how tiny that number is - when you send armed soldiers up against the parents of the little girl above. If the soldiers weren't so fanatical about *not* returning fire on partially armed [Molotov cocktails, some pistols, rocks etc] attackers - had the soldiers *not* cared more about the welfare of the children than their parents who were happy to use them as human shields - that number would not have been 55. It would have been 555 or 1555.

(4) This is the most nauseating sentence in perhaps the entire article. And it's just vomit-inducing and nauseating. For what I would hope are obvious reasons. If not obvious to you, I suggest you have another watch of this short speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M9XiJoWSSs&feature=player_embedded

(5) This is just shockingly bad writing. It's a blatant and clumsy attempt to double the casualty figures.

(6) Firstly, some of those leaders should face the death penalty. Don't make me post that video again. Secondly, they're going to get slaps on the wrist and mercy they certainly do not deserve - just like Thaksin was shown mercy he did not deserve. Spinning the death penalty into that paragraph along with "terrorism" in parentheses just makes me want to vomit.

Setting Bangkok alight after being promised safe passage home - a plot they had planned months in advance - was the dictionary definition of terrorism. You know what would happen if you tried that shit in the UK, USA, Australia, EU? Unbelievable.

(7) The ISA and Emergency decrees covering select areas were only utilised in an attempt to prevent the 'protesters' from remaining in vital areas for too long. They were not on a peaceful march *through*. They were attempting to hijack key positions for maximum [negative] impact on commerce and traffic. The former is honourable political dissent. The latter is criminal hooligan behaviour with terrorist / destructive aspects in the overall strategy.

"criminalize legitimate political protest"?

No no no. There is not a country in the world where you and 5000 others could hold the capital city's CBD hostage to your [irrational and implausible] demands including the immediate dissolution of a sitting Parliament you and your friends don't really care for.

Not a COUNTRY in the entire WORLD where you would simply be allowed to damage the country's for months, indefinitely. This is FACT. Try it in the US sometime. See if only 80 of your 5000 friends are killed.

Ok, now I get it, you are a military officer and we should trust you and be grateful for the fact the army were kind enough not to kill even more, predominantly unarmed, Thai citizens.............

So, that's alright then, no need to have any enquiries or apportion responsibility etc, the reds should just be grateful that not more of them are dead.

I hope you are now enjoying a no doubt well earned retirement are no longer an active decision maker in military affairs.

[jayboy]

Not a COUNTRY in the entire WORLD where you would simply be allowed to damage the country's for months, indefinitely. This is FACT. Try it in the US sometime. See if only 80 of your 5000 friends are killed.

I'm afraid you have demonstrated nothing here except an extreme point of view, an unfamiliarity with the analytical process and an unusual toleration for violence including the murder of unarmed civilians civilians.What you have failed to do is to come up with a calm and rational analysis of Amsterdam's article.The crude and callous use of intemperate language doesn't help your cause.Anyway if it's any comfort I'm sure there are many who share your views, including many of the Bangkok urban population.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

No no no. There is not a country in the world where you and 5000 others could hold the capital city's CBD hostage to your [irrational and implausible] demands including the immediate dissolution of a sitting Parliament you and your friends don't really care for.

Not a COUNTRY in the entire WORLD where you would simply be allowed to damage the country's for months, indefinitely. This is FACT. Try it in the US sometime. See if only 80 of your 5000 friends are killed.

Ok, now I get it, you are a military officer and we should trust you and be grateful for the fact the army were kind enough not to kill even more, predominantly unarmed, Thai citizens........

I was being patronising you dimwit. The children they were using as human shields are able to know how 'unarmed' [ahem] civilians fare against automatic gunfire and tanks.

God dam_n right you should be grateful that *only* 80 were killed. Unless, of course, that is what you are annoyed about? Just like Thaksin? Annoyed yall didn't get your huge massacre to wave in front of the world's media? hmmm

Not a COUNTRY in the entire WORLD where you would simply be allowed to damage the country's for months, indefinitely. This is FACT. Try it in the US sometime. See if only 80 of your 5000 friends are killed.

I'm afraid you have demonstrated nothing here except an extreme point of view, an unfamiliarity with the analytical process and an unusual toleration for violence including the murder of unarmed civilians civilians.What you have failed to do is to come up with a calm and rational analysis of Amsterdam's article.The crude and callous use of intemperate language doesn't help your cause.Anyway if it's any comfort I'm sure there are many who share your views, including many of the Bangkok urban population.

Yeah okay, so like I provided endless ARGUMENTS and EVIDENCE and LOGIC in support of my position.

Not only do you refuse to respond in like fashion, you even refuse to answer my direct questions posed to you regarding the children being used as human shields issue and the nature of their terrorist destruction then being used by the spin NURSE [doctors spin better than that idiot can] as somehow being the other side's handiwork....

As such, you're not really worth having a serious conversation with. So I wish you all the best in your Red Delusions. Onwards and upwards, for your villain! Hurrah.

Good day.

[Seismic]

No, they were being forced to moderate illegal actions (LM posts) and then were held accountable when they failed to do so. The owner was not arrested for allowing political discussion. She was arrested for allowing illegal actions (LM posts) to stand un-moderated.

Actually I think what you meant to say was

They were allowing posts that the guys with the tanks and guns considered to be LM were being allowed unmoderated.

[animatic]

....there are a number of processes and striking parallels between the current conduct of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Democrat Party, and the military, and events that were taking place under Mugabe's early administration 7-9 years ago, before everything went off the rails. Early on in Mugabe's rise, we observed 1) an outsourcing of political violence, 2) the creation of a repressive legalistic apparatus, and 3) an exhibition of a "terrorism algorithm" – an inverse relationship between the state's level of democratic legitimacy and the need to taint opponents as terrorists...

He could be describing his employer Thaksin much more clearly with this commentary

than it could ever be applied to Abhisit. Which does in effect make it too biased a screed of claptrap

to require further reading in depth. Of course he was a lawyer, they are verbose by nature and vocation,

and of course he can hire research assistants and copy writers to paint any picture he likes...

as long as the mirror of his employers characters and actions are not held up too accurately.

In the information age, he who is NOT a discerning reader will wallow in the seas of manipulation

and political jacquerie, all of their days, and learn little of substance to sustain them.

Edited July 25, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

No, they were being forced to moderate illegal actions (LM posts) and then were held accountable when they failed to do so. The owner was not arrested for allowing political discussion. She was arrested for allowing illegal actions (LM posts) to stand un-moderated.

Actually I think what you meant to say was

They were allowing posts that the guys with the tanks and guns considered to be LM were being allowed unmoderated.

Actually the army rarely goes that route, it's usually police in different factions

using it a s a powerplay or distraction for their over lords.

[ThaksinKharma]

'ThaksinKharma'

1. Knowing the law is different than complying with the law.

2. Whether one agrees with the LM laws or not, all are expected to comply with them and when an entity such as the prachatai forum fails that, that they are held accountable for that breach should not come as a surprise. Again, one's own personal feelings, including mine, about the appropriateness of LM laws isn't at issue. It's whether the the laws were broken or not and for that a court will determine if they were or not.If the country wishes to change those laws, there are legal avenues to pursue that desire. In other words, I'm not saying the law is right or wrong, but simply that that is the law of this country as it stands now and that if people choose to break that law in the interim, then there are repercussions for doing so, the same as any other law-breaking action.

On point 1, did you train under Mr. Bumble?

On point no.2, You may wish to read up on the Nuremberg trials and

There are laws and there is justice.

point 1 was admittedly a rather flippant throwaway line reply to the flippant throwaway line statement of peterp: "We all know the law."

It's intent was to simply show the shortcoming of his statement. Nothing to get too worked up about.

point 2 I wouldn't compare the LM laws to the Nuremburg trials nor South Africa apartheid or the US's Jim Crow laws. They aren't the same.

As said, there are legal avenues for the populace to have laws changed. If you or others feel there is "no justice in the law" of LM and want to assist in that endeavor to change, I wish you luck.

As for me, it's a law I can live with easily, without any negative feelings that I'm giving up free speech if I comply with it.

Edited July 25, 2010 by ThaksinKharma

[jayboy]

point 2 I wouldn't compare the LM laws to the Nuremburg trials nor South Africa apartheid or the US's Jim Crow laws. They aren't the same.

I don't really follow the Nuremberg example but surely there are parallels with the SA apartheid and the US Jim Crow laws.In other words all are rotten anachronistic laws completely out of synch with the modern age.Actually LM is in some ways worse because the original intent was an honourable one serving the institution which has brought pride and stability to this country.In practice it has been hijacked by creeps and opportunists (and their craven farang fellow travellers who don't even have the excuse that they might benefit from the law's perversion).I think it's fair to say that there are no defenders of the law worth respecting and the decent politicians are looking for a way to reform.(It's difficult I know for reasons I don't need to expound, and even decent people like Abhisit sometimes play with fire by politicising a sensitive issue - sometimes with manifest dishonesty).The tragedy of all this that the actual and practical effect is now the absolute opposite of what was originally intended, and that is a terrible shame.

As for the foreigners who say they can live with the law, I have nothing but contempt.There would have been many slimy rednecks who said the same about the Jim Crow laws.

Edited July 26, 2010 by jayboy

[toptuan]

Please stick to the subject and avoid insults to the intelligence or character of fellow posters. Characterizations of "dimwit," "intellectual impoverishment," "crude," "you're not worth..." etc., when applied to members is insulting and demeaning. You have been warned.

Toptuan

For the Moderating Team

[ThaksinKharma]

Please stick to the subject and avoid insults to the intelligence or character of fellow posters. Characterizations of "dimwit," "intellectual impoverishment," "crude," "you're not worth..." etc., when applied to members is insulting and demeaning. You have been warned.

Toptuan

For the Moderating Team

Thank you for that reminder to posters.

In an effort to avoid any further smears and innuendo, I would just reply to jayboy that LM laws are not racist like the Jim Crow laws were and that I am not a <snip> and leave it at that.

Edited July 26, 2010 by toptuan
This is not the time to get in the last word about perceived insults. Yes, just leave it at that. Further bickering will bring this thread to a swift close.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

As for me, it's a law I can live with easily, without any negative feelings that I'm giving up free speech if I comply with it.

There was this French dude way back when who said something like:

I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

He was talking political dissent obviously, and it's a bit of a stretch to argue that paedophiles have a right to spread their [graphic] 'beliefs' in the public domain...but a key difference there is paedophiles incur victims. Therefore their right to "free speech" is forfeited.

That's what Free Speech really boils down to - and where you draw that 'line'. It's all about liberty. You have the inalienable right to do whatever you want, however you want to do it, wherever you want and whenever you want to do it - UNLESS - your exercise of your individual liberty is preventing someone else from exercising their inalienable right to do the same. I almost universally respect laws that unjustly broach upon my inalienable right to liberty - but my relent should not be mistaken for validation or support. I know I have inalienable rights - and whilst there are many who brusquely trample on them [in every country on the planet], and many millions more who could [and who *might" one day] abuse my liberty in ways far more unjust than mere broaching / trampling - perhaps, god forbid, take it away from me altogether - there is no power on this Earth that could invalidate my right to liberty.

Now, the law is the law. As crudely outlined by the government of the day. Or awkwardly enforced by the judicial branch of that government. What that means....is whatever you want it to mean. For me, it means very little. I believe I am a 'good' person, I do not actively seek to advantage at another person's expense, I have no malicious intent or seditious thoughts, I hold that I do not need laws to regulate my behaviour. And I hold that if I were otherwise inclined, there are very few laws in the world that would prove an obstacle in regulating any such inclinations. But for many people, this is obviously not the case.

If I find myself in a world where the LAW orders me to turn in Jews for Social Cleansing purposes, I will respectfully ignore such grotesque Evil [or more, hopefully more if I am courageous enough - and as it's a hypothetical, let's pretend that I would be]. I do not need others to code or otherwise regulate / order my actions for me to be a 'decent' person - obviously, as Nuremberg showed the idiots of the world, whilst many people apparently believe they do require such nannying....the simple fact is that acceptance of a law you believe is grossly unjust or worst, is an indictable crime. We shouldn't have required Nuremberg to 'teach' us this, but even children understand now that an unjust or unethical or harmful law is not a valid law, and any orders to follow it must be ignored. And will never be grounds on which to build a defence if the Piper of Justice comes a questioning.

Laws in every country are convoluted and archaic and chaotic and often ludicrous or even ridiculous and always enforced arbitrarily and in discriminatory fashion and almost always ruled upon with gross disparities in sentencing....and the legislation which eventually gets passed into law is often grossly polluted by *compromise* with those who wield power for their own selfish purposes rather than any patriotic or statesmanlike or even rational motivations whatsoever. As a result, those laws are inevitably tweaked, modified, scaled back, or even repealed altogether. And the ridiculous process is cycled through again, over and over and over. To the point where 'laws' are just vague reflections of simple majority opinion [for whatever that is worth, and it ain't worth much] and, far too often, not even representative of that.

Now, due to my inability to keep my [often ill-advised] opinions to myself, I'm quite fortunate that I am actually quite an admirer of His Majesty and I firmly believe the vast majority of Western critics who take pot-shots from their perceived moral 'pinnacles' [The Economist magazine springs to mind] so clearly and simply do not [and probably cannot be expected to] understand the cultural complexities of the unique situation here in Thailand [which I admit I didn't even *begin* to 'understand' myself until I read a brilliant article in the Bangkok Post a year or two ago]. But whilst I understand now how the law itself makes a lot of sense from a cultural / collective perspective....to the point where I would even 'support' it's existence if enforcement of it was kept to an absolute minimum [it should effectively remain a symbolic sign of collective respect...as ample laws against defamation are already in existence]...I do not believe enforcement of lese majeste is required to 'protect' the King and I do not believe that such 'protection' [as implied by that enforcement] was what the writers of Thailand's constitutions *intended* when they included it [surely this is obvious? For such an 'intent' would be a gross insult in and of itself...].

Although the King once admirably stated he did not consider himself to be infallible [i'm quite certain history is yet to see a man who was], I genuinely believe he simply has no need for the law's 'protection' - he is above such things - and I therefore suspect [and I'm getting into turbulent water here, albeit likely undetectable amidst the camouflage of my rambling] any such wielding of that law around, or any draconian enforcement of it, might itself be the most obvious breach of the spirit of lese majeste [*if* we assume that those enforcing it are somehow of the opinion that the King requires such 'protection' when he clearly does not].

So any criticisms *I* might make of lese majeste is actually really support for it. In the sense I believe that those who would wildly *enforce* it or wield it around as a powerful weapon - even if they do so with honourable intent - might perhaps be the ones who misunderstood the *intent* of it's inclusion in the Constitutions, and the act of enforcing it might perhaps itself be a [clearly unintentional] brush with lese majeste.

Furthermore, VERY few Westerners will ever be in the position where one could reasonably expect them to *understand* the issue as I believe I now understand it ....but be that as it may, the fact that Westerners will invariably misperceive widespread enforcement of such a law as 'evidence' of a requirement that does not exist....puts me in a spot where I have to conclude that it's very existence [and inevitable misuse by those who would seek to wield it for their own purposes, or by those who believe they are enforcing it with honorable intentions only]....it's very existence simply has to result in situations where the damages borne by Thailand's reputation [as a result of Western misconceptions / bias as the world races towards globalisation] will prove the law itself has become a liability. The intent of the writers who included it was honourable in my opinion, but technological advancements and geopolitical developments are of such a nature that continuing to enforcing it no longer serves the writers' intent. In my opinion.

I firmly believe it was included as an understandable and justifiable sign of respect which was - and clearly remains - representative of Thai cultural values. But I know Westerners. I know their bias, their arrogance, their preconceptions, their unequivocal abhorrence of perceived corruption, their hypocrisy, etc - I know this because I had subscribed to some or all of those ugly flaws and traits myself in the past - and also occasionally in the present. Westerners will never be able to *wrap their minds around it*, and more importantly [if unfortunately] for Thailand, few will ever even *attempt* such an enterprise. No, I know Westerners. They will largely buy straight into the bias, they will instantly fall for the spin [why wouldn't they?], and Thailand will unfairly wear the brunt of that unjust collective Western 'aghast' and hypocritical criticism etc.

Every time lese majeste is enforced, it will have a backfire effect. By contributing to the creation of an incorrect perception in the West that the Thai monarchy requires draconian protection against criticism - when it's quite apparent to my eyes that there is no - such - requirement.

And this is why I believe every foray into Prohibition, excessive Regulation, Protectionism, censorship, or any state-sponsored restriction on the John Stuart Mill idea of liberty [as it relates to an individual's right to exercise it] isn't really a slippery slope so much as a mind-blowing head-first dive out over the edge of Niagara Falls. No matter how well-intentioned, such 'experiments' can only result in backfire - if for no other reason, than the fact that filthy criminals like Thaksin will gleefully seize such upon such a thing and frame it in a manner which suits his own selfish, dishonourable purpose/s.

And ordering the owners of a political discussion forum [where the free exchange of diverse opinions and views must be held sacrosanct] to be the sharp end of a misdirected spear of enforcement, in that they were ordered to ensure total censorship of a law of which I'm certain they share my opinion in regards to enforcement [an ill-advised, misdirection, misapplication of what should have been a respectful Constitutional inclusion], ordering that kind of censorship seems to me that it implies there is a requirement for such protection, and I cannot reconcile such action as ever being just or honorable or respectful to His Majesty's inviolable position. I concede that those who would order such censorship likely do so with honourable 'intent', which mitigates what appears to be error of judgement in my opinion [in terms of end result], there is never any justification or mitigation for a forum poster who would attempt to then frame the forum owners' actions in closing down the forum as anything other than their only POSSIBLE option when faced with a single, untenable alternative.

Any poster who attempted such ridiculous spin would no doubt embarrass themselves a great deal. If they attempted to spin such silliness in such a transparent style - of course.

1400 words. Brevity is the soul of wit. Wit isn't my thing. It requires...editing...and effort...and other hard stuff which - for me - is untenable and makes my brain hurt lots.

Caveats are the best invention ever.

Edited July 26, 2010 by TheyCallmeScooter