Thai Law

[MrRichard2009]

I was reading about slander in one topic and it seems that the truth is not a defense in Thailand, if you make someone lose face the truth is no defense for your public statement.

If you made a private telephone call or sent a letter and let's just say the comment was true and the person was just offended or his feeling hurt is that also against the law ?

Let's say someone held themselves out as an expert in where to buy popcorn or drugs or whatever, they told the world they knew where the vendors were, who the vendors bosses were, where to buy it ect, simply demonstrating they were much more of an expert than the average person on the subject.

They receive a letter that says ......." Your an expert on where to find small bags of popcorn ..... sick" Now that's a little silly so we will use bags of drugs for example or prostitution or whatever the actual thing that he finds sick isn't relevant except to the extent that the more sickening the subject the more reasonable it would be to be sickened by it ...... We will just say the person who sends it finds being an expert in that ...sick They are anti drugs or prostitution or popcorn ....whatever

I'm sure you get the just of it ,............. what is illegal about that if anything ? It is private so no one is losing face ? It's not as though it was some public statement designed to harm someone's reputation like calling them a liar or a criminal for example......... which I am told even the truth is no defense for.

[elkangorito]

Do you mean 'sic' or 'sick'?

[MrRichard2009]

Do you mean 'sic' or 'sick'?

Sick ... as in sick unhealthy ect .... not sic whatever that means

[Kwasaki]

The truth needs no translation. maybe but in law you have to have the proof to back it up.

[Beetlejuice]

What the 'xxxx' is this all about?

Will please someone explain, it`s been a long tiring day.

[Kwasaki]

What the 'xxxx' is this all about?

Will please someone explain, it`s been a long tiring day.

Simply it's if you tell the truth in a Thai court of Justice they ain't going to believe you unless you have proof.

[StreetCowboy]

The truth needs no translation. maybe but in law you have to have the proof to back it up.

Sometimes, the truth does need translation

sic means 'exactly as written',; it comes from the latin sic: thus

as in "the truth needs no translation. maybe (sic) but in law...' where the 'sic' is intended to imply 'I know "maybe" should have a capital, but thus was it written in the original quote'

Sometimes, the truth does need translation for the gentle reader who may not be as well-educated or as intelligent as those who walk amongst us. Remember that a lot of the non-native English-speakers on this forum are poorly educated and here only by nature of unfortunate disparities in the balance of trade... actually, here we are straying from the realms of lexology and grammar, about which I know little, to economics which is one of my weaker subjects; what is the collective noun for betes noirs?

SC

[StreetCowboy]

What the 'xxxx' is this all about?

Will please someone explain, it`s been a long tiring day.

Simply it's if you tell the truth in a Thai court of Justice they ain't going to believe you unless you have proof.

And even then, you're on a hiding to nothing, because not only do you have to show that it was true, but you also have to show that it was in the public interest that the infromation was made public.

The Accused says "Mr X, the holder of post Y, is a corrupt official and a villain.

Mr X sues for defamation.

Accused: Here is the evidence - see- it is all true

X : But you have harmed my earning potential and cut me off from bribes from foreign contractors, who had previousl believed me to be the most upright citizen in Thailand

Judge: He has a point. That is a lot of money to lose out on.

Accused: But it is in the public interst that this information is made known to the voters

X: Why? who gives a toss what they think?

Judge: He has a point. Their votes are 500 baht a head, regardless

Accused: But we never said that he was any more corrupt or villainous than any other official in Thailand. We merely said he was a traitorous lying weasel who would sell his own grandmother for a second-hand Mercedez.

Judge: You have a good point there. We find you innocent of the charges placed against you, and we find that X is liable for the free advertising that you have provided.

On the secondary case, that your advertising was misleading, we find you not guilty. On the teriary charge, we find you liable to pay road tax on the Mercedez

SC

[IanForbes]

For the very reason of the OP's topic is why I believe that anyone charged with a criminal offense should NOT be reported in the press if it includes names. A press report could state that an arrest was made for a perpetrator robbing the bank at 4th and Main, but it should NOT state that Mr John Doe was arrested for robbing the bank at 4th and Main. My reason for this is it would not besmirch the reputation of Mr John Doe should he later be proven innocent. It would also make it easier to get a unbiased jury.

People tend to want to believe the worst of people, and anything reported in the press tends to stick... whether it's true or not. If a man was accused of a rape that he didn't do then there will be hundreds of people who STILL believe he is a rapist even if he is later proven innocent in a court of law. In such cases he might later have difficulty getting a job and his reputation has been ruined for all time. I can think of many high profile cases where this has happened.

[PattayaParent]

Isn't it just a face thing?

If you say something bad about someone they lose face. So they have to take you to court and pay the most tea money to the judge so they win and therefore gain face,

Even though everyone knows what was said was true, that's irreleveant to the 'face'.

[MrRichard2009]

Isn't it just a face thing?

If you say something bad about someone they lose face. So they have to take you to court and pay the most tea money to the judge so they win and therefore gain face,

Even though everyone knows what was said was true, that's irreleveant to the 'face'.

Actually it's a question of being private or a public statement , my wife's lawyer made it pretty clear that it's not illegal at all to make private ones for the purpose of this example anyhow. Because being offended is not the same as being slandered or losing face publicly

[MrRichard2009]

For the very reason of the OP's topic is why I believe that anyone charged with a criminal offense should NOT be reported in the press if it includes names. A press report could state that an arrest was made for a perpetrator robbing the bank at 4th and Main, but it should NOT state that Mr John Doe was arrested for robbing the bank at 4th and Main. My reason for this is it would not besmirch the reputation of Mr John Doe should he later be proven innocent. It would also make it easier to get a unbiased jury.

People tend to want to believe the worst of people, and anything reported in the press tends to stick... whether it's true or not. If a man was accused of a rape that he didn't do then there will be hundreds of people who STILL believe he is a rapist even if he is later proven innocent in a court of law. In such cases he might later have difficulty getting a job and his reputation has been ruined for all time. I can think of many high profile cases where this has happened.

That's interesting and here is a case my Wife won ...... Her company accused her of stealing and called the cops, the first the she said and tells me to say to the cops is ...... If you arrest me I will lose face and want compensation, so the cops drag her and the bosses down to the station and figure it out that she's not to blame but the owner in fact is just not paying the employees. Pretty much opposite of his first story ...... Without getting into all the sorted details she sued the company on behalf of the employees and herself and got paid ....... I guess the point I am making is that according to her if someone is falsely arrested the assumption is it's because they did something wrong(police) and yes you lost face and I guess you can sue for whatever they might have, and I know everyone thinks the cops are poor but our police friend is far from poor but wouldn't be the one making the arrest either I suppose. So I think their might be some legal recourse for a false or even well intended mistaken arrest,