Australian Businesswoman Arrested In Thailand For Criminal Defamation

[DLock]

Who has more control over media on this and what would be medias agenda. No prudent lawyer defending her or her firm should comment on case with an ongoing criminal investigation as such is unethical in civilized judicial systems.

The problem is that this event is NOT taking place in a country with a civilized judicial system. It is happening in Thailand.

Why do you contend that Thailand not a civilized judicial system?

[ttelise]

Back to the point. If Thailand has a law that defines criminal defamation as a statement between two parties, i.e., not public, that is potentially injurious to one party regardless of veracity, such law would be unconstitutional as overly broad, vague or arbitrary in application. The law has arbitrary application because potentially anyone or everyone could be subjected to criminal prosecution regardless of intent or veracity of the statement.

So, a statement made in private by one person to another shouldn't ever be considered defamation even if those comments are untrue and hurt a third party?!??!? Are you really a lawyer? And if you suggestion that there were only two people (the accused and the plaintiff) that were part of this conversation then you are wrong. There is absolutely nothing in this story to say this man is claiming he was defamed by something the accused said solely to him. It has made clear the potential investor was privileged to the comments. And regardless if comments are made to a single person or the public in large forum or during a private or public meeting has nothing to do with if comments rise to defamation or slander,

By the way, Criminal Defamation is applicable in many countries ... including some states in the US.

By two parties, I meant the two parties involved and not publication to a third party.

Defamation or libel requires the statement to be published to third parties and that the utter knew or should have known that the statement was false. This is a general definition in US, but apparently not in Thailand.

You conveniently ignore the veracity prong which is the crux of the problem.

Now go and reread what I wrote and tell why that definition should be considered constitutional.

Again, the point is if Thailand truly defines criminal defamation as I described above, such definition is archaic and unconstitutional.

Telling me other countries have criminal defamation is of no consequence to anything I have written. Again, I am only making a basic statutory construction analysis of the Thai statue I saw earlier in this thread.

Yep, I am a lawyer and I clerked for a state supreme court justice after I graduated law school. I have considerable experience in statutory construction and analyzing whether statutes or laws are constitutional.

Edited June 2, 2012 by ttelise

[Nisa]

Back to the point. If Thailand has a law that defines criminal defamation as a statement between two parties, i.e., not public, that is potentially injurious to one party regardless of veracity, such law would be unconstitutional as overly broad, vague or arbitrary in application. The law has arbitrary application because potentially anyone or everyone could be subjected to criminal prosecution regardless of intent or veracity of the statement.

So, a statement made in private by one person to another shouldn't ever be considered defamation even if those comments are untrue and hurt a third party?!??!? Are you really a lawyer? And if you suggestion that there were only two people (the accused and the plaintiff) that were part of this conversation then you are wrong. There is absolutely nothing in this story to say this man is claiming he was defamed by something the accused said solely to him. It has made clear the potential investor was privileged to the comments. And regardless if comments are made to a single person or the public in large forum or during a private or public meeting has nothing to do with if comments rise to defamation or slander,

By the way, Criminal Defamation is applicable in many countries ... including some states in the US.

Defamation or libel requires the statement to be published to third parties and that the utter knew or should have known that the statement was false. This is a general definition in US, but apparently not in Thailand.

You conveniently ignore the veracity prong which is the crux of the problem.

Defamation is injury to reputation so if made in private to person to whom statement addresses, there can be no damage to reputation. Publication can be met by conveying to a third party which is not what I meant by "in private.". In private means only parties (utterer and one allegedly defamed).

Now go and reread what I wrote and tell why that definition should be considered constitutional.

If I was speaking to you in person, I would say it slowly. Again, the point is if Thailand truly defines criminal defamation as I described above, such definition is archaic and unconstitutional. I even explained why.

Telling me other countries have criminal defamation is of no consequence to anything I have written. Again, I am only making a basic statutory construction analysis of the Thai statue I saw earlier in this thread.

Yep, I am a lawyer and I clerked for a state supreme court justice after I graduated law school. I have considerable experience in statutory construction and analyzing whether statutes or laws are constitutional.

Dude you are making up imagined scenarios (there was a 3rd party in this incident) and pretending Thai law says something it does not (see Thai law in above post) and that I certainly didn't claim it said ... Why you are doing this I have no clue unless you are simply trying to be right in a debate in which nobody is debating or simply want to mislead people as to what Thai law states... which by the way clearly starts off in the first line of the Defamation code (posted above and online) ...

Section 326 Whoever, imputes anything to the other person

before a third person

in a manner likely ...

[ttelise]

Back to the point. If Thailand has a law that defines criminal defamation as a statement between two parties, i.e., not public, that is potentially injurious to one party regardless of veracity, such law would be unconstitutional as overly broad, vague or arbitrary in application. The law has arbitrary application because potentially anyone or everyone could be subjected to criminal prosecution regardless of intent or veracity of the statement.

So, a statement made in private by one person to another shouldn't ever be considered defamation even if those comments are untrue and hurt a third party?!??!? Are you really a lawyer? And if you suggestion that there were only two people (the accused and the plaintiff) that were part of this conversation then you are wrong. There is absolutely nothing in this story to say this man is claiming he was defamed by something the accused said solely to him. It has made clear the potential investor was privileged to the comments. And regardless if comments are made to a single person or the public in large forum or during a private or public meeting has nothing to do with if comments rise to defamation or slander,

By the way, Criminal Defamation is applicable in many countries ... including some states in the US.

Defamation or libel requires the statement to be published to third parties and that the utter knew or should have known that the statement was false. This is a general definition in US, but apparently not in Thailand.

You conveniently ignore the veracity prong which is the crux of the problem.

Defamation is injury to reputation so if made in private to person to whom statement addresses, there can be no damage to reputation. Publication can be met by conveying to a third party which is not what I meant by "in private.". In private means only parties (utterer and one allegedly defamed).

Now go and reread what I wrote and tell why that definition should be considered constitutional.

If I was speaking to you in person, I would say it slowly. Again, the point is if Thailand truly defines criminal defamation as I described above, such definition is archaic and unconstitutional. I even explained why.

Telling me other countries have criminal defamation is of no consequence to anything I have written. Again, I am only making a basic statutory construction analysis of the Thai statue I saw earlier in this thread.

Yep, I am a lawyer and I clerked for a state supreme court justice after I graduated law school. I have considerable experience in statutory construction and analyzing whether statutes or laws are constitutional.

Dude you are making up imagined scenarios (there was a 3rd party in this incident) and pretending Thai law says something it does not (see Thai law in above post) and that I certainly didn't claim it said ... Why you are doing this I have no clue unless you are simply trying to be right in a debate in which nobody is debating or simply want to mislead people as to what Thai law states... which by the way clearly starts off in the first line of the Defamation code (posted above and online) ...

Section 326 Whoever, imputes anything to the other person

before a third person

in a manner likely ...

Once again, my issue is with Thai law not requiring that the statement be false. That is what makes it unconstitutional. Doesn't matter if made to 1 or a 100 people.

What exactly did she tell the investors. Not that it should matter, but I have not seen any specifics. If she merely stated that liabilities are understated, that should not be a problem as that was an SET/SEC finding.

Edited June 2, 2012 by ttelise

[Nisa]

Once again, my issue is with Thai law not requiring that the statement be false. That is what makes it unconstitutional.

Although the below has already been covered here, I am wondering what part of the Thai constitution makes the law unconstitutional?

Section 330 In case of defamation, if the person prosecuted for defamation can

prove that the imputation made by him is true, he shall not be punished.

But he shall not be allowed to prove if such imputation concerns

personal matters, and suchproof will not be benefit to the public

.

Once again, It is not uncommon across the globe to have law which prevent the spreading of hurtful or embarrassing information of personal information (especially of nonpublic people) when this information serves no benefit to the public,

Edit: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Defamation

Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.

Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts

, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.

"Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy

Edited June 2, 2012 by Nisa

[ttelise]

Once again, my issue is with Thai law not requiring that the statement be false. That is what makes it unconstitutional.

Although the below has already been covered here, I am wondering what part of the Thai constitution makes the law unconstitutional?

Section 330 In case of defamation, if the person prosecuted for defamation can

prove that the imputation made by him is true, he shall not be punished.

But he shall not be allowed to prove if such imputation concerns

personal matters, and suchproof will not be benefit to the public

.

Once again, It is not uncommon across the globe to have law which prevent the spreading of hurtful or embarrassing information of personal information (especially of nonpublic people) when this information serves no benefit to the public,

Edit: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Defamation

Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.

Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts

, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.

"Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy

Oh my, that was so easy. I was going by what I read in posts at beginning of this thread. I kept prefacing it with "if Thailand has a law that . . , .". This is all I was seeking.

She was charged with defamation. Cannot defame one with the truth.

Invasion of Privacy laws are completely different in US. Inclusion of such under a defamation statute would and should fail as there needs to be completely different elements for a proper criminal classification. One also needs a proper classification of mens rea to have a valid criminal statute.

Invasion of privacy simply contemplates an invasion of one's privacy to obtain otherwise private information to use for the express purpose of intimidation or coercion.

Permitting some to get convicted because they express an opinion about one's penis size would be an overly broad application for purposes of criminality.

If someone broke into another's home and surreptitiously photographed the small penis and threatens publication for purposes of intimidation or coercion, then it could perhaps arise to the level of a criminal charge.

I also believe that invasion of privacy requires widespread publication to general public and not simply conveying information to a few individuals. I believe no crime if information is both not news worthy AND the information can be independently obtained through any independent source, public records or is already in public domain at any level. Once again, a criminal level of culpability or mens rea/intent must be present or the crime is overly broad.

Edited June 2, 2012 by ttelise

[bumpkin]

Name me a country that has no stupid laws on its books... Thailands no different,

in her position as a former NSW chairperson of the Australia Thai Business Council she should / will have known about this law, it's no secret..

Some people have to learn the hard way...

If there is any truth in the accusation that this person made defamatory comments, surely this is most surprising from someone who held a senior position in the ATBC. She is not a novice. So, why did she make any such comments? The work of a Council is to council. Personal observations are seldom necessary.