Pheu Thai Mps Get One Year Jail Terms For Insulting Constitution Court President

[pookiki]

In the US system of jurisprudence, politicians and judges are beyond the reach of libel and defamation laws. As public officials, they are regarded as fair game and the slander gets pretty vicious. Even where slander and libel laws can be applied, a person must show damages. No harm, no foul.

Let's face it, libel and defamation laws in Thailand and many other countries are used to stifle dissent and political discourse. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Edited July 31, 2012 by pookiki

[steveromagnino]

"MP's must have their privilege to question and interrogate any institution - it's in their JD and they should be allowed to question Courts (as in every other country INCLUDING yours)"

Well I am from Thailand but in the other country I hail from, we use the Westminster system of parliamentary privilege, which allows an MP protection against civil and criminal liability in the course of their duties as a legislator, typically during parliamentary proceedings only, and still not a free for all to engage in any verbal tirade they wish, but rather a restricted freedom of speech without much consequence, while working as a member of parliament, and usually requiring that they are in session or at least in the house.

However, that has nothing to do with this case, which as anyone can see, is party political grandstanding idiocy of the highest order by the two MPs in question, and there is no question in the countries I hail from that the person in making an accusation outside the house (in this case as a representative of the Puea Thai party, not directly as an MP, using the 2 'hats' theory) is fully liable for any defamatory statement or libel.

At no point were they choosing to "question and interrogate" the courts, rather they were delivering a personal attack making incorrect statements which they claimed were facts, for personal and party political gain.

It would truly be odd if MPs were the only people in the world to enjoy some sort of odd civil liberty to defame another person at any time, when one of whom isn't even directly elected and is merely a list MP jobsworth.

I look forward to the reference in the Constitution, perhaps the most relevant legal document as to the jobs of MPs, as to where it specifically states that this is part of their job. I would personally have thought Section 45 and section 130 are the two key pieces, here is section 130 which specifically addresses this situation, paraphrased:

"At a sitting of the House of Representatives ....words expressed in giving statements of fact or opinions or in casting the vote by any member are absolutely privileged. No charge or action in any manner whatsoever shall be brought against such member.

The privilege under paragraph one does not extend to a member who expresses words at a sitting which is broadcast through radio or television if such words appear out of the precinct of the National Assembly and the expression of such words constitutes a criminal offence or a wrongful act against any other person, who is not a Minister or member of that House."

I would have thought this is crystal clear, but then again, my legal training is not as extensive as some members of the house, a few who even have PhDs in Law. Even if some of them didn't attend too many classes. Alledgedly.

Certainly, given the lack of progress in most areas, I would have thought PT MPs would be a little more focused on delivering any sort of progress to their supporters rather than wasting their time with another PR opportunity...but then again that's me, always looking for the glass to be half full, preferably of a nice lager.

Edited July 31, 2012 by steveromagnino

[bhakta]

No one ever goes to jail. Every sentence is "suspended". It seem rather absurd.

[Nickymaster]

"MP's must have their privilege to question and interrogate any institution - it's in their JD and they should be allowed to question Courts (as in every other country INCLUDING yours)"

Well I am from Thailand but in the other country I hail from, we use the Westminster system of parliamentary privilege, which allows an MP protection against civil and criminal liability in the course of their duties as a legislator, typically during parliamentary proceedings only, and still not a free for all to engage in any verbal tirade they wish, but rather a restricted freedom of speech without much consequence, while working as a member of parliament, and usually requiring that they are in session or at least in the house.

However, that has nothing to do with this case, which as anyone can see, is party political grandstanding idiocy of the highest order by the two MPs in question, and there is no question in the countries I hail from that the person in making an accusation outside the house (in this case as a representative of the Puea Thai party, not directly as an MP, using the 2 'hats' theory) is fully liable for any defamatory statement or libel.

At no point were they choosing to "question and interrogate" the courts, rather they were delivering a personal attack making incorrect statements which they claimed were facts, for personal and party political gain.

It would truly be odd if MPs were the only people in the world to enjoy some sort of odd civil liberty to defame another person at any time, when one of whom isn't even directly elected and is merely a list MP jobsworth.

I look forward to the reference in the Constitution, perhaps the most relevant legal document as to the jobs of MPs, as to where it specifically states that this is part of their job. I would personally have thought Section 45 and section 130 are the two key pieces, here is section 130 which specifically addresses this situation, paraphrased:

"At a sitting of the House of Representatives ....words expressed in giving statements of fact or opinions or in casting the vote by any member are absolutely privileged. No charge or action in any manner whatsoever shall be brought against such member.

The privilege under paragraph one does not extend to a member who expresses words at a sitting which is broadcast through radio or television if such words appear out of the precinct of the National Assembly and the expression of such words constitutes a criminal offence or a wrongful act against any other person, who is not a Minister or member of that House."

I would have thought this is crystal clear, but then again, my legal training is not as extensive as some members of the house, a few who even have PhDs in Law. Even if some of them didn't attend too many classes. Alledgedly.

Certainly, given the lack of progress in most areas, I would have thought PT MPs would be a little more focused on delivering any sort of progress to their supporters rather than wasting their time with another PR opportunity...but then again that's me, always looking for the glass to be half full, preferably of a nice lager.

They are delivering money to their supporters. That is a sign of progress to them (supporters).

[drdoom6996]

Bleh, suspended sentences... i will cheer the day these crooks start serving actual time!

Yeah, if it were you ar me no suspended sentence.

[waza]

So does the conviction preclude them from the cabinet?

Edited July 31, 2012 by waza

[Sateev]

outrageous curtailment of civil liberty

The "right to tell lies"?

MP's must have their privilege to question and interrogate any institution - it's in their JD and they should be allowed to question Courts (as in every other country INCLUDING yours).

But NOT including making unsubstantiated public statements at news conferences. There is an appropriate venue, and proof is incumbent. Elsewise, libel/slander are appropriate charges, as in every other country, including YOURS.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Sateev

[gohmer]

outrageous curtailment of civil liberty

The "right to tell lies"?

Name a developed country where slander (even in the most offensive) is a prison sentence.

[gohmer]

outrageous curtailment of civil liberty

The "right to tell lies"?

Name a developed country where slander (even in the most offensive) is a prison sentence.

Civil law suit maybe, but prison is for backwards countries, fascists, and communists.

[rubl]

^ #39 gohmer:

It seems that there are lots of backward, fascist and communist countries around the globe where defamation when judged so can lead to prison terms. Like clearly backward Belgium, Czech, Finland, Greece, Italy to name just a few. From wiki:

"Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. "

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

[ttelise]

outrageous curtailment of civil liberty

The "right to tell lies"?

MP's must have their privilege to question and interrogate any institution - it's in their JD and they should be allowed to question Courts (as in every other country INCLUDING yours).

This is very true for a proper democratic process. Threatening or intimidating judges is not appropriate, but questioning decisions or disagreement with holding is entirely appropriate.

The problem with Thai defamation law is the dispensing of the veracity defense. Apparently, a statement does not have to be untrue for one to be found guilty of defamation. The Thai political structure abuses that aspect of the law to censor opposition which is contrary to a true democratic process.

The net effect of trying to make believe they live in a free society yet punishing those speaking out just causes increased frustration, confusion and will likely lead to more craziness in the streets.

[Reasonableman]

You must be referring to the Suthep case as well, right? All equal before the law. That is the law, everyone knows it is the law, and everyone is expected to adhere to it in a civilised society. Parliamentary privilege is another.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Reasonableman

[ttelise]

^ #39 gohmer:

It seems that there are lots of backward, fascist and communist countries around the globe where defamation when judged so can lead to prison terms. Like clearly backward Belgium, Czech, Finland, Greece, Italy to name just a few. From wiki:

"Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. "

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

More education by Wiki. Haha, Wiki always gives the complete story. In fact, one not even attend law school as they can learn the laws and every nuance of every law from every country and HOW THEY AREPPLIED by simply reading Wiki.

[ttelise]

Bleh, suspended sentences... i will cheer the day these crooks start serving actual time!

Yeah, if it were you ar me no suspended sentence.

If it were you, no charges would be brought in the first place.

[ttelise]

In the US system of jurisprudence, politicians and judges are beyond the reach of libel and defamation laws. As public officials, they are regarded as fair game and the slander gets pretty vicious. Even where slander and libel laws can be applied, a person must show damages. No harm, no foul.

Let's face it, libel and defamation laws in Thailand and many other countries are used to stifle dissent and political discourse. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Very true, particularly paragraph 2. Exactly why I referred to Ahbist as a sissy for resorting to Defamation. One should not be in politics if they cannot handle public scrutiny.

Edited July 31, 2012 by ttelise

[Reasonableman]

In the US system of jurisprudence, politicians and judges are beyond the reach of libel and defamation laws. As public officials, they are regarded as fair game and the slander gets pretty vicious. Even where slander and libel laws can be applied, a person must show damages. No harm, no foul.

Let's face it, libel and defamation laws in Thailand and many other countries are used to stifle dissent and political discourse. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Very true, particularly paragraph 2. Exactly why I referred to Ahbist as a sissy for resorting to Defamation. One should not be in politics if they cannot handle public scrutiny.

Equally, one should not tell deliberate lies for political gain. That is not the same as public scrutiny. Far from it. It is an attempt to substitute a lie for the truth.

[waza]

In the US system of jurisprudence, politicians and judges are beyond the reach of libel and defamation laws. As public officials, they are regarded as fair game and the slander gets pretty vicious. Even where slander and libel laws can be applied, a person must show damages. No harm, no foul.

Let's face it, libel and defamation laws in Thailand and many other countries are used to stifle dissent and political discourse. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Very true, particularly paragraph 2. Exactly why I referred to Ahbist as a sissy for resorting to Defamation. One should not be in politics if they cannot handle public scrutiny.

So very true..............

Thaksin sues Privy Councillor for defamation - Nationmultimedia.com

Thaksin wins appellate review to sue Kaewsun - The Nation

Thaksin sues anti-graft panel for 50b baht - Teen Forums, Teen Help ...

Thaksin sues for one billion baht

Thai ousted premier Thaksin sues deputy prime minister for ...

Thaksin sues Thai graft busters for US$1.5b

BURMA DEMOCRACY & DEVELOPMENT: Thaksin sues deputy PM

Thaksin sues Gen Pichitr for defamation : National News Bureau of ...

Thaksin sues Suthep for defamation

Thaksin sues Swiss banks - <URL Automatically Removed> - The Thailand Forum

Thaksin sues a media tycoon for 12 million dollars

Thailand's PM Thaksin sues critic for black magic remark - China Post

Ex-Thai PM sues UAE lawyer for Dh441m - Emirates 24/7

Thaksin's wife sues Thai anti-graft body - USATODAY.com

Thaksin sues Thai antigraft body over frozen $2.1-B asset | GMA ...

Thaksin Sues Newspaper for Misleading Report - Xinhua News - vLex

and theres 1,180,000 more........

[ttelise]

In the US system of jurisprudence, politicians and judges are beyond the reach of libel and defamation laws. As public officials, they are regarded as fair game and the slander gets pretty vicious. Even where slander and libel laws can be applied, a person must show damages. No harm, no foul.

Let's face it, libel and defamation laws in Thailand and many other countries are used to stifle dissent and political discourse. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Very true, particularly paragraph 2. Exactly why I referred to Ahbist as a sissy for resorting to Defamation. One should not be in politics if they cannot handle public scrutiny.

So very true..............

Thaksin sues Privy Councillor for defamation - Nationmultimedia.com

Thaksin wins appellate review to sue Kaewsun - The Nation

Thaksin sues anti-graft panel for 50b baht - Teen Forums, Teen Help ...

Thaksin sues for one billion baht

Thai ousted premier Thaksin sues deputy prime minister for ...

Thaksin sues Thai graft busters for US$1.5b

BURMA DEMOCRACY & DEVELOPMENT: Thaksin sues deputy PM

Thaksin sues Gen Pichitr for defamation : National News Bureau of ...

Thaksin sues Suthep for defamation

Thaksin sues Swiss banks - <URL Automatically Removed> - The Thailand Forum

Thaksin sues a media tycoon for 12 million dollars

Thailand's PM Thaksin sues critic for black magic remark - China Post

Ex-Thai PM sues UAE lawyer for Dh441m - Emirates 24/7

Thaksin's wife sues Thai anti-graft body - USATODAY.com

Thaksin sues Thai antigraft body over frozen $2.1-B asset | GMA ...

Thaksin Sues Newspaper for Misleading Report - Xinhua News - vLex

and theres 1,180,000 more........

.

Too funny. A reflection if childlike mentality that keeps everything in turmoil. Since Thaksin did years ago when in Thailand, and that worked so well and made everyone so happy, it must be okay to do it now. Comparable to the "mom he hit me first" argument that children make when mom bust them for acting bad. Children are generally taught just because he did it first does not make it right.

[ttelise]

In the US system of jurisprudence, politicians and judges are beyond the reach of libel and defamation laws. As public officials, they are regarded as fair game and the slander gets pretty vicious. Even where slander and libel laws can be applied, a person must show damages. No harm, no foul.

Let's face it, libel and defamation laws in Thailand and many other countries are used to stifle dissent and political discourse. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Very true, particularly paragraph 2. Exactly why I referred to Ahbist as a sissy for resorting to Defamation. One should not be in politics if they cannot handle public scrutiny.

Equally, one should not tell deliberate lies for political gain. That is not the same as public scrutiny. Far from it. It is an attempt to substitute a lie for the truth.

Where they expressing subjective opinions as to court's impartiality or making objective statements of fact? Article does not make it clear. If they accused judge if taking bribes or being a transvestite lady boy, and they are wrong, then objective versus subjective. If they say judge is politically motivated, impartial, biased, wrong, and etc., that is subjective and they are entitled to their beliefs. Moreover, they are probably correct as everything that happens there is politically charged and makes little sense to an outsider like me who is not in support of either side. I would just like to see the absolute circus end.

After reading other thread, it just seems like both sides are abusing their positions to assert power, control and retaliatory tactics. Huge mess and courts need to stay absolutely impartial here or you guys could be in for a huge disaster if the Courts stoop to the political fray.

Edited July 31, 2012 by ttelise

[theajarn]

50,000 baht "fine". Chump change for these crooks. The law's in their favour.

[binjalin]

In the US system of jurisprudence, politicians and judges are beyond the reach of libel and defamation laws. As public officials, they are regarded as fair game and the slander gets pretty vicious. Even where slander and libel laws can be applied, a person must show damages. No harm, no foul.

Let's face it, libel and defamation laws in Thailand and many other countries are used to stifle dissent and political discourse. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

my point entirely - well put

[binjalin]

outrageous curtailment of civil liberty

The "right to tell lies"?

MP's must have their privilege to question and interrogate any institution - it's in their JD and they should be allowed to question Courts (as in every other country INCLUDING yours).

Yes. They have that privilege while in parliament. Not while fronting and inciting a mob at a rally.

see post 31

the point is 'free speech' and I can't see why they cannot challenge as they wish anything - we do in our countries and people died fighting for those rights in world wars but people come here and become defensive of censorship which is kinda wierd

[mrbiggwigg]

Bleh, suspended sentences... i will cheer the day these crooks start serving actual time!

They are too rich to serve.....Rich people don't go in jail. Not in Thailand and not in other countries.

They do in the less corrupt countries

[steveromagnino]

In the US system of jurisprudence, politicians and judges are beyond the reach of libel and defamation laws. As public officials, they are regarded as fair game and the slander gets pretty vicious. Even where slander and libel laws can be applied, a person must show damages. No harm, no foul.

Let's face it, libel and defamation laws in Thailand and many other countries are used to stifle dissent and political discourse. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

my point entirely - well put

Actually, the idea of total freedom of speech is not true at all in USA or other countries, nor are judges and other public figures "beyond the reach of libel law", and the case most strongly supporting that is New York Times vs. Sullivan which actually is a very pro free speech ruling.

Libel law needs to tread the line between the truth/public interest and protecting people from lies and unjustified attack.

In any case, Thai law is used in in Thailand, for this case since the MPs were speaking without any house privileges (effectively normal people) the judge was able to demonstrate that the statements made had a damaging effect on the judge's standing which links directly to occupation. The judge presented and was able to convince a court of law that the statements made were not protected by privilege, were not issued as statements of opinion and were not a comment made in the public interest. They were a cowardly personal attack, which those making it knew to be not true. The idea of needing to show malice, well I think the red shirt approach of intimidation would be an easy proof of malice but in this case, should the burden of proof applied to elected officials be also applied to a judge? I would think not; in the UK definition, malice includes ill will, spite or recklessness as to whether it was true or not.

As US law is raised, if you know that US case well, then I would strongly urge you to understand that the reasoning behind that particular decision was (thai case notes mentioned in brackets after):

- Sullivan was an elected official (the judge is not)

- it was an ad, it wasn't written by New York Times and so difficult to prove actual malice by the Times as publisher (in this case the MPs were the ones making the statements)

- the specific libel statement was implied rather than overt (in this case, overt), and there was insufficient evidence that it was made with actual malice (the test of malice applies in USA, but is irrelevant here since he is not an elected official)

Perhaps the most relevant part of the NY decision was:

"a publication is "libelous per se" if the words "tend to injure a person . . . in his reputation" or to "bring [him] into public contempt"; the trial court stated that the standard was met if the words are such as to "injure him in his public office, or impute misconduct to him in his office, or want of official integrity. . ."

"we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment ...that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. .....The present advertisement, as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection. The question is whether it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent."

"The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

Furthermore, in the question that libel is a civil rather than criminal case, without jail time. Rubbish. Alabama, for example, has a criminal libel law which subjects to prosecution "any person who speaks, writes, or prints of and concerning another any accusation falsely and maliciously importing the commission by such person of a felony, or any other indictable offense involving moral turpitude," and which allows as punishment upon conviction a fine not exceeding $500 and a prison sentence of six months.

Judges and other officials are not immune from prosecution, in the same ruling, the justices noted the provisos of protection, similar to the Westminister or Thai systems: (not applying in this case)

"... this Court held the utterance of a federal official to be absolutely privileged if made "within the outer perimeter" of his duties....officials are protected unless actual malice can be proved. .."

I don't know why the US is somehow the be all and end all of jurisprudence given a politicised supreme court, antiquated amendments and founding documents, but anyhow, from a UK perspective, libel does not require proof of damage, merely that the statement made was defamatory, although the defense of public interest still applies.... the test by Lord Atkin is "...the statement must tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally..."

I have little doubt the case would have been decided similarly in many, nay, countless other countries.

Edited August 1, 2012 by steveromagnino

[rubl]

see post 31

the point is 'free speech' and I can't see why they cannot challenge as they wish anything - we do in our countries and people died fighting for those rights in world wars but people come here and become defensive of censorship which is kinda wierd

Not that it really matters in the discussion here, but to say "people died fighting for those rights in world wars" when referring to 'freedom of speech' seems a wee bit naive, incorrect and besides the point of even 'freedom of speech' as posters describe it here. IMHO

[jerrysteve]

Its enough to make one dizzy

[Nickymaster]

In the US system of jurisprudence, politicians and judges are beyond the reach of libel and defamation laws. As public officials, they are regarded as fair game and the slander gets pretty vicious. Even where slander and libel laws can be applied, a person must show damages. No harm, no foul.

Let's face it, libel and defamation laws in Thailand and many other countries are used to stifle dissent and political discourse. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Very true, particularly paragraph 2. Exactly why I referred to Ahbist as a sissy for resorting to Defamation. One should not be in politics if they cannot handle public scrutiny.

So very true..............

Thaksin sues Privy Councillor for defamation - Nationmultimedia.com

Thaksin wins appellate review to sue Kaewsun - The Nation

Thaksin sues anti-graft panel for 50b baht - Teen Forums, Teen Help ...

Thaksin sues for one billion baht

Thai ousted premier Thaksin sues deputy prime minister for ...

Thaksin sues Thai graft busters for US$1.5b

BURMA DEMOCRACY & DEVELOPMENT: Thaksin sues deputy PM

Thaksin sues Gen Pichitr for defamation : National News Bureau of ...

Thaksin sues Suthep for defamation

Thaksin sues Swiss banks - <URL Automatically Removed> - The Thailand Forum

Thaksin sues a media tycoon for 12 million dollars

Thailand's PM Thaksin sues critic for black magic remark - China Post

Ex-Thai PM sues UAE lawyer for Dh441m - Emirates 24/7

Thaksin's wife sues Thai anti-graft body - USATODAY.com

Thaksin sues Thai antigraft body over frozen $2.1-B asset | GMA ...

Thaksin Sues Newspaper for Misleading Report - Xinhua News - vLex

and theres 1,180,000 more........

.

Too funny. A reflection if childlike mentality that keeps everything in turmoil. Since Thaksin did years ago when in Thailand, and that worked so well and made everyone so happy, it must be okay to do it now. Comparable to the "mom he hit me first" argument that children make when mom bust them for acting bad. Children are generally taught just because he did it first does not make it right.

Think you are cornered but good try.

[Buchholz]

Pheu Thai Party Spokesman Prompong Nopparit

Adviser to the Public Health Minister Pasit Sakdanarong

In another libel case involving Prompong....

Constitution Court judges drop libel case

Three Constitution Court judges yesterday agreed to drop a libel litigation after the three defendants complied with the settlement terms, including the issuing of a public apology.

The case came to light after Matichon newspaper published remarks made by Pheu Thai Party Spokesman Prompong Nopparit and a government aide Pasit Sakdanarong subsequently wrote an editorial based on such remarks in 2010.

Prompong and Pasit alleged that the three judges, Charoon Intachan, Suphot Khaimuk and Chalermpon Ake-uru, were involved in cheating in connection with the administering of admission tests for court officials.

The three judges initiated criminal and civil proceedings for defamation, naming Matichon, Prompong and Pasit as defendants.

The defence team of Prompong was the first to settle out of court.

Prompong showed his remorse and agreed to upload his apology clip on YouTube and publish the apology in Matichon for five days.

The judges removed Prompong from the list of defendants in April.

In the settlement involving Matichon, the newspaper agreed to issue and publish its apology for five consecutive days. It removed libelous reports from its online edition. It would also pay for the legal expenses.

As for Pasit, he agreed to give an interview rectifying his remarks and upload it on YouTube. He would publish his apology in Matichon for 10 consecutive days. He would meet with the three judges to personally apologise at a venue to be designated.

-- The Nation 2012-08-16

Edited August 16, 2012 by Buchholz

[whybother]

As for Pasit, he agreed to give an interview rectifying his remarks and upload it on YouTube. He would publish his apology in Matichon for 10 consecutive days. He would meet with the three judges to personally apologise at a venue to be designated.

Does that mean that Pasit failed in trying to frame the Democrats AND the judges. I suppose he did get a PTP government job though, so not a complete failure.

[animatic]

Yeah nice to see, still would be nicer to see them in jail,

but still, the loss of face for even a suspended sentence

is a big ole bitchslap across the gob.