Pheu Thai Warns Of Legal Action Over Anti-Yingluck Remarks

[Thait Spot]

Let's get back on topic here. As a supposed journalist that should be quite simple.

This ISN'T about what the Dems did or didn't do.

This IS about freedom of speech and the ability to criticise the Prime Minister in what claims to be a democratic nation without recrimination.

If you truly believe that the PM is beyond reproach then your previous comments on the LM laws are pure hypocrisy.

Do i post in Swahili, Sami or Tamil?

How many times do i have to write in *plain English* that i do not agree with the government threatening to file legal cases against critics of the PM?

It is also about freedom of speech when the opposition on a regular base verbally attacks two newspapers (one of whom articles are linked to in this forum here as well), making it physically so dangerous for their reporters to enter their public stages that they have to remove any ID showing their affiliation. This is part of the present context here.

Not one of you has criticized the Democrat Party and the other opposition groups for that. Is that a truth too inconvenient for you?

This is what we are discussing - "Mr. Prompong Nopparit said the accusation made by some people that the Thai government is unconcerned over fates of Thai nationals caught up in Egypt unrest is totally untrue. "Ms. Yingluck is in fact very concerned about the matter," he said"

Below is your contribution to the thread:

Post #36 - woolly statement suggesting that this is "well way beyond what freedom of expression generally permits"

Post #39 - irrelevant statements about other supposed remarks that you have greatly exaggerated to assist your case

Post #42 - blame the law, the Dems, the coup and the military for PTP's application of the law - well done!!

Post #43 - you say "over reaction of the government" but then try to justify it

Post #47 - you say "attempts to overthrow the government by any means" any means excluding a coup

Post #50 - "quite clearly that i do not agree with the cyber act" apart from in your other posts

Post #62 - quite a rant - but not keeping to the subject of the Egypt evacuation

Post #63 - "But as long as the government is just issuing those lame threats and doesn't follow through" now you're into complete fiction

Post #66 - Ahh but the Dems (part 324)

Post #76 - Freudian slip? "Your rant and rave about my reporting on 2010 (which really isn't the topic of this threat)" Now what's the topic again?

Post #82 - Ahh but the Dems (again) and a dig at my linguistic skills.

As a supposed Amglo Saxon I thought I'd help a bit with your "plain English" - see below::

Do i post in Swahili, Sami or Tamil?

How many times do I have to write in *plain English* that i do not agree with the government threatening to file legal cases against critics of the PM?

It is also about freedom of speech when the opposition on a regular base verbally attacks two newspapers (one of whom articles are linked to in this forum here as well), making it physically so dangerous for their reporters to enter their public stages that they have to remove any ID showing their affiliation. This is part of the present context here.

Not one of you has criticized the Democrat Party and the other opposition groups for that. Is that a truth too inconvenient for you?

[NongKhaiKid]

This is all part of The Red Shirt Thugocracy , led by their DL who wants to wipe out any dissent.

and this government wants to hold a forum with international personalities on reconciliation yet criticism will not be tolerated.

Oh so that's why the opposition refuse to attend this forum

it's not a forum, it's a circus. Red Shirt Thugs will not accept anything that does not meet all their demands. This "forum" is just grandstanding.

Wonder what excuse they will come up with if the big names invited start pulling out ? Tony is unlikely to though if there's money to be made

[nicknostitz]

Dear Nick,

I admire your sense of humour - accusing me of skirting the issue. The issue is the current threats of subordinate police officers and PTP members to hunt down anyone voicing criticism against the Government by insinuating that this "criticism" is damaging Thailand's reputation. This is a brazen attack on human rights, but in line with the recent actions of this Government and its supporting red shirts.

And what is your answer to it? A lengthy list of past events which are totally irrelevant unless the Democrats will be voted into office again. If they then try to undermine human rights like this current Government is prepared to we can all together voice our concern and criticism. Until then the "... but the Democrats..." is nothing but a decoy to divert attention.

Imagine a German Polizeidirektor making a statement on television that he will hunt down Government critics in the social media and that he already has obtained a secret agreement with a provider to share confidential customer data. He would be wiped off the political landscape the very day, and rightfully so.

Oh yes, this Government has so far just "threatened" to throw anyone criticising them into the slammer - at least we haven't heard otherwise. Does this mean we can continue as before, at least until we hear "Aufmachen, Gestapo!" ("Open the door, Gestapo!") one early morning?Or until someone sprays our front door with an assault rifle or tosses a frag into our garden to remind us who is the boss?

Thailand is moving on a dangerous path and you should not applaud or try to whitewash it.

I always thought that journalists usually were the first to sound alarm when a Government was trying to undermine human rights?

Again, reading issues...

How many times shall i say that i do not agree with the threats by the government, and in particular by the chief of the cyber unit. But then, i look at this more as a rather humorous situation considering the interview he gave. Which was a most classic foot in mouth situation.

So far, this is a storm in a tea cup as i have not seen any charges being filed, or anyone being convicted. Lets talk again when charges are filed, and for which alleged offense. Until then i laugh about it, and would suggest you to lighten up as well.

Not all journalists get hissy fits over little stuff that hasn't even happened. Threats of filing charges are daily bread and butter, part of the game. Actually filing charges is a different pair of boots. But we are not yet in that situation (yet). And then of course, it depends if charges filed are justified (such as slander, defamation, falsifying facts, etc), or clear intimidation, such as attempting to silence critics.

And then of course, the nasty stuff, the kind of threats we face that are not part of the legal system... And those are not just done by governments, but by opposition groups as well. They, from my perspective, are far more serious than threats of filing legal charges. These ones are also part of the topic concerning freedom of speech.

[gerry1011]

If a Thaivisa poster makes insulting personal attacks against another member he can be banned from Thaivisa...

I would not see a problem in banning a Thaivisa poster from Thailand if he makes insulting remarks directed at the prime minister.

Good manners and good education is what lacks with a lot of posters.

[ridkun]

Dear Nick,

I admire your sense of humour - accusing me of skirting the issue. The issue is the current threats of subordinate police officers and PTP members to hunt down anyone voicing criticism against the Government by insinuating that this "criticism" is damaging Thailand's reputation. This is a brazen attack on human rights, but in line with the recent actions of this Government and its supporting red shirts.

And what is your answer to it? A lengthy list of past events which are totally irrelevant unless the Democrats will be voted into office again. If they then try to undermine human rights like this current Government is prepared to we can all together voice our concern and criticism. Until then the "... but the Democrats..." is nothing but a decoy to divert attention.

Imagine a German Polizeidirektor making a statement on television that he will hunt down Government critics in the social media and that he already has obtained a secret agreement with a provider to share confidential customer data. He would be wiped off the political landscape the very day, and rightfully so.

Oh yes, this Government has so far just "threatened" to throw anyone criticising them into the slammer - at least we haven't heard otherwise. Does this mean we can continue as before, at least until we hear "Aufmachen, Gestapo!" ("Open the door, Gestapo!") one early morning?Or until someone sprays our front door with an assault rifle or tosses a frag into our garden to remind us who is the boss?

Thailand is moving on a dangerous path and you should not applaud or try to whitewash it.

I always thought that journalists usually were the first to sound alarm when a Government was trying to undermine human rights?

Again, reading issues...

How many times shall i say that i do not agree with the threats by the government, and in particular by the chief of the cyber unit. But then, i look at this more as a rather humorous situation considering the interview he gave. Which was a most classic foot in mouth situation.

So far, this is a storm in a tea cup as i have not seen any charges being filed, or anyone being convicted. Lets talk again when charges are filed, and for which alleged offense. Until then i laugh about it, and would suggest you to lighten up as well.

Not all journalists get hissy fits over little stuff that hasn't even happened. Threats of filing charges are daily bread and butter, part of the game. Actually filing charges is a different pair of boots. But we are not yet in that situation (yet). And then of course, it depends if charges filed are justified (such as slander, defamation, falsifying facts, etc), or clear intimidation, such as attempting to silence critics.

And then of course, the nasty stuff, the kind of threats we face that are not part of the legal system... And those are not just done by governments, but by opposition groups as well. They, from my perspective, are far more serious than threats of filing legal charges. These ones are also part of the topic concerning freedom of speech.

How about the charge against opposition spokeswoman who post mocking photoshopped picture of the PM? If Thailand has a rigid law-enforcement system like developed country, this treat would be a joke. Unfortunately, this government has shown us enough that they got their hands ready on the flip-flop government-dependent law enforcement system and will go far as to use it against anyone who oppose them. Got charged by the police is not so pleasant, especially in Thailand and very especially if they got an order to do anything to make you guilty. You might think it is humorous that you think it wouldn't happen, but it is more humorous than that because it could actually happen here in Thailand.

[nicknostitz]

How about the charge against opposition spokeswoman who post mocking photoshopped picture of the PM? If Thailand has a rigid law-enforcement system like developed country, this treat would be a joke. Unfortunately, this government has shown us enough that they got their hands ready on the flip-flop government-dependent law enforcement system and will go far as to use it against anyone who oppose them. Got charged by the police is not so pleasant, especially in Thailand and very especially if they got an order to do anything to make you guilty. You might think it is humorous that you think it wouldn't happen, but it is more humorous than that because it could actually happen here in Thailand.

You mean Malika Boonmetrakul, deputy spokeswoman of the Democrat Party?

The one who suggested to close down all social networking sites, including facebook, youtube and twitter, and who started the "bad web campaign" - a facebook group where complaints are collected to file charges against people who allegedly insult the monarchy and who allegedly violate the cyber crimes act?

Glasshouse...?

Here a rather critical article on her (no, i didn't write that one):

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/11/29/mallika-boonmetrakul-an-appalling-thai-politician/

So, yes, thank you, i see quite a bit of humor in that present wrangling over who has the right for free speech, and who not. Sorry.

Edited August 19, 2013 by nicknostitz

[gemini81]

If a Thaivisa poster makes insulting personal attacks against another member he can be banned from Thaivisa...

I would not see a problem in banning a Thaivisa poster from Thailand if he makes insulting remarks directed at the prime minister.

Good manners and good education is what lacks with a lot of posters.

From Thailand if he or she makes insulting remarks at the PM? That's ludicrous. They have set themselves up as a public figure.

[mrtoad]

If a Thaivisa poster makes insulting personal attacks against another member he can be banned from Thaivisa...

I would not see a problem in banning a Thaivisa poster from Thailand if he makes insulting remarks directed at the prime minister.

Good manners and good education is what lacks with a lot of posters.

And arrogance and self-righteousness with others

[ridkun]

How about the charge against opposition spokeswoman who post mocking photoshopped picture of the PM? If Thailand has a rigid law-enforcement system like developed country, this treat would be a joke. Unfortunately, this government has shown us enough that they got their hands ready on the flip-flop government-dependent law enforcement system and will go far as to use it against anyone who oppose them. Got charged by the police is not so pleasant, especially in Thailand and very especially if they got an order to do anything to make you guilty. You might think it is humorous that you think it wouldn't happen, but it is more humorous than that because it could actually happen here in Thailand.

You mean Malika Boonmetrakul, deputy spokeswoman of the Democrat Party?

The one who suggested to close down all social networking sites, including facebook, youtube and twitter, and who started the "bad web campaign" - a facebook group where complaints are collected to file charges against people who allegedly insult the monarchy and who allegedly violate the cyber crimes act?

Glasshouse...?

Here a rather critical article on her (no, i didn't write that one):

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/11/29/mallika-boonmetrakul-an-appalling-thai-politician/

So, yes, thank you, i see quite a bit of humor in that present wrangling over who has the right for free speech, and who not. Sorry.

Her suggestion is ridiculous and her campaign might be biased by the fact that she's a partisan, but I really wonder how "humorous" it is consider the direct explicit threat PTP spokesman made. Insulting the monarchy is obviously illegal in Thailand, also the cyber crimes act does enforce how internet users should and should not do, but now you compare it to the PTP claim that criticising the government violates cyber crimes act? That's where humour comes I think.

[philw]

Forget public servant, she and her cronies are just trying to build a dictatorship and pass it off as democracy.

Evidence, like, you know, proof ?????

[nicknostitz]

Her suggestion is ridiculous and her campaign might be biased by the fact that she's a partisan, but I really wonder how "humorous" it is consider the direct explicit threat PTP spokesman made. Insulting the monarchy is obviously illegal in Thailand, also the cyber crimes act does enforce how internet users should and should not do, but now you compare it to the PTP claim that criticising the government violates cyber crimes act? That's where humour comes I think.

Well, if you are accused of having committed lese majeste, you may find that the consequences of such an accusation alone are far more worrying than anything else that you can be accused of in Thailand. To get some perspective on that I would suggest to speak some time with people that have been accused of such, and how much of that accusation affected their and their families' daily life.

But yes, i find it rather funny when the ones that today scream "freedom of speech" are the ones who when in government, have done exactly the same, if not worse (they actually closed down and blocked media outlets, filed charges against critical journalists, and closed even printing houses who printed Red Shirt media). And not even just that - while they scream "freedom of speech" now, they at the same time make sure that journalists from media critical to them have to be very scared to enter their street events.

Yes, i find this whole thing somewhat hilarious.

Edited August 19, 2013 by nicknostitz

[metisdead]

Off topic posts discussing other posters have been removed, discuss the topic, not the poster.

[hawker9000]

Actually, yes. Insults can very much be part of the political discourse. Just think of the slippery slope involved in banning, and then adjudicating that sort of thing. While I personally find insults of the sort you're referring to distasteful and unworthy, I wouldn't presume to gag anyone from, or punish anyone for, using them specifically for fear of suppressing his free speech, which most of us (I think) consider to be a very fundamental human right. If you want a public life (your choice), you must be willing to endure the slings & arrows, that's all there is to it.

Well, and if you want to insult or slander anyone, including a public figure, you may find out that for that most countries in the world have libel and defamation laws, consequences of which you then must endure.

While in Thailand libel is part of the criminal law, and not the civil law (which i disagree with) - there is an importance for the existence of such legal provisions.

'Won't argue that - and it's a shame that free speech can't really be claimed to exist any longer in those countries you refer to, except in some vague relative sense compared to the most notoriously repressive regimes (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, today's PRC) - and a jail cell could be considered a platform for free speech compared to those... In fact, I'd say it's becoming more rare almost by the day. It's a slippery slope, and in many places the long slide downward is underway.

[MilesofSmiles]

If a Thaivisa poster makes insulting personal attacks against another member he can be banned from Thaivisa...

I would not see a problem in banning a Thaivisa poster from Thailand if he makes insulting remarks directed at the prime minister.

Good manners and good education is what lacks with a lot of posters.

That's absurd.

Nobody is above criticism, especially an elected public official. Harden up.

I find your viewpoint offensive, but I believe you have a right to it.

The thing about freedom of speech, is that it also applies to opinions you don't like, may find offensive.

I can't understand the basis for wanting to censor criticism. Not only in public discourse, but in every day life.

It only leads to making the same mistakes again, and again, and again.

Happy to wallow in mediocrity as long as nobody's feelings get hurt.

“All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions.

Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.”

― George Bernard Shaw, Mrs. Warren's Profession

[ridkun]

Her suggestion is ridiculous and her campaign might be biased by the fact that she's a partisan, but I really wonder how "humorous" it is consider the direct explicit threat PTP spokesman made. Insulting the monarchy is obviously illegal in Thailand, also the cyber crimes act does enforce how internet users should and should not do, but now you compare it to the PTP claim that criticising the government violates cyber crimes act? That's where humour comes I think.

Well, if you are accused of having committed lese majeste, you may find that the consequences of such an accusation alone are far more worrying than anything else that you can be accused of in Thailand. To get some perspective on that I would suggest to speak some time with people that have been accused of such, and how much of that accusation affected their and their families' daily life.

But yes, i find it rather funny when the ones that today scream "freedom of speech" are the ones who when in government, have done exactly the same, if not worse (they actually closed down and blocked media outlets, filed charges against critical journalists, and closed even printing houses who printed Red Shirt media). And not even just that - while they scream "freedom of speech" now, they at the same time make sure that journalists from media critical to them have to be very scared to enter their street events.

Yes, i find this whole thing somewhat hilarious.

No freedom is above the law. People couldn't break law and call it freedom, and you can't blame the government as suppressive if they file charges that make sense, which I see none on PTP claims.

[gerry1011]

If a Thaivisa poster makes insulting personal attacks against another member he can be banned from Thaivisa...

I would not see a problem in banning a Thaivisa poster from Thailand if he makes insulting remarks directed at the prime minister.

Good manners and good education is what lacks with a lot of posters.

That's absurd.

Nobody is above criticism, especially an elected public official. Harden up.

I find your viewpoint offensive, but I believe you have a right to it.

The thing about freedom of speech, is that it also applies to opinions you don't like, may find offensive.

I can't understand the basis for wanting to censor criticism. Not only in public discourse, but in every day life.

It only leads to making the same mistakes again, and again, and again.

Happy to wallow in mediocrity as long as nobody's feelings get hurt.

All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions.

Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.

― George Bernard Shaw, Mrs. Warren's Profession

In my opinion there is a very big difference between criticism and the low level insults that are used by many posters on this forum when they refer to the prime minister, the reds, politicians, police, riches, etc... (Even Tony Blair now )

If you think that these written attacks are ok for the sake of freedom of speech, then the same insults should be allowed to be used to attack fellow posters of this forum. Why not?

If this is the freedom of speech that you want there should be no rules.

Personally I find myself uncomfortable with this type of freedom of speech that justifies unfounded rumors and insulting personal attacks.

I don't see why insults and spreading rumors should be allowed on internet, while you would never dare to say such things in front of the person in the real world.

I have no problem with criticism but it should be expressed in the same way, be it directed at a farang pensioner spending the end of his life behind an anonymous keyboard or at the prime minister.

Some have good manners, too many don't.

[nicknostitz]

No freedom is above the law. People couldn't break law and call it freedom, and you can't blame the government as suppressive if they file charges that make sense, which I see none on PTP claims.

Laws though are subject to change, and nothing else than social contracts ruling what societies find acceptable, and what not.

So, for example, has the lese majeste law, and especially its application, been under increasing international scrutiny, as many of the sentences of the recent years have contradicted international laws and agreements Thailand has underwritten. While Thailand, like almost all countries with a monarchy system, has the right to protect its monarchy against defamation, this still has to be done in accordance with a set of international laws that Thailand has agreed to. It's not an easy balance.

The discussion for the right of freedom of speech is not an easy one, as this is not just a simple absolute hovering above everything else. While you have Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers], you also have Article 29 (2) [in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society]. There is, for example, Article 3 [Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person].

Most countries have legal provisions regarding the protection of the rights and reputation of others, limiting freedom of expression. That is where libel and defamation laws come in.

It is all about keeping a balance between legal provisions that can be conflicting with each other at times. Just because someone is a public person does not mean that he/she can be subject to libel or defamation. But that does not mean that this person cannot and should not be criticized - as long as it is within the legally permitted.

In journalism, for example, there are rules over corroboration of facts, as also journalists are, and should be, under scrutiny as well. But there also rules over protection of sources, which at times come in conflict with the law as well. Many journalists have opted to go into coercive detention in order not to expose their sources when ordered so by a court of law. And in other cases journalists have been ruled guilty of defamation, when they could not back up libelous claims, or when they falsified stories.

But then, things get even more muddled when it comes to the slippery slope of what is defined by "National Security".

[hawker9000]

If a Thaivisa poster makes insulting personal attacks against another member he can be banned from Thaivisa...

I would not see a problem in banning a Thaivisa poster from Thailand if he makes insulting remarks directed at the prime minister.

Good manners and good education is what lacks with a lot of posters.

That's absurd.

Nobody is above criticism, especially an elected public official. Harden up.

I find your viewpoint offensive, but I believe you have a right to it.

The thing about freedom of speech, is that it also applies to opinions you don't like, may find offensive.

I can't understand the basis for wanting to censor criticism. Not only in public discourse, but in every day life.

It only leads to making the same mistakes again, and again, and again.

Happy to wallow in mediocrity as long as nobody's feelings get hurt.

All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions.

Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.

― George Bernard Shaw, Mrs. Warren's Profession

In my opinion there is a very big difference between criticism and the low level insults that are used by many posters on this forum when they refer to the prime minister, the reds, politicians, police, riches, etc... (Even Tony Blair now )

If you think that these written attacks are ok for the sake of freedom of speech, then the same insults should be allowed to be used to attack fellow posters of this forum. Why not?

If this is the freedom of speech that you want there should be no rules.

Personally I find myself uncomfortable with this type of freedom of speech that justifies unfounded rumors and insulting personal attacks.

I don't see why insults and spreading rumors should be allowed on internet, while you would never dare to say such things in front of the person in the real world.

I have no problem with criticism but it should be expressed in the same way, be it directed at a farang pensioner spending the end of his life behind an anonymous keyboard or at the prime minister.

Some have good manners, too many don't.

You're quite right. There is a difference, and it's called "c-e-n-s-o-r-s-h-i-p". Take the word "liar" for example. Most people would definitely consider it an insult to be called that. But what if what the target of the insult said actually is untrue? Who's going to be the one who makes the determination that the insult is then "acceptable" (or not)? You? The target? A government official? The police? Is it still libelous or defamatory even if the person concerned really is telling lies? Must the speaker then find some way to tiptoe around the word "liar" and communicate in some other way that this person is a liar? Lots of other words for "liar" I suppose... Some "mild"; others definitely not so nice. Which ones are OK? Again, who decides what's OK? Another example - ever heard of a politician accused of accepting money, gifts, or other consideration in return for voting a certain way, or exercising some governmental function or doing "favors" on someone's behalf? I have. 'Happens all the time. LOTS of words for THAT!! Most all of them libelous & defamatory to some degree. 'Beginning to see how silly this all gets? You're either going to have free speech, or you're not. You can't hide behind libel laws and defamation prohibition, and still pretend you've got free speech. What you get instead are politicians who can say or do anything they want, and enjoy immunity from any possibility of public outrage. Politics is a never-ending boxing match; punches taken and thrown. Name-calling is sometimes the low road, but it's all part of the game.

[Thai at Heart]

If a Thaivisa poster makes insulting personal attacks against another member he can be banned from Thaivisa...

I would not see a problem in banning a Thaivisa poster from Thailand if he makes insulting remarks directed at the prime minister.

Good manners and good education is what lacks with a lot of posters.

That's absurd.

Nobody is above criticism, especially an elected public official. Harden up.

I find your viewpoint offensive, but I believe you have a right to it.

The thing about freedom of speech, is that it also applies to opinions you don't like, may find offensive.

I can't understand the basis for wanting to censor criticism. Not only in public discourse, but in every day life.

It only leads to making the same mistakes again, and again, and again.

Happy to wallow in mediocrity as long as nobody's feelings get hurt.

All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions.

Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.

― George Bernard Shaw, Mrs. Warren's Profession

In my opinion there is a very big difference between criticism and the low level insults that are used by many posters on this forum when they refer to the prime minister, the reds, politicians, police, riches, etc... (Even Tony Blair now )

If you think that these written attacks are ok for the sake of freedom of speech, then the same insults should be allowed to be used to attack fellow posters of this forum. Why not?

If this is the freedom of speech that you want there should be no rules.

Personally I find myself uncomfortable with this type of freedom of speech that justifies unfounded rumors and insulting personal attacks.

I don't see why insults and spreading rumors should be allowed on internet, while you would never dare to say such things in front of the person in the real world.

I have no problem with criticism but it should be expressed in the same way, be it directed at a farang pensioner spending the end of his life behind an anonymous keyboard or at the prime minister.

Some have good manners, too many don't.

You're quite right. There is a difference, and it's called "c-e-n-s-o-r-s-h-i-p". Take the word "liar" for example. Most people would definitely consider it an insult to be called that. But what if what the target of the insult said actually is untrue? Who's going to be the one who makes the determination that the insult is then "acceptable" (or not)? You? The target? A government official? The police? Is it still libelous or defamatory even if the person concerned really is telling lies? Must the speaker then find some way to tiptoe around the word "liar" and communicate in some other way that this person is a liar? Lots of other words for "liar" I suppose... Some "mild"; others definitely not so nice. Which ones are OK? Again, who decides what's OK? Another example - ever heard of a politician accused of accepting money, gifts, or other consideration in return for voting a certain way, or exercising some governmental function or doing "favors" on someone's behalf? I have. 'Happens all the time. LOTS of words for THAT!! Most all of them libelous & defamatory to some degree. 'Beginning to see how silly this all gets? You're either going to have free speech, or you're not. You can't hide behind libel laws and defamation prohibition, and still pretend you've got free speech. What you get instead are politicians who can say or do anything they want, and enjoy immunity from any possibility of public outrage. Politics is a never-ending boxing match; punches taken and thrown. Name-calling is sometimes the low road, but it's all part of the game.

Well, if you defame someone by calling them a liar, they can seek redress through the courts. But the Thai defamation law is an ass.

[lostmebike]

She is open to criticism as is every other government minister around the world is too. Get real and get your head out of the sand!

But c'mon, did the Democrat Party spokeswoman really call her a slut?

[Baerboxer]

But...but....but... the democrats.....

Lord give me strength to point out the startlingly obvious one more time. The democrat party is not engaged in a hugely expensive war on all levels to thrust one of its party, or should that read family? members into a "head of state" position for eternity. They do not pursue an expensive cult of personality for their leader. They do not have forum members that love them. Nobody is upset when the democrats past bad deeds are aired on the forum, nobody gives a toss. It isn't a valid excuse for the current regimes failings so please stop doing so.

You are excusing the suppresion of free speech because what is being said doesn't suit your political bias. Sad to hear in light of apparent journalistic claims.

Maybe you should start reading my posts before coming up with the same lame blather about me being biased.

Insults such as i have listed here have nothing to do with political convictions but are about manners. I am sorry, but i cannot find anything remotely connected to political criticism when someone is called a "whore" and having rotten female genitalia. Maybe you find that this is legit political criticism, but i sure don't.

The same way i find the insults on opposition stages i have listed here disgraceful, i find insults on Red stages regarding Gen. Prem's alleged sexual preference quite revolting. I also found it quite out of order when last year Jeng Dokchik on a Red Shirt stage publicized phone numbers of constitution court judges and their families.

Anyhow, the only bias which i can detect is that some here [you] are completely ignoring the failings of the side you seem to support. Or do you find such insults acceptable part of the political discourse?

Agree with you. Debates can be passionate and robust without resulting to foul language and crude insults. Free speech for sure, but keep it civil and with manners.

[Wavefloater]

The true colors of the Shinawatra dictatorship are showing clearer everyday.

I swear these idiots at PTP don't have any ability to pre-analyze the things that come out of their gobs. Do they not realize how they sound? Do they not realize that if Yingy and Thaky are being criticized so much maybe there's a reason for it? But look at the kid who's delivering the message. He probably doesn't even really understand what he's saying or how oppressive the message is.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Wavefloater

[Siripon]

Regarding Malika's facebook page, there's 2 points to consider.She never actually called Yingluck a rhino, she merely posted the sign 'tiger, lion, bull and... Yingluck, the inference is merely in some people's minds.

Secondly, the Supreme Court ruled in the past that to refer to someone as an animal, ie' dog face', is technically not an insult, as a person is clearly not an animal.

This reminds of the advertising rules where it's okay to have a video of a vacuum cleaner flying around the room as it's clearly impossible, but to claim the vacuum cleaner can clean the carpet to be spotless may be against the law as it's possible in theory, and thus maybe an exaggerated claim.