Thai Navy to file suit against Reuters over Rohingya report

[Traveling Sailor]

Does Vice Adm. Tharathorn Kajitsuwan realize he is opening up the avenue for more criticism on the World Wide network that will not be favorable to the Navy or himself? Someone should politely sit him down and clearly explain that to him. But I know that won't happen.

So true! It seems that the V. Adm., like Chalerm, never heard the saying, "Make sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear". Or, maybe, has heard it but cannot understand what it means.

[wandasloan]

Not only the above, but obviously, Reuters is correct in its assessment/article and the Navy does not have a leg to stand on unless they can prove Reuters is wrong. Fat chance of that!

On the contrary, Mr Sailor. Reuters does not have a leg to stand on unless it can prove the Navy was not defamed. The report may be true or not, may be factual or not. So what? Again: This suit says: "Phuketwan (or Reuters) hurt me so bad. The navy is so harmed that the court needs to put them in jail." That is what the court will consider.

Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to explain how the report did NOT hurt the reputation of the Navy, i.e. how it did NOT defame the RTN.

The navy, like most segments of Thai life, need to grow up and learn how to deal with, and live in, the real world. Time to "Man Up".

Perfectly acceptable emotion but without effect. Like truth, it will also not be a test applied at the trial of the Phuketwan journalists or, if it proceeds, the trial of Reuters people.

.

[RubbaJohnny]

the word is mighter than the pennies for paperback reuters

[Thaddeus]

Not only the above, but obviously, Reuters is correct in its assessment/article and the Navy does not have a leg to stand on unless they can prove Reuters is wrong. Fat chance of that!

On the contrary, Mr Sailor. Reuters does not have a leg to stand on unless it can prove the Navy was not defamed. The report may be true or not, may be factual or not. So what? Again: This suit says: "Phuketwan (or Reuters) hurt me so bad. The navy is so harmed that the court needs to put them in jail." That is what the court will consider.

.

Which court?

I suspect that you may actually be Thai.

[wandasloan]

Which court?

At the moment, there is only the Phuket Criminal Court. For this topic we can disregard the court of public opinion, since it won't impact any guilt or prison term decisions which may come.

I suspect that you may actually be Thai.

And that is significant for what reason? You wouldn't lower yourself to an actual discussion with a Thai? Or what?

Edited April 25, 2014 by wandasloan

[Tokay]

I just had to come back in and have another laugh.

[Thaddeus]

Which court?

At the moment, there is only the Phuket Criminal Court. For this topic we can disregard the court of public opinion, since it won't impact any guilt or prison term decisions which may come.

I suspect that you may actually be Thai.

And that is significant for what reason? You wouldn't lower yourself to an actual discussion with a Thai? Or what?

I talk with Thai people, or as I know them 'people' every day, I don't need to lower myself to do it, I'm already there.

Now dump the fake insecurity.

If you think that I have offended you in any way, I suggest that you take it up with your Mum and then see what the rest of the planet thinks.

It will have much the same impact as the Navy complaining to the Phuket Criminal Court.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Thaddeus

[wandasloan]

If you think that I have offended you in any way, I suggest that you take it up with your Mum and then see what the rest of the planet thinks.

No, what I think is that you ask the weirdest (not to mention personal) questions? So again *I* ask *you*:

Why do you care/mention/bring up the theory I am Thai? I really don't care what your mother thinks. I am curious what you think since you directed your comment directly and exclusively to me. Why? Obviously there is some significance. Maybe it's a positive one I can't think of.

.

[manhood]

Hi am sure REUTES give a shit on that action of the Thai navy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A news Agency like REUTERS investigated about their report before they published that.

Thats the different to Thai actioins: they blame and have nothing to say as they dont know anything or

give false testimony. Thats all thai ifficials can do. And too bad no thai press condem these officials.

[wandasloan]

Hi am sure REUTES give a shit on that action of the Thai navy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A news Agency like REUTERS investigated about their report before they published that.

Thats the different to Thai actioins: they blame and have nothing to say as they dont know anything or

give false testimony. Thats all thai ifficials can do.

Well, Reuters will have to give quite a large ship if the case proceeds. If they don't, then members and executives of Reuters will go to jail simply for not showing up at the court when ordered. And at the court they will have to give another large ship or they will be easily, quickly convicted and sent to jail because they didn't care to mount a defence.

It's obvious you know nothing of Thai law, but I thought everyone knew something about law in general. How wrong I was, eh? FYI, I strongly advise you, in the case that you ever face a criminal charge in any court, anywhere on Earth, to give a ship.

And too bad no thai press condem these officials.

Where did you get that strange idea?

.

[Thaddeus]

Hi am sure REUTES give a shit on that action of the Thai navy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A news Agency like REUTERS investigated about their report before they published that.

Thats the different to Thai actioins: they blame and have nothing to say as they dont know anything or

give false testimony. Thats all thai ifficials can do.

Well, Reuters will have to give quite a large ship if the case proceeds. If they don't, then members and executives of Reuters will go to jail simply for not showing up at the court when ordered. And at the court they will have to give another large ship or they will be easily, quickly convicted and sent to jail because they didn't care to mount a defence.

It's obvious you know nothing of Thai law, but I thought everyone knew something about law in general. How wrong I was, eh? FYI, I strongly advise you, in the case that you ever face a criminal charge in any court, anywhere on Earth, to give a ship.

.

You really don't have a jar of glue, do you.

The world outside Thailand's borders could not care less about the Thai "legal system" and how it may affect them.

The world outside Thailand's borders has a thing called freedom of speech, and sometimes real investigative journalism, which means that if they discover something that you don't like, you can shout about it until you are blue in the face, it will make no difference.

Actually it will make one difference, and you are on that path right now.

(P.S. I never mentioned my mother earlier, learn to read, then learn how to comprehend)

Edited April 27, 2014 by Thaddeus

[Thai at Heart]

I also think The Thai Navy should thread carefully here - I wonder what might happen in court if Reuters produce evidence of their involvement - now that would be good.

They will then sue the witnesses for defamation. Tit.

[wandasloan]

They will then sue the witnesses for defamation. Tit.

Very inventive. I like it. And I'm sure the Thai Navy would be thrilled by the chance, at least in its present mood.

But no, testimony in court isn't subject to defamation/slander laws. Court while in session is a sanctuary for speech, just like parliament. Nothing said in court testimony is actionable. That said, if someone didn't like the court testimony, and a witness were to give his/her name and address, then a different type of threat, entirely non-legal, rears its extremely ugly head.

But legally... *IF* this case proceeds, Reuters is going to have a problem with these "witnesses". If you read the Reuters series and notes and background and Pulitzer Prize speeches, it seems that no Reuters employee witnessed Any Of The Above, about Thai navy action. That doesn't speak to the truth, only to a serious court problem. Reuters people can't testify DIRECTLY about what they wrote. And it seems all their witnesses of the actual series are Rohingya, most/all of whom are not in Thailand and in any case would be.... shall we say politely, "reluctant witnesses".

This is Reuters' biggest legal problem. The court of world opinion already has decided about their story. But an actual, real court needs witnesses. "The Rohingya told me" isn't a witness. It is not admissable evidence in any court, anywhere in the world. And there may not be any available witnesses, at all.

In the worse possible scenario, It wouldn't be the first time a person with a true story has gone to court and on to prison for telling the truth. Name a country, I'll give you a recent example. The truth can set you free, or the truth can land you in serious trouble. Equal chances.

(P.S. I never mentioned my mother earlier, learn to read, then learn how to comprehend)

I know that. You mentioned mine*. I rated that comment: Despicable. I ranked your incredibly hostile and serial refusal to answer a really simple question about your racial interjection: Strange. I consider your denial of any racist motive because some of your best friends are Thai: Technically possible, credible to some.

We will soon see if the world outside cares about the Thai legal system once again, if this case against Reuters is filed. In the meantime, my own prediction is we will very, very quickly see more of these sorts of stories (six days ago from Australia). Australia is outside Thailand and seems to care quite a bit about the Thai legal system. In fact, I predict we will see several such stories, as well as editorial comment, from Australia (plural) within 24 hours.

Let's see which of us is right about the outside world caring, hmmm?

(Reuters, by the way, is NOT outside Thai borders, which is why it will have to answer any criminal defamation suit filed in Thai court.)

* Flashback, just for the record:

Thaddeus, on 26 Apr 2014 - 09:11, said:

If you think that I have offended you in any way, I suggest that you take it up with your Mum and then see what the rest of the planet thinks.

Edited April 29, 2014 by wandasloan