Law against hate speech among NRC charter proposals

[northernjohn]

Whatever happened to that big news about Thai media taking kickback money from CP? Did that just die a Thai disappearing death? Is the general planning to crackdown on white collar crime, payoffs, bribery, corruption, insider trading, money laundering..etc.?

Given time he would. But I suppose a first grade education would not understand that.

[northernjohn]

When Australia introduced hate speech laws. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce hate speech laws. Bad Junta.

When Australia introduced bans on public drinking. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce laws on public drinking. Bad Junta.

Seems some are so upset the Junta are doing a good job they are blinded by hate.

The irony being that you write in a judgmental style. judgmentalism is a precursor of 'hate' speech.

The irony is that you write in a style that agrees with him but hasn't got the gumption to admit it so you try to side track the issue. O you are so clever.

[baboon]

When Australia introduced hate speech laws. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce hate speech laws. Bad Junta.

When Australia introduced bans on public drinking. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce laws on public drinking. Bad Junta.

Seems some are so upset the Junta are doing a good job they are blinded by hate.

Who says it was O.K? Wasn't there any opposition in Australia? Were the Australian people simply presented a new dictat and that was it?

[djjamie]

When Australia introduced hate speech laws. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce hate speech laws. Bad Junta.

When Australia introduced bans on public drinking. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce laws on public drinking. Bad Junta.

Seems some are so upset the Junta are doing a good job they are blinded by hate.

The irony being that you write in a judgmental style. judgmentalism is a precursor of 'hate' speech.

Judgmental? Nah.

Observational? Yes.

As stated when I observe these stark contradiction I can see some are blinded by hate.

I don't hate anyone with that view. I pity them.

Edited December 6, 2014 by djjamie

[Anthony5]

Who will define hate in the context of this law?

Is that a tricky question?

Who defines that there are still reasons to extend martial law without giving any explanation ?

Edited December 6, 2014 by Anthony5

[djjamie]

When Australia introduced hate speech laws. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce hate speech laws. Bad Junta.

When Australia introduced bans on public drinking. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce laws on public drinking. Bad Junta.

Seems some are so upset the Junta are doing a good job they are blinded by hate.

Who says it was O.K? Wasn't there any opposition in Australia? Were the Australian people simply presented a new dictat and that was it?

Of course there was opposition. There would be opposition by citizens if day care centers charged an extra $10 a day for their services. There would be opposition by owners of day car centers if they charged $10 less a day too.

When one goes to an extreme though that is different. Australia and the UK were not compared in the extreme to North Korea because they drove this initiative. Australia was not criticized to the extreme when they introduced public drinking laws either yet according to PTP logic tourists will stop coming in droves to Australia because one cannot walk down the street with a beer in their hand.

I am simply stating the illogical mindset of some esteemed TVF members. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is like seeing a picture of Jesus on a bit of burnt toast. They want to see it. They are blinded by religion or in this case…….hate.

Edited December 6, 2014 by djjamie

[DaveE13]

i think its a good move in public places. certain parts of london this has been brought in because of eastern europeans sitting in places like churh yards drinking beer

[baboon]

When Australia introduced hate speech laws. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce hate speech laws. Bad Junta.

When Australia introduced bans on public drinking. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce laws on public drinking. Bad Junta.

Seems some are so upset the Junta are doing a good job they are blinded by hate.

Who says it was O.K? Wasn't there any opposition in Australia? Were the Australian people simply presented a new dictat and that was it?

Of course there was opposition. There would be opposition by citizens if day care centers charged an extra $10 a day for their services. There would be opposition by owners of day car centers if they charged $10 less a day too.

When one goes to an extreme though that is different. Australia and the UK were not compared in the extreme to North Korea because they drove this initiative. Australia was not criticized to the extreme when they introduced public drinking laws either yet according to PTP logic tourists will stop coming in droves to Australia because one cannot walk down the street with a beer in their hand.

I am simply stating the illogical mindset of some esteemed TVF members. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is like seeing a picture of Jesus on a bit of burnt toast. They want to see it. They are blinded by religion or in this case.hate.

I think you are arguing against yourself in your final point.

[englishoak]

Continuing to propose or introduce more oppressive laws will not help the country, the people or help in reconciliation.

Anyone who thinks Thailand will use any hate speech law with common sense or fairness and wont use it like the LM law and defamation laws, with impunity and often to only intimidate and or scare are only kidding themselves.

[djjamie]

When Australia introduced hate speech laws. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce hate speech laws. Bad Junta.

When Australia introduced bans on public drinking. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce laws on public drinking. Bad Junta.

Seems some are so upset the Junta are doing a good job they are blinded by hate.

Who says it was O.K? Wasn't there any opposition in Australia? Were the Australian people simply presented a new dictat and that was it?

Of course there was opposition. There would be opposition by citizens if day care centers charged an extra $10 a day for their services. There would be opposition by owners of day car centers if they charged $10 less a day too.

When one goes to an extreme though that is different. Australia and the UK were not compared in the extreme to North Korea because they drove this initiative. Australia was not criticized to the extreme when they introduced public drinking laws either yet according to PTP logic tourists will stop coming in droves to Australia because one cannot walk down the street with a beer in their hand.

I am simply stating the illogical mindset of some esteemed TVF members. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is like seeing a picture of Jesus on a bit of burnt toast. They want to see it. They are blinded by religion or in this case.hate.

I think you are arguing against yourself in your final point.

Goodness me. I will "edit" my post just for you.

When Australia introduced hate speech laws. Thats OK and any opposition narrative were not taken to the extreme.

When the Junta want to introduce hate speech laws. They are compared to North Korea.

When Australia introduced bans on public drinking. Thats OK and any opposition narrative was not that tourists will stop gong to Australia for New Years celebrations.

When the Junta want to introduce laws on public drinking. The tourists will stop coming.

Better?

[Bluespunk]

Who will define hate in the context of this law?

Is that a tricky question?

Who defines that there are still reasons to extend martial law without giving any explanation ?

Is defining hate tricky?

Too right it is.

[Kooweerup]

So it went from Siam to Thailand ... what next ... obvious choice ... North Korea II

Piffle. The UK has laws against hate speech.

I have always supported free speech. I cannot speak as freely as I wish in my own country, which was the country of many many generations of my families, some of whom have fought and died to protect freedoms.

I'm sure most so called developed first world countries have laws limiting hate speeches aimed at stirring up racial, religious, sexual or political violence.

Thailand are not the leaders in race relations, let's just say that. These new laws are about one thing when you read between the lines:

Giving the elite similar protection as the LM law.

I hope one day Thailand is a free country.

Agree this is nothing more than a version of lese majeste law designed specifically for the elite and to silence critics and opposition.

[Kooweerup]

When Australia introduced hate speech laws. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce hate speech laws. Bad Junta.

When Australia introduced bans on public drinking. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce laws on public drinking. Bad Junta.

Seems some are so upset the Junta are doing a good job they are blinded by hate.

If you called a politician in Australia an array of names you wont be arrested and charged under hate speech laws, Thailand version is designed to silence opposition and force people to admire and love the leader. it's LM law for the Thai elites.

[greenchair]

Law against hate speech against Junta and army generals OK.

Law against hate speech against criminal and fugitives NOT OK.

See, since Shin left, there was no more corruption and protest in Thailand.

Peace on earth.

Since shin left .

No corruption???? Fell off my seat laughing.

No protests.

Well perhaps being escorted down to the military offices for an attitude adjustment might have something to do with that.

There is no right to appeal in the military court,1 chance thats all you get.

[mikemac]

So, along with Lese Majeste, draconian defamation laws whereby your lawyer will have you sign a waiver of any responsibility if your opponent is found not guilty in a Court case for chrissakes This country is now hell bent on stopping it's citizenry on talking about anything other than that which they will have for dinner or commenting on last night's soaps. Which is what the overwhelming majority do anyway, having been kept purposely ignorant for millennia? And for those capable of critical thinking, next, the Gulags

Sorry jpeg, but there are no gulags. Only in your mind.

And I believe it is every persons' right to talk about what they had for dinner last night but would be quite happy if they banned anything to do with soaps.

[tingtongtourist]

This is probably the only country in the world that could benefit from this such laws.

I suspect they want to shut up the nutters who really do tell such stupid lies to the public. That in turn brings out other nutters and those who are a bit challenged who believe it and are prone to violence.

I would say the moove is aim to stop mobs burning looting and shutting down airports and government departments.

[tingtongtourist]

When Australia introduced hate speech laws. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce hate speech laws. Bad Junta.

When Australia introduced bans on public drinking. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce laws on public drinking. Bad Junta.

Seems some are so upset the Junta are doing a good job they are blinded by hate.

Who says it was O.K? Wasn't there any opposition in Australia? Were the Australian people simply presented a new dictat and that was it?

the australian people dont even have a say on whether the leader of the party they voted stays in or not. Certainly have no say in laws. If is questionable they will rush through laws in a late sitting before a holiday.

Safe to say, aussie has no say in politicians granting themselves 30-40% payrise when the rest of the country lucky to get 4%

[Langsuan Man]

who decides its hate speech ?

The Deemers, you know those people who deem something to be offensive to the......................

[mikemac]

When Australia introduced hate speech laws. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce hate speech laws. Bad Junta.

When Australia introduced bans on public drinking. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce laws on public drinking. Bad Junta.

Seems some are so upset the Junta are doing a good job they are blinded by hate.

Who says it was O.K? Wasn't there any opposition in Australia? Were the Australian people simply presented a new dictat and that was it?

................................"Were the Australian people simply presented a new dictat and that was it?"...................................

Pretty much. Or do you actually think that before any new laws are put in place the government has to get the ok from the Australian people first ?

There are many laws in Australia, and I imagine every other country on the planet, that the general population don't agree with.

Thailand is still miles behind Australia when it comes to "unpopular" laws, which is one of the big reasons a lot of Aussies prefer to live in Thailand.

I asked a guy many years ago why he spent so much time in Thailand, about 4-5 months of the year, he said it was like living in Australia in the 60's, laws were lax and booze was cheap.

It says a lot about a person who is against laws that forbid "hate speech". What do they want to be able to say ?

[Bluespunk]

This is probably the only country in the world that could benefit from this such laws.

I suspect they want to shut up the nutters who really do tell such stupid lies to the public. That in turn brings out other nutters and those who are a bit challenged who believe it and are prone to violence.

I would say the moove is aim to stop mobs burning looting and shutting down airports and government departments.

What happens when the lie is in fact a truth they don't want to be heard?

What happens when the mob is in fact legitimate protest at the suppression of the truth?

Edited December 7, 2014 by Bluespunk

[tingtongtourist]

Well the truth havent done many favours to our human race, only killed many and started wars because some peoples truth is different than others.

Personally i think is plain childish to even worry about what others think or say, whether its right or wrong.

Obviously its trouble when these laws are used to cover up misdeads or trying to get your opponent out of the way but still sone governing 3rd party have ti decide who is right or wrong.

Having a political opinion and lobbying for a cause isnt illegal so i cant see how you speaking your truth is illegal as long as it doesnt slander someone.

personally id like to see some restrictions. How good would it be if they passed a law that politicians couldnt lie?

my example:

If you went and told a bunch of voters "vote for me and in 6 months time ALL of the people will be rich"

Any serious person knows that is poppycock but what if some actually believe it!!

Thats the mentality. If you believe <deleted> like that you shouldnt even be trusted with the truth of how to light a gas bbq even!

Another: how many people believe in the existance of ghosts? Do you tell them its UNtrue and a bunch of poppycock?

I hear many thai stories, like a guy gets shot in the stomach, point blank and doesnt even bleed at all,cause he wearing one of those amulets.

Id hate to see what would happen if some trusted figure did say "aliens are landing here tomorrow to take over our planet..we must all kill ourselves tonight to save us from a long agonising death.

Maybe its like 'you cant legislate against stupidity' there i suppose all you can do is legislate against the stupidy causing to much trouble to others

[dominique355]

Why is this not included in the Penal Law and left to the "normal" parliament to formulate? This is not something that belongs into a Constitution.

[dominique355]

This could be really frightening if they start to micro-manage the country with a Constitution that regulates every detail of our lives, implement it without people being allowed to vote for or against it and any then rule that any amendment would be considered as a crime. Dictatorship until the next coup.

This may seem a bit far fetched but honestly, can we trust these generals?

[baboon]

When Australia introduced hate speech laws. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce hate speech laws. Bad Junta.

When Australia introduced bans on public drinking. Thats OK.

When the Junta want to introduce laws on public drinking. Bad Junta.

Seems some are so upset the Junta are doing a good job they are blinded by hate.

Who says it was O.K? Wasn't there any opposition in Australia? Were the Australian people simply presented a new dictat and that was it?

................................"Were the Australian people simply presented a new dictat and that was it?"...................................

Pretty much. Or do you actually think that before any new laws are put in place the government has to get the ok from the Australian people first ?

There are many laws in Australia, and I imagine every other country on the planet, that the general population don't agree with.

Thailand is still miles behind Australia when it comes to "unpopular" laws, which is one of the big reasons a lot of Aussies prefer to live in Thailand.

I asked a guy many years ago why he spent so much time in Thailand, about 4-5 months of the year, he said it was like living in Australia in the 60's, laws were lax and booze was cheap.

It says a lot about a person who is against laws that forbid "hate speech". What do they want to be able to say ?

"I vehemently disagree with you"?

[Kooweerup]

This is probably the only country in the world that could benefit from this such laws.

I suspect they want to shut up the nutters who really do tell such stupid lies to the public. That in turn brings out other nutters and those who are a bit challenged who believe it and are prone to violence.

I would say the moove is aim to stop mobs burning looting and shutting down airports and government departments.

I don't think it is aimed at the yellowshirts who shut down the airports or their mates Suthep and the Mad Monk who took over government buildings but those who opposed the actions of Suthep and the dear leader. It is designed to crush those who are not of the same social standing and to protect their little empire and silence the general population.

[Kooweerup]

who decides its hate speech ?

The Deemers, you know those people who deem something to be offensive to the......................

like some on here. If you have a different opinion on a subject then you are deemed to be a Thai Basher even if you love the lifestyle and the country. I guess these Deemers will consider your opinion as hate simply because they don't agree with your view so you will then be rounded up. It will be a crime to have an opinion and this ridiculous law will divide the classes and do nothing for reconciliation.