Appeal Court rejects Abhisit's defamation suit against Jatuporn

[Lite Beer]

Appeal Court rejects Abhisit's defamation suit against Jatuporn
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Appeal Court yesterday rejected a libel suit filed by former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva against red-shirt co-leader Jatuporn Promphan, saying Jatuporn's criticism when Abhisit was prime minister was honestly made.

The plaintiff said on May 10, 2009 that Jatuporn, a leader of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), defamed him in front of 10,000 people through loud speakers at Wat Phai Kiew Temple in Don Muang in Bangkok by calling him a "tyrant" whose "hands are tainted with blood" who deserved to be sentenced to death for killing people.

The Court of First Instance rejected the case on December 27, 2012, saying that to comment was tantamount to political retaliation under democratic system. The Appeal Court said yesterday the comments by Jatuporn were honestly made and also rejected the case.

Abhisit and his legal team will seek to continue to fight the case at the Supreme Court, however, citing a minority voice among the judges yesterday, who expressed the opinion that Jatuporn was guilty and should be sentenced to six months in prison.

Paiboon Pho-noi, Abhisit's lawyer, said he would study the appendix of the ruling, which is 20 pages long and includes the minority view of that judge.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Appeal-Court-rejects-Abhisits-defamation-suit-agai-30250779.html

-- The Nation 2014-12-27

[Robby nz]

This puts an entirely new light on the defamation law as it would appear you can say anything you like about a politician whether it is true or not if you say it in "political retaliation" whatever that means.

If this is to be set as a precedent then in future there can be no such thing as political defamation.

Considering that Jutaporn was not a politician at the time of the statement but a political activist and the statement is an out and out lie meant to stir hate then the court reasoning would seem very strange.

But if the court decided Jutaporn said something honestly then it must be a first for him.

[Tatsujin]

Very interesting, and a nice little precedent has been set.

For all the "yellow" haters out there, you can start celebrating now.

[whybother]

But, But ... the courts always favour the yellow / Dems / elite / junta, don't they?

[chainarong]

All Asian politicians are thinned skinned you only have to be a watcher of Singapore politics or Indonesia's they sue on the drop of a hat , Thailand's polies are bad for this defamation bad taste that plagues the courts , perhaps they should adopt the Westminster system where what is said on the floor of the house say's in the house , but then again these people are such gentlemen that the whole-day will be taken up abusing each other , there certainly needs to be a ruling made , probably the best one if you are a member of parliament you can't file a defamation charge. ridiculous when you think about it.

[The stuttering parrot]

Well the truth hurts and I don't know why Abhisit is whinging about after all he shouldn't have even been PM in the first place

Anyway I hope he hangs around for the next election as he and the general will the thre reds greatest asset because they are both so much on the nose.

[ramrod711]

What would really be nice, is for Jatuporn and all the other Reds on Thaksins Christmas card list, to take a ride on Arismans airline.....and disappear.

[jacky54]

Like kids in a playground but must have cost the 'tyrant' a fortune in legal fees.

[Bakseeda]

Well the truth hurts and I don't know why Abhisit is whinging about after all he shouldn't have even been PM in the first place

Anyway I hope he hangs around for the next election as he and the general will the thre reds greatest asset because they are both so much on the nose.

S/P.... Ignorance is bliss...... Go back to skool...... It is often said that too much love, kills love ..... to bad that too much Stupidity does not kill the idiots....... but then again...TV would be boring..!

[JOC]

Poor poor Jatuporn, he didn't become a martyr!!

Thaksins case thrown out.

Abhisits case thrown out.

Maybe the juridical system are getting tired of politicians using the court rooms to play their childish games??

[billd766]

Well the truth hurts and I don't know why Abhisit is whinging about after all he shouldn't have even been PM in the first place

Anyway I hope he hangs around for the next election as he and the general will the thre reds greatest asset because they are both so much on the nose.

Is it the truth though?

If it is then why is Abhisit not on trial?

Why should Abhisit NOT have been PM? After all he did it legally as has happened many times when the ruling party becomes a minority and cannot get enough votes even with a coalition.

Does the truth and legality mean nothing to you?

[wandasloan]

Considering that Jutaporn was not a politician at the time of the statement but a political activist and the statement is an out and out lie meant to stir hate then the court reasoning would seem very strange.

I have no direct knowledge of your mind-reading ability but in 2009 the thin-skinned Abhisit was prime minister and lots of mean people said really mean thing about him, poor man. Five years later, the court has said, "hard cheese". I differ from you, because I would find it not just strange but sinister if a court found that saying mean things about the head politician was illegal - even a sensitive Democrat.

If anyone should be upset it should be General Failure, who has threatened to shut down a newspaper for saying mean things. Now won't have this court to back him up, not that he cares about the courts of course.

According to you, anyone who says publicly she wants a politician tried and convicted and hanged is guilty of .... what? Something serious? I find your reasoning way stranger than waving off some sensitive politician's hurt feelings. But I would be appreciative if you could share some more of that mind-reading ability with us, specifically explaining how it enables you to know exactly what Jatuporn was thinking and plotting. Two people didn't know it, and that's certain - that judge and me. How do you know?

perhaps they should adopt the Westminster system where what is said on the floor of the house say's in the house

It has been Thai law for a long, long time. We'll see if the new constitution removes it - unlikely. Jatuporn was not an MP, and the statement was not made in the House.

[GeckosDiving]

Well the truth hurts and I don't know why Abhisit is whinging about after all he shouldn't have even been PM in the first place

Anyway I hope he hangs around for the next election as he and the general will the thre reds greatest asset because they are both so much on the nose.

You just got to love it when people with single digit I Q'S say shit !! Lol

[city]

But, But ... the courts always favour the yellow / Dems / elite / junta, don't they?

Abhisit is merely a porn in the game. Now if they banged up a certain Ferrari driver your "But but...." statement may have some relevance. As it is , its drivel

[khunken]

But, But ... the courts always favour the yellow / Dems / elite / junta, don't they?

Abhisit is merely a porn in the game. Now if they banged up a certain Ferrari driver your "But but...." statement may have some relevance. As it is , its drivel

A porn? Freudian slip?

Yout comment about the Ferrari driver is both irrelevant & wrong as he wasn't brought to face a court by the police.

Given that recently both Thaksin & Abhisit both lost their defamation cases it would point to fair standards by the court. Not to conspiracy theorists though.

[Thai at Heart]

Do these judges even read the law when making these judgements. Making a statement honestly isn't a defence.

[Thai at Heart]

This puts an entirely new light on the defamation law as it would appear you can say anything you like about a politician whether it is true or not if you say it in "political retaliation" whatever that means.

If this is to be set as a precedent then in future there can be no such thing as political defamation.

Considering that Jutaporn was not a politician at the time of the statement but a political activist and the statement is an out and out lie meant to stir hate then the court reasoning would seem very strange.

But if the court decided Jutaporn said something honestly then it must be a first for him.

Which is almost as stupid a situation as the previous interpretation of the law. Now you can accuse your opponent of being anything you like.

Out of the Thai legal frying pan into the fire.

[djjamie]

"who deserved to be sentenced to death for killing people"

If the Right Honorable Ahbisit deserved death for squashing the brutal terrorist uprising then what does Jatuporn get for removing those corpses from the hospital against the wishes of the grieving families and putting them on the stage to parade for political gain.

Anyway when does it go from "honestly made" to defamation. What line needs to be crossed. Politicians will continue down this road of hurling abuse in the heat of the moment feeling they are bullet proof. It seems defamation law is open to interpretation.

And to think that this has gone on for nearly six years!

[bangrak]

Well the truth hurts and I don't know why Abhisit is whinging about after all he shouldn't have even been PM in the first place

Anyway I hope he hangs around for the next election as he and the general will the thre reds greatest asset because they are both so much on the nose.

And that bloody red propaganda machines never stops rattling, or stuttering for this one... Hey, your friend won this case in appeal, so, save your bile for a next one he'll lose!

[bangrak]

"who deserved to be sentenced to death for killing people"

If the Right Honorable Ahbisit deserved death for squashing the brutal terrorist uprising then what does Jatuporn get for removing those corpses from the hospital against the wishes of the grieving families and putting them on the stage to parade for political gain.

Anyway when does it go from "honestly made" to defamation. What line needs to be crossed. Politicians will continue down this road of hurling abuse in the heat of the moment feeling they are bullet proof. It seems defamation law is open to interpretation.

And to think that this has gone on for nearly six years!

And knowing that the criminal clown Jatuporn was not even a 'politician' (no mandate, not elected, in anyhing) at that time, just a self-intoxicating political agitator (probably well paid though to instil his poison)... In fact, when will his bail and that of the other sentenced red firebrands be revoked for them to sit their jail terms, with the general population, at last? What 'excuse' is there left not to have them to do it?

[wandasloan]

"who deserved to be sentenced to death for killing people"

If the Right Honorable Ahbisit deserved death for squashing the brutal terrorist uprising then what does Jatuporn get for removing those corpses from the hospital against the wishes of the grieving families and putting them on the stage to parade for political gain.

Anyway when does it go from "honestly made" to defamation. What line needs to be crossed. Politicians will continue down this road of hurling abuse in the heat of the moment feeling they are bullet proof. It seems defamation law is open to interpretation.

And to think that this has gone on for nearly six years!

Shame! The term "free speech" appears to mean nothing to you at all. Let's not forget ONE context here, and Jatuporn said Abhisit "deserved to be" punished and Abhisit was in fact charged with murder. So arrest the prosecutor, the police investigators and the newspaper reporters, the whole lot of them for pointing out that Abhisit could be actually, really sentenced to death for the exact reason that Jatuporn stated.

ONE context. But that call by Jatuporn boils down to the same call made by the Office of the Attorney-General - charged and tried for murder.

How it could possibly be defamation to call for such a thing when in fact such a thing actually occurred.... well, return to the first para. You show no reverence for freedom of speech whatsoever. And the much sadder part is neither do far too many posters here. If they disagree with someone, crush him, stomp on him, he's a cockroach.

The problem with the judge of the OP is that his ruling was so narrow. It should have been much wider, applying to everyone, and all similar circumstances, always.

If you do not defend freedom of speech by extremists and despicable people, you do not support freedom of speech. You sir, do not defend freedom of speech.

[rubl]

"who deserved to be sentenced to death for killing people"

If the Right Honorable Ahbisit deserved death for squashing the brutal terrorist uprising then what does Jatuporn get for removing those corpses from the hospital against the wishes of the grieving families and putting them on the stage to parade for political gain.

Anyway when does it go from "honestly made" to defamation. What line needs to be crossed. Politicians will continue down this road of hurling abuse in the heat of the moment feeling they are bullet proof. It seems defamation law is open to interpretation.

And to think that this has gone on for nearly six years!

Shame! The term "free speech" appears to mean nothing to you at all. Let's not forget ONE context here, and Jatuporn said Abhisit "deserved to be" punished and Abhisit was in fact charged with murder. So arrest the prosecutor, the police investigators and the newspaper reporters, the whole lot of them for pointing out that Abhisit could be actually, really sentenced to death for the exact reason that Jatuporn stated.

ONE context. But that call by Jatuporn boils down to the same call made by the Office of the Attorney-General - charged and tried for murder.

How it could possibly be defamation to call for such a thing when in fact such a thing actually occurred.... well, return to the first para. You show no reverence for freedom of speech whatsoever. And the much sadder part is neither do far too many posters here. If they disagree with someone, crush him, stomp on him, he's a cockroach.

The problem with the judge of the OP is that his ruling was so narrow. It should have been much wider, applying to everyone, and all similar circumstances, always.

If you do not defend freedom of speech by extremists and despicable people, you do not support freedom of speech. You sir, do not defend freedom of speech.

The ruling of a court should be narrow, to the point, reflecting the case being ruled on. It was so narrow as to consider Jatuporn and Abhisit only as the two people involved in this case. Imagine!

[whybother]

But, But ... the courts always favour the yellow / Dems / elite / junta, don't they?

Abhisit is merely a porn in the game. Now if they banged up a certain Ferrari driver your "But but...." statement may have some relevance. As it is , its drivel

Of course, my bad. Whenever the courts go against the yellow / Dems / elite / junta, it's just because they are a "porn" in the game. It's can't be because they don't always do the bidding of yellow / Dems / elite / junta.

[wandasloan]

The ruling of a court should be narrow, to the point, reflecting the case being ruled on.

Why? Why should the ruling of a court - any court or this court - NOT reflect the background and context of the case, and thus affect similar cases? Why should a free-speech slash defamation ruling not affect any other cases? You may have one or many good reasons but you don't give one.

It was so narrow as to consider Jatuporn and Abhisit only as the two people involved in this case. Imagine!

Yes. I know. I said that. That's what I wrote and commented on, and what you quoted.

I was hoping someone would have a different view, since I already know my view quite well.

[rubl]

The ruling of a court should be narrow, to the point, reflecting the case being ruled on.

Why? Why should the ruling of a court - any court or this court - NOT reflect the background and context of the case, and thus affect similar cases? Why should a free-speech slash defamation ruling not affect any other cases? You may have one or many good reasons but you don't give one.

It was so narrow as to consider Jatuporn and Abhisit only as the two people involved in this case. Imagine!

Yes. I know. I said that. That's what I wrote and commented on, and what you quoted.

I was hoping someone would have a different view, since I already know my view quite well.

The Thai legal system doesn't seem to include 'jurisprudence' much.

A case should reflect what is necessary for the case, no more, no less. Good or bad intentions don't count for much.

So, a case with Abhisit and Jaruporn and you want to muddle the waters.

[noahvail]

The ruling of a court should be narrow, to the point, reflecting the case being ruled on.

Why? Why should the ruling of a court - any court or this court - NOT reflect the background and context of the case, and thus affect similar cases? Why should a free-speech slash defamation ruling not affect any other cases? You may have one or many good reasons but you don't give one.

I think the main reason it doesn't affect other cases is because the Thai courts do not apply the principles of case law. Each case is determined by the judges handling the case, without need for precedent. For obvious historical reasons, I cannot give you the details of how this or the manner of libel/defamation laws in Thailand came to be. This is Thailand, they have their own laws and ways of implementing those laws. They are not always the same as in what may be your or my home countries.

I'm not being a Thai apologist, nor do I not understand the various concepts of freedom of speech as applied in many different ways throughout the world. I'm just being a realist.