Thai Charter drafters to ban 'hate speech'

[webfact]

CONSTITUTION WATCH
Charter drafters to ban 'hate speech'
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION

While making provision for freedom of expression, cdc wants to curb use of media to divide society

BANGKOK: -- The constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) yesterday agreed to make hate speech illegal, citing the need to curb the exercise of freedom of expression that creates social divisions in society and hatred among citizens.

Restrictions on hate speech will be imposed on all media, including social media, the CDC concluded.

The committee acknowledged that in recent years all forms of media - cable and satellite television, radio, print, the Internet and online social media - had been used by various groups as tools to stir hatred against their political rivals. As a result, the country had been caught in a political quagmire.

CDC spokesman Kamnoon Sidhisamarn told reporters yesterday: "The restrictions on freedom of expression will encompass all types of media, including online social media, because hate speech has been the root cause of social conflict [in the country]. Hence it is necessary to have laws and regulations to contain the problem."

Kamnoon also said the charter drafters had tried to strike a balance between protecting citizens' freedom of expression and ensuring that society is protected from conflicts caused by hate speech.

The charter drafters, however, have left for a later date the definition of "hate speech", the CDC spokesman said.

The article states that individuals enjoy freedom of expression in speech, writing or other means. However, freedom of expression must be used within legal limits and could be curbed if it threatened national security or other individuals' rights, liberty, honour or fame, so as to uphold peace, order and morality among citizens, and to prevent the degradation of citizens' morality or health, and to prevent sowing hatred among citizens or through various religious beliefs that result in violence.

CDC also concluded that cross-media ownership and owning more than one distinct media outlet would be allowed under the new constitution, although owners cannot exercise undue influence over editorial content.

The charter drafters argued that cross-media ownership and owning different and distinct media outlets was normal but acknowledged possible problems when it comes to media domination. However, a single shareholder cannot hold more than 30 per cent of the shares of a single media firm.

Though the CDC resolved to guarantee freedom of press, it also decided to grant power to the state to censor mass media in times of war. In a state of war, mass media can be reviewed before its content can be published, broadcast or disseminated.

Media owners must also be Thai citizens, they said, and political office holders will be barred from directly or indirectly owning media or holding shares in media organisations.

The state will also be barred from giving money or other property in support of private media corporations although buying advertisements or other products can be done under proper state regulations.

The charter drafters yesterday also amended the article on citizens' property rights. Much of the discussion was on the calculation of compensation that the government is obliged to pay property owners to expropriate land. They concluded that a clearer calculation method was required and that the property's value must be appraised based on market prices rather than official estimates.

The article stated that a citizen's property rights must be protected. However, the usage of a property must take into consideration public as well as individual benefits, while limits on property rights must be within the law.

The CDC also approved an article on "citizen rights in marriage", which requires that there must be mutual consent for a marriage to be legal, in effect making forced marriages illegal.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Charter-drafters-to-ban-hate-speech-30251938.html


-- The Nation 2015-01-15

[lewy67]

Some terrible hate speech on the UNHCR Thailand Facebook page in recent times. I wonder how the military government's charter will deal with these types of examples:

“If you don't answer why you helped Tang to get refugee status ... I'll go and destroy the [uNHCR] donation booths and slap the staff. F** UNHCRThailand"

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/4680

[Bluespunk]

" had been used by various groups as tools to stir hatred against their political rivals. As a result, the country had been caught in a political quagmire."

That's not hate speech.

It's disagreement and angry debate.

Not saying angry political diatribes are good things, but it's not hate speech.

Thou shalt not disagree? Don't think that's ever going to happen.

[metisdead]

A post in violation of the NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTING IN THAILAND NEWS has been removed.

[canuckamuck]

Hate speech will likely be anything the junta hates to hear.

[Mango Bob]

They should start here on Thai Visa.

[canuckamuck]

They should start here on Thai Visa.

Although I understand your sentiment, it would be nice to be free from haters. The problem lies in the definition of hate.

I expect however, that your wish will come true, as this forum is already self censoring and I expect it will increase as the country plunges further into 1984.

[jamesbrock]

So on top of the anachronistic Lèse-majesté and ridiculous defamation laws, we won't be allowed to write anything which threatens national security or other individuals' rights, liberty, honour or fame, so as to uphold peace, order and morality among citizens, and to prevent the degradation of citizens' morality or health, and to prevent sowing hatred among citizens or through various religious beliefs that result in violence.

This is Thainess.

[Robby nz]

Very obvious examples of hate speech for political gain would be the speeches from the various red stages.

In particular the lies told to enflame followers and coerce them into acts of violence and arson.

[jamesbrock]

Very obvious examples of hate speech for political gain would be the speeches from the various red stages.

In particular the lies told to enflame followers and coerce them into acts of violence and arson.

One would hope that is what they're trying to silence, but, alas, I fear the loose, all-encompassing definition of 'hate speech' could be used to silence all discussion, no matter how truthful or factual, a-la some other laws.

For example, even discussing that twelve senior police officers, ranging in rank from superintendent to non-commissioned levels, and one civilian were involved in the kidnapping of three South Korean men could potentially threaten peace, order and morality among citizens, degrade citizens' morality or health, and sow hatred among citizens.

[Jai Dee]

Several anti-Thai posts have been removed from this topic.

Members are reminded of the following from the Forum Rules:

11) You will not post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, specific locations, Thai institutions such as the judicial or law enforcement system, Thai culture, Thai people or any other group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

[NeilSA1]

ha ha it only took the afro americans, what 2 wars, millions dead to have the right to object to and ban the words n--ger and the <deleted> idiot westerners in thailand call themselves farangs,, un believable. actually i would larf if it wasnt so frigiing sad...

Well then, perhaps the word 'farang' (if considered insulting) will have to be banned in future.

Hate speech | Define Hate speech at Dictionary.com

dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate+speech -

speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation,

Edited January 15, 2015 by NeilSA1

[jamesbrock]

ha ha it only took the afro americans, what 2 wars, millions dead to have the right to object to and ban the words n--ger and the <deleted> idiot westerners in thailand call themselves farangs,, un believable. actually i would larf if it wasnt so frigiing sad...

Most of us farang don't have such thin skin to take offence at being called farang, which is hardly used in the deliberately denigrating fashion that the 'n' word was used. Even if it could be argued that 'farang' is as offensive as the 'n' word (hint: it can't), the afro americans have taken ownership of that word back, and refer to each other with it; so us farang referring to ourselves as farang is no different.

[NongKhaiKid]

i certainly wouldn't like to have to define hate speech but no matter what definition is finally chosen it will, like LM and defamation, be used and especially mi-used by those and such as those to suit their own needs.

[rijit]

ha ha it only took the afro americans, what 2 wars, millions dead to have the right to object to and ban the words n--ger and the <deleted> idiot westerners in thailand call themselves farangs,, un believable. actually i would larf if it wasnt so frigiing sad...

Most of us farang don't have such thin skin to take offence at being called farang, which is hardly used in the deliberately denigrating fashion that the 'n' word was used. Even if it could be argued that 'farang' is as offensive as the 'n' word (hint: it can't), the afro americans have taken ownership of that word back, and refer to each other with it; so us farang referring to ourselves as farang is no different.

really

[zaphod reborn]

Banning hate speech in the west works because there is a body of precedent and constitutional protections which give the Courts guidance in enforcing decisions. Where you have a new and untested Constitution, and no legal reporting system so no body of precedent upon which courts can rely, the law just will amount to arbitrariness.

[NongKhaiKid]

They should start here on Thai Visa.

Anyone in particular in mind ?

[thesetat2013]

ha ha it only took the afro americans, what 2 wars, millions dead to have the right to object to and ban the words n--ger and the <deleted> idiot westerners in thailand call themselves farangs,, un believable. actually i would larf if it wasnt so frigiing sad...

Well then, perhaps the word 'farang' (if considered insulting) will have to be banned in future.

Hate speech | Define Hate speech at Dictionary.com

dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate+speech -

speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation,

Do you seriously think any hate speech law would be enforced if a Thai insults a foreigner? Get real! However I am sure a foreigner would be prosecuted for comments instilling dissention against Thais.

This law ( if approved) will really be just a loophole to have a means to prevent anyone from speaking their mind. Follow the path and don't stray in your thinking or your actions or you will be punished. They can apply this law to anything said that they want.

[SABloke]

Very obvious examples of hate speech for political gain would be the speeches from the various red stages.

In particular the lies told to enflame followers and coerce them into acts of violence and arson.

Those followers were fighting for democracy so violence and arson are acceptable and understandable forms of protest...well that's according to some TV members anyway

[JAG]

So:

Appointed senate [×] Appointed Prime Minister [×]

Courts to hear complaints against elected government [×]

"Hate speech" banned [×]

Ducks nearly all in a row then!

[JAG]

Raises the point that the administration of such laws is likely to be significantly different in a state with those freedoms rather than in a state run by a junta.

[Mr Somtam]

Raises the point that the administration of such laws is likely to be significantly different in a state with those freedoms rather than in a state run by a junta.

Beat me to it!

[jamesbrock]

Yes, really. And I find your feigned offence equally hilarious! People like you, who are too special to be called an everyday, generalising word, need to HTFU.

so every westerner using the word is making a stance for social freedom, take a look at what your saying mate, its beyond ridiculous

No, every farang using the word is simply using a word. To me, coming over all precious about it is beyond ridiculous. Tell me, exactly what am I saying? I'd seriously like to know why you, and a infinitesimally small number of other farang, think its usage is "beyond ridiculous."

All of which (with the exception of Jordan) have an elected government, freedom of speech and expression, and most importantly a judicial system (again possibly with the exception of Jordan and Serbia [?] ) which is not controlled by the government.

None of which deals with the simple core issue of whether banning hate speech is a positive or negative or whether other countries have enacted the same laws as Thailand is contemplating.

Well, yes, of course other countries have banned hate speech; almost all give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability, or sexual orientation, none include this as an apparent afterthought, as do these proposed laws.

None of the countries you listed above allow for their hate speech laws to punish disparaging remarks in all forms, even if they are not made on account of colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability, or sexual orientation as do these proposed laws.

None of the countries listed above could use their hate speech laws to punish somebody who published remarks that threaten the honour or fame of a public figure, Thailand's proposed laws seem to allow for this. Considering how successful the lèse-majesté laws have been, these new hate speech laws appear to be nothing more than 'lèse-majesté for the elites' wrapped up in hate speech laws.

Regardless of how long you've been lurking in this forum, one would think that before you went to the effort of signing up and copying a list from Wikipedia, you would compare exactly what these proposed Thai laws contain to those countries in said list.

Edited January 15, 2015 by jamesbrock

[englishoak]

They will only abuse any new hate speech law and use it to silence critics, just as they do with the laws on defamation and LM . End of

Edited January 15, 2015 by englishoak

[Lupatria]

" had been used by various groups as tools to stir hatred against their political rivals. As a result, the country had been caught in a political quagmire."

That's not hate speech.

It's disagreement and angry debate.

Not saying angry political diatribes are good things, but it's not hate speech.

Thou shalt not disagree? Don't think that's ever going to happen.

So they found out that their ridiculous defamation law needs some extension?

I guess we are just one little step away from the next one,- defining ‘hate think’!

[jcisco]

Banning hate speech in the west works because there is a body of precedent and constitutional protections which give the Courts guidance in enforcing decisions. Where you have a new and untested Constitution, and no legal reporting system so no body of precedent upon which courts can rely, the law just will amount to arbitrariness.

Thai legal system does utilize precedents in deliberation, hence its arbitrariness.

[Just1Voice]

Very obvious examples of hate speech for political gain would be the speeches from the various red stages.

In particular the lies told to enflame followers and coerce them into acts of violence and arson.

Not disagreeing with you, but the exact same thing could be said about the various yellow stages.

[SOTIRIOS]

.they could also consider banning derrogatory terms and expressions for foreigners.....

[Friendly Stranger]

They can add to their charter a ban to stop ripping people off. Satire..

[JingerBen]

" had been used by various groups as tools to stir hatred against their political rivals. As a result, the country had been caught in a political quagmire."

That's not hate speech.

It's disagreement and angry debate.

Not saying angry political diatribes are good things, but it's not hate speech.

Thou shalt not disagree? Don't think that's ever going to happen.

So they found out that their ridiculous defamation law needs some extension?

I guess we are just one little step away from the next one,- defining ‘hate think’!

The US, UK, and Europe will blaze the trail on that one.