Thai Charter drafters to ban 'hate speech'

[Nickymaster]

TV forum might become a boring place

[Nickymaster]

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.

You just don't get it.

[ggt]

You can not have a Democracy without free speech...

This sounds like something the Muslims would come up with...to maintain control over the population by never allowing the people to condemn government, military, or police wrong doing...in their communications...

Good Luck with that!

[micmichd]

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,

Don't agree with this definition of hate speech.

Should include:

- statements not based on falsifiable facts,

- statements made towards an out-group.

The first is maybe easy to understand: put evidence to your opinion.

The second is easier to understand by examples: :

N*** call n*** n*** in the presentce of n***, and it's taken by some humour.

Cripples call cripples in the presence of cripples, it's also taken by humour, although the political correct word is of course 'disabled'

I would hate it if those who define 'political correctness' would be those who define 'hate speech'

[DM07]

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.

Whereas from the stages of Suthep and his followers, it rained red roses and fluffy rabbits, right?!

[binjalin]

and which 'Oh Wise One' will define what is 'hate' and what is 'love'? it's all a control mechanism for the yellow ammart to continue for another 100 years

yes we had the 'red rage' and many parts of that were distasteful as were the 'yellow rages' but Paradigm Shift is happening here and cannot be halted this is but the death-throws of the old order and mirrors much that goes on in other countries but I am continually surprised at some Thai Visa posters defending the indefensible 'old order'

change will come "you may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one"

[arrowsdawdle]

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.

Speeches? Heck yeah, who doesn't hate speeches. Ban 'em, and honey, let's have another liter of Leo over here reo-reo, na krap.

[Bluespunk]

You can not have a Democracy without free speech...

This sounds like something the Muslims would come up with...to maintain control over the population by never allowing the people to condemn government, military, or police wrong doing...in their communications...

Good Luck with that!

Why are you bringing faith into this?

Check out the history of nations that have exercised dictatorial control over their citizens.

All faiths covered.

[Suffinator]

Freedom of speech is the very foundation of a functioning democracy ... whether you like what someone says or not.

If such is implemented then Thailand will have no chance whatsoever at becoming a functioning democracy; we've already seen the damage with the LM laws and this move will simply push Thailand into the realms of a totalitarian regime ... welcome to society ... North Korea style.

[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.

You just don't get it.

Please, enlighten me.

[sprq]

I see a very bad law looming, poorly phrased and open to arbitrary use.

[jaywalker]

I wonder if "Eat S&t & Die" at the countless irritating touts AND "You falang No Good Man" will be banned when fake watch sellers armed with bayonets will apply.

I'm quite certain this rule will be strictly enforced...NOT.

It will be, like most laws the world over, just another selective clause the Bumbling Boys in Brown can charge somebody with....If it suits the occasion.

[wabothai]

Hate speech in the west is compared tp Thailand is as comparing apples to pears.

No European country or the US is governed by a junta where freedom of speech is taken away from the people.

All these countries mentioned are democracies where the justice depts are perfectly able to deal with non-acceptable hate speech.

[GAZZPA]

Oh dear, this is a very slippy slope. The definition of hate speech can be interrupted in many ways. For example, a political party could attack the conduct of the other party which could quite easily be defined as inciting hatred.

scary stuff indeed,,

[Just1Voice]

Yet another ill conceived, inadvisable, b.s. law.

[Emster23]

"hate speech has been the root cause of social conflict"

I beg to differ. I might guess it has to do with majority of Thais little better than serfs serving hiso rich and powerful, not happy about it and finally willing to talk about it. If root problems are addressed, perhaps would be less hate speech. Then true hate speech (not just hate coups, anti democratic ruling class, etc) could be focused on.

Lacking an outlet for free speech, perhaps will then adopt other methods. Actions speak louder than words.

[Robby nz]

It would seem from the replies to this topic that the Thaksin supporters believe that there should be no ban on hate speech.

Which I supposes is fair enough from their point of view for had there been no lies to generate the hate against Abhisit and the Dems then PT would never have won the election in 2011.

The lies that he personally murdered over 90 protesters managed to generate so much hate among the red followers that they wouldn't even let the democrats campaign in their areas.

Yes lies and hate speech is a great tool for vilifying your political opponents, especially when you have followers who want to believe, can see why they want to keep it.

[cocopops]

" 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.

Whether or not it's hate-speech, the unscrupulous and incessant vilification of political opponents, and the populations willingness to lap it up, does seem to me to be a huge part of the underlying problem. Surprising really, in a country with such strict defamation laws. Alarming too, when you consider what the same kind of thing has led to in this and other countries in the past.

I sincerely doubt that it is a problem the CDC can fix by adding a few clauses to the constitution though...

[mikemac]

To me this is a classic example of a law or rule that absolutely nothing to do with me and my everyday life.

I don't go to hate speeches, certainly don't jump up on stage and make hate speeches, have no intention of threatening national security and would not like to be accused of "sowing hatred among citizens or through various religious beliefs that result in violence."

And I hate social media sites like Facebook.

[AlQaholic]

This is hate speech, by definition, because the term has not been defined yet and probably never will.

[Nickymaster]

#50

Already done by others.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Nickymaster

[tbthailand]

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

how very brave of them.

This looks like it will end up to be just yet another way to attack people who say and do things which the controlling elite don't like. It's going in the wrong direction.

[tbthailand]

From wiki

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

so now the traditional elite and their political allies will become a "protected individual or group".

[mikemac]

Yet another ill conceived, inadvisable, b.s. law.

And probably another new law that 99% of the population won't even hear about of care about if they do hear of it.

Red speech writers won't like it, and a small percentage of the western (better not say farang) population, by the sounds of it.

The only news that interests Thai people is news that hits them in the pocket, like gas prices going up etc.

[bendejo]

I see a very bad law looming, poorly phrased and open to arbitrary use.

I'm all for it. I hate speech too. People talk too damn much. They should point. Or make gestures. Or wave around a weapon if necessary.

Oh, never mind.

[sweatalot]

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.

The definition of hate speech should include "a speech with the aim of strengthening negative emotions (like hate) and cause aggression in order to incite destructive acts against opponents" normally by using lies or distorted facts.

While I see the problem to avoid abuse of a law like this I would wholeheartedly agree.

With a ban like this bad things in the past would not have happened in Thailand

And yes,

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

And don't start clamoring "this is only against the reds!"

[Time Traveller]

This law is so unneccesary. They already arrest anyone they like for anyreason at all. Even arrested for reading a novel by George Orwell or hand salutes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/asia/thailand/11090565/Sandwich-eating-and-1984-8-things-that-can-get-you-arrested-in-Thailand.html

[sweatalot]

From wiki

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

so now the traditional elite and their political allies will become a "protected individual or group".

This definition is wrong, even if it is from wiki. Instead of "protected individual or group" it should be "against a person or group"

The world would live better without hate. Good law enforcement / good manners will do

[how241]

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

+1...You correct about that.

[arjunadawn]

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

I am unfamiliar with this topic, so I researched it. I am familiar with hate speech; this does not remotely qualify as hate speech. This is criminal speech, threatening, battery, assault, etc. The danger of hate speech legislation is brilliantly evidenced in this first post- this is not hate speech.