Move to outlaw hate speech needs careful handling

[Lite Beer]

EDITORIAL
Move to outlaw hate speech needs careful handling
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- A proper explanation is needed for what constitutes 'hate speech', amid fear the law could be exploited politically

The Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) has proposed that hate speech be illegal - to prevent social division and hatred in society.

If passed, the legislation will call for restrictions on hate speech in all media.

The committee cited development over the recent years in which various forms of media - from cable and satellite television to radio, print and online media - had been used by various political groups to incite hatred against their opponents, thus, drawing the country into a political quagmire.

CDC spokesman Kamnoon Sidhisamarn said the definition of what constitutes hate speech would come at a later date.

Kamnoon said the restrictions were needed because "hate speech has been the root cause of social conflict [in the country]."

First of all, it is absurd to blame "hate speech" for being the root cause of the current conflict.

The political crisis in Thailand didn't start with hate speech. Hate speech is just a product of political selfishness on all sides.

Perhaps Kamnoon and the CDC should ask themselves about the cause and conditions that paved the way for the various political factions to make hateful remarks in their speeches.

But, he was right to say that there must be a balance between protecting citizens' freedom of expression and ensuring that society is protected from conflicts caused by hate speech.

The right balance, of course, requires the CDC to clearly define what constitutes hate speech. Claiming emotional distress is not good enough but urging supporters to do violent acts should be illegal.

There is a fine line between hate speech and freedom of expression. But the line must be drawn and carefully worded if we are to prevent the legislation from being exploited for political gain.

One existing law that has long been exploited for political gain by various sectors of society is Article 112 concerning lese majeste.

Recently, for example, a group of Democrat Party members were trying to get the police to press charges against a resident in Khon Kaen for wearing black in December, the commemorative month for Thai people marking the King's birthday. He was accused of being disrespectful to Thai tradition. Never mind that the person was going to a funeral.

Just about every pocket of the world community has its own set of taboos. Thailand is no different.

We have no problem with the fact that these taboos limit our space and freedom of expression because we acknowledge that this is the right thing to do. It also reflects that free speech is not absolute.

But if we are not flexible and refuse to acknowledge the evolution of language and terminology, as well as the context that we use for defining what constitutes hate speech or a taboo subject, we will face a great deal of difficulty in moving forward as a society.

For example, the word "katoey" has been frowned upon of late. The politically correct term is GLBT - for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Further, words like "jek" or "khaek" in reference to ethnic Chinese and Muslims are no longer acceptable in public.

Besides the possibility of hate speech being exploited for political gain, another point of concern is who gets to define what constitutes hate speech?

This is not to say that coming up with legislation to prohibit hate speech is impossible. For the legislation to be sound, we must clearly define what hate speech is. We cannot allow politicians and public figures to equate speeches that they hate to hate speech.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Move-to-outlaw-hate-speech-needs-careful-handling-30252115.html

-- The Nation 2015-01-18

[NongKhaiKid]

The view the law could be exploited politically would be more accurate if reported as the law WILL be exploited as with defamation and LM already.

It never matters if a prima facie case exists as any chance to put the boot in, muddy the waters etc does nicely.

[borisloosebrain]

Thailand should steer clear of such a law. They are in no way ready to use it responsibly.

[halloween]

Oz has a law against offensive language, while a section of society deserving criticism is also VERY easily offended. Should we side with Charlie's right to free speech, or with those who's offence entitles them to commit murder?

BTW ridicule is such an effective offender of religions only because they are so ridiculous.

[zaphod reborn]

Thailand should steer clear of such a law. They are in no way ready to use it responsibly.

It requires a large body of legal precedent as to what is protected free speech and what crosses the line as not protected or even criminal. Thailand doesn't even have a legal reporter system which would allow the courts and lawyers to properly research prior upper court decisions let alone a body of prior cases resolving these issues.

[chooka]

The view the law could be exploited politically would be more accurate if reported as the law WILL be exploited as with defamation and LM already.

It never matters if a prima facie case exists as any chance to put the boot in, muddy the waters etc does nicely.

It will used as a political weapon and abused just like the defamation and lese majeste laws are weapons against opponents. Just another tool for the junta to dispose of all opposition and remain in power.

[chainarong]

Why don't Thailand just look to other countries that have had these laws for some time instead of trying to introduce generally something that will be decronian and unworkable, honestly where there is a easy way and a hard way Thailand will take the later every time..

[mca]

Somebody was reported to the police for wearing black in HMKs birthday month and they were going to a funeral? Given the amount of funerals on any given day there surely must be more to that tale.

Edited January 18, 2015 by mca

[Tatsujin]

Why don't Thailand just look to other countries that have had these laws for some time instead of trying to introduce generally something that will be decronian and unworkable, honestly where there is a easy way and a hard way Thailand will take the later every time..

You mean, there's actually a world outside of Thailand, where people have actually experimented with and refined their laws over generations and achieved some kind of acceptable balance in their wording and use? That'll be surprising news to Thailand's leaders. Might mean they don't have to rewrite everything every 4 years if they perhaps looked elsewhere and took the best of what's being used.

[simple1]

Oz has a law against offensive language, while a section of society deserving criticism is also VERY easily offended. Should we side with Charlie's right to free speech, or with those who's offence entitles them to commit murder?

BTW ridicule is such an effective offender of religions only because they are so ridiculous.

As captured in Forum Rules Thai law does not permit insult to religion. The 1962 Sangha Act specifically prohibits the defamation or insult of Buddhism and the Buddhist clergy. Violators of the law could face up to 1 year imprisonment or fines of up to $5,800 (188,000 baht). The Penal Code prohibits the insult or disturbance of religious places or services of all officially recognized religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Thailand

Whilst it is off topic, in reference to your comment on Australian law, perhaps you may like to re-visit the discussion on 18C.

http://theconversation.com/speech-in-france-is-not-so-free-as-section-18c-critics-would-have-it-36244

[dragonfly94]

what's the difference between opposition speech and hate speech?

[Caveat Emptor]

what's the difference between opposition speech and hate speech?

i would suggest whatever those in power at the time deem it to be and for their own benefit or purposes too.

[WhizBang]

The view the law could be exploited politically would be more accurate if reported as the law WILL be exploited as with defamation and LM already.

It never matters if a prima facie case exists as any chance to put the boot in, muddy the waters etc does nicely.

Add to your list, the computer crimes act. Another heinous law that is misused to supress people.

[h90]

what's the difference between opposition speech and hate speech?

opposition speech is when the opposition is in the same pocket as the government

hate speech is when it is some Somchai who really want to change something to the better for the people but is not bought

[noitom]

Thais will craft the law first and then "define" it later. Typical Thai approach. The Thai press keeps handing ordinary Thais such garbage everyday and the Thais swallow it. Amazing.

[PatOngo]

Why don't Thailand just look to other countries that have had these laws for some time instead of trying to introduce generally something that will be decronian and unworkable, honestly where there is a easy way and a hard way Thailand will take the later every time..

The four corners of the Earth are Chiang Rai, Mukdahan, Hatyai and Tak.

[Suffinator]

A proper explanation is needed for what constitutes 'hate speech', amid fear the law could be exploited politically.

One persons view of hate is another persons view of the truth ... this is a nefarious move to stifle free speech.

I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it., Voltaire

Interesting article today on how the British gov are looking to make the right to express your opinion a crime and being labelled a terrorist. - http://meebal.com/expressing-opinions-label-terrorist/

This goes to show you that the death of democracy is also being considered by politicians who laud democracy.

[Suffinator]

Oz has a law against offensive language, while a section of society deserving criticism is also VERY easily offended. Should we side with Charlie's right to free speech, or with those who's offence entitles them to commit murder?

BTW ridicule is such an effective offender of religions only because they are so ridiculous.

Just because you find something offensive doesn't give you the right to respond with violence. Intelligent people take offense and debate it in the hope of getting their views across. Have we not developed enough as a species to tackle such issues with cognitive thought and reasoning or do we really need laws to constrain us?

[kkerry]

what's the difference between opposition speech and hate speech?

The red and yellow tv stations last year were full of hate speech. The hurling of insults and abuse to incite viewers, that would result in fighting and shootings on the streets if they were made face to face rather than in front of similar minded brain dead supporters.

[BudRight]

<deleted> facists.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Thailand should steer clear of such a law. They are in no way ready to use it responsibly.

It requires a large body of legal precedent as to what is protected free speech and what crosses the line as not protected or even criminal. Thailand doesn't even have a legal reporter system which would allow the courts and lawyers to properly research prior upper court decisions let alone a body of prior cases resolving these issues.

The Thai judicial system operates on common law and is not bound by case law. So legal research may not lend any guidance.

[rickirs]

It is both funny and sad to see a body handpicked by a government created and led by the Thai military who has imposed martial law by force that forbids even percpetions of public conflict to be debating "hate speech." The CDC does not soar like an eagle for human rights but caws like a mockingbird.

[rickirs]

"The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they're not about facts, they're about feelings." - Adam Piptak, New York Times article, Hate Speech or Free Speech? What most of West bans is protected in the US.

General Prayuth has often stated that he is willing to be criticized so long as such criticism is fact-based. So as a consequence he rejects criticism driven by emotion. A show of three fingers is a factual display of human anatomy but it is the thought behind the display that conveys a message that the junta cannot tolerate. The junta allows one to protest a government policy or decision, but only by writing a suggestion and sending it to the government. Any public protest is against martial law (exceptions given to important military supporters like rubber farmers) and punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Gen. Prayuth recently said in regard to public demonsrations by teachers for better pay, "You do not do that!."

There should be no limit to freedom of speech or expression unless it causes or motivates imminent actionable violence against individuals or property. Freedom of speech/expression can be regulated but solely for minimizing any potential harm to the presenters and/or public. Its content and form of display must not be regulated but protected.

Given the seemingly lack of knowledge about democratic practices relating to freedom of speech, the CDC will create a constitutional monster having unbounded control over Thai citizen behavior.

[Ozziepat]

"Hate speech" is a recent PC invention and does not have a long history of established precedent as, for example, "libel" does. It was invented for political purposes along with hate crimes; both are legally nonsensical, both are excuses for abuse of fundamental rights and neither "prevents" any offenses. They only allow those in power another club to wield selectively against those with whom they disagree. Short comparison:

Libel: Your lie has demonstrably damaged me or my interests.

Hate speech: Your truth hurt my feelings.

Which do you think belongs in a courtroom?

[ggt]

Anyone who says anything I do not agree with...is hate speech...any questions?

[connda]

Lese magistrate + Defamation + Hate Speech = <silence>

[halloween]

Oz has a law against offensive language, while a section of society deserving criticism is also VERY easily offended. Should we side with Charlie's right to free speech, or with those who's offence entitles them to commit murder?

BTW ridicule is such an effective offender of religions only because they are so ridiculous.

Just because you find something offensive doesn't give you the right to respond with violence. Intelligent people take offense and debate it in the hope of getting their views across. Have we not developed enough as a species to tackle such issues with cognitive thought and reasoning or do we really need laws to constrain us?

Please be more careful with the use of 'you' lest I am led to believe you are accusing me of something I detest. We have laws to constrain violence, we don't need laws to constrain ridicule of the ridiculous.