Troops, police raid Peace TV to disrupt Chavalit's interview

[Yunla]

I wouldn't grant broadcasting rights to any group which included persons who had previously stood on stage inciting the crowd to burn whole cities and even nations to the ground.

I believe in total freedom to broadcast for all groups, including minority groups (I'm not saying this group is minority) and even for fairly obscure quirky fringe groups.

However, any group that talks about burning cities to the ground etc., should not expect the same future broadcasting rights as normal peaceful groups. Part of moving on into a peaceful and inclusive future is about remembering the deranged and violent outbursts made by certain group spokespersons in the past.

I think it is fairer to say 'A faction within a group calling for cities to be burned to the ground...', but I suppose that is a little too inconvenient for some of the partisans on here...

Would that be the faction which is also called "we, the UDD leaders" ?

I wrote "any group which included persons who" and I got accused of partisanism because my phrase somehow failed to state it was a "faction within a group", even though that is actually the same thing as I said.

Also I have enjoyed the French Resistance / UDD stuff, that really cheered me up. One group was fighting to free their nation from an external war machine controlled by some very nasty chaps indeed. The other group was trying to wrest control of internal State Funds and the MOP, ostensibly to help poor people, and let's just say that quite a few people had doubts about that particular post-rainbow goldpot.

@Baboon I am not partisan at all. I'm a tourist here and I love this nation and my Thai friends dearly. I consider myself greatly honoured and truly fortunate to be here at all. It is not my place to take sides politically. My primary interest as a tourist and human being, is to not see any more blood spilled in the name of politics. To me that is always the priority, and then when that is accomplished we can get onto the justice and meritocracy stuff afterwards. So from my point of view, we have now largely cleared step one and would be foolish to go back to that place again.

[maidee]

censorship, censorship

and it was not even about the one that cannot be named

[halloween]

William Joyce was convicted of High treason according to the laws the UK at the time... Your argument that they didn't like his speeches is the reason is quite bizarre, he was the last person the be tried for treason in the UK.

Since you seem to be conversant with the Thai Laws for treason, any chance you could highlight which part the 2010 rioters could be tried for treason according to Thai Law, and not the protesters from 2013/4 ?

Bizarre my blue butt. What did he do to warrant a treason charge? Steal state secrets, spy on troop movements or make radio broadcasts? Some of what he had to say was true, even if was designed to reduce morale.

If you can't tell the difference between an armed insurgency and a (relatively) peaceful mass public protest against a government showing itself to be blatantly corrupt, then I can't help you.

[Fat Haggis]

Try looking up what's classed as HIGH Treason, of which William Joyce was found guilty of.

I know the difference between an armed insurgency and a civil war, you know, the one you keep referring to as to what was going to happen, despite there already being one already ongoing in the South.

There's is also a huge difference in an armed insurgency and the attacks on the protestors, but you with what appears to be zero-limited knowledge of such things puts their own spin on things.

I don't want, nor need your help about classifications of situations I have first hand knowledge of, and participate in.

[halloween]

Try looking up what's classed as HIGH Treason, of which William Joyce was found guilty of.

I know the difference between an armed insurgency and a civil war, you know, the one you keep referring to as to what was going to happen, despite there already being one already ongoing in the South.

There's is also a huge difference in an armed insurgency and the attacks on the protestors, but you with what appears to be zero-limited knowledge of such things puts their own spin on things.

I don't want, nor need your help about classifications of situations I have first hand knowledge of, and participate in.

I'm quite well aware of what high treason is. What YOU will not address is WHAT HE DID to warrant that charge - he used is so-called right to free speech to make radio broadcasts which aided the enemy by reducing troop morale. Tokyo Rose was jailed in the US for the same crime, and 25 odd years later Jane Fonda got a pass.

"There's is also a huge difference in an armed insurgency and the attacks on the protestors.."

I was actually referring to the attacks BY the "protesters", or at least the armed mercenaries using them as camouflage while they used military weapons against the security forces trying to control them. But that never happened, right, or it's just spin.

[Fat Haggis]

1. William Joyce, on 18 September 1939, and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 29 May 1945 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.

2. William Joyce, on 26 September 1940, did aid and comfort the King's enemies by purporting to be naturalised as a German citizen.

3. William Joyce, on 18 September 1939 and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 2 July 1940 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.

These were the 3 charges as per the Law that William Joyce was charged with High Treason. The fact that the broadcasting of his speeches was classed as High Treason according to Laws of the country at that time, I don't see what you're getting at with "They didn't like his speeches" part, if they were breaking the law, and treasonous, the fact they were done during a war, and he was siding with Nazi Germany, has to also be taken into consideration.

Trying to compare William Joyces's case to that of the Peace TV broadcast, where it's two different laws from two different continents, never mind countries, where you're not familiar with what is and isn't classed as treason in Thailand is the point I'm trying to raise.

If you're asking why the Laws of High treason were applicable to William Joyce, The Prosecution used the laws in place at that time, won their case, and he was hung, based on the evidence presented. Free speech you called it, The Government and the Crown at the time didn't see it that way

Interesting case none the less

[jamesjohnsonthird]

A SEAsian Military Junta crushes the press and there are people that endorse the action.

Boggles the mind.

[halloween]

My original position was that even in liberal democracies, there is a limit to freedom of speech, and that he was a perfect example.

The supposition that he, or anyone else,had a right to say anything he liked, was proven wrong. At the same time, defeatist speech was a crime.

[MiKT]

good idea. general public should be safe from foreign propaganda channels. a group of people, who control US and the Western world came to an idea that propaganda can solve any political problem, can topple governments which are out of there control.

But all these can be neutralized by simple switch. this is a "sucker Punch" for Western left-liberal fundamentalists, because they can play only in what they good at - propaganda. Without brainwashing they are nothing.

That's why they hate any leader of independent nation who is brave enough to cut off tentacles of the american propaganda octopus.

What on earth is a "Western left-liberal fundamentalist"?

[ExPratt]

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

Try looking up what's classed as HIGH Treason, of which William Joyce was found guilty of.

I know the difference between an armed insurgency and a civil war, you know, the one you keep referring to as to what was going to happen, despite there already being one already ongoing in the South.

There's is also a huge difference in an armed insurgency and the attacks on the protestors, but you with what appears to be zero-limited knowledge of such things puts their own spin on things.

I don't want, nor need your help about classifications of situations I have first hand knowledge of, and participate in.

I'm quite well aware of what high treason is. What YOU will not address is WHAT HE DID to warrant that charge - he used is so-called right to free speech to make radio broadcasts which aided the enemy by reducing troop morale. Tokyo Rose was jailed in the US for the same crime, and 25 odd years later Jane Fonda got a pass.
"There's is also a huge difference in an armed insurgency and the attacks on the protestors.."

I was actually referring to the attacks BY the "protesters", or at least the armed mercenaries using them as camouflage while they used military weapons against the security forces trying to control them. But that never happened, right, or it's just spin.

"Right to free speech" Spreading an Enemy of his countries Rhetoric and propaganda ?

[MiKT]

"Courage and integrity" aren't words normally associated with Thaksin and his mercenary propagandists. I suppose it depends on how much red Kool-aid you've been drinking - I'd cut back if I was you.

Your "mercenary propagandists" are the good, honest hard working citizens that make up the majority of this country. You're on the wrong side of history here.

My "mercenary propagandists" are those UDD members who regularly appear on Peace TV who seem to have become reasonably wealthy while dismally failing to represent those they claim to. Or don't you remember the amnesty vote?

BTW while you think I'm on the wrong side of history, I'd much rather be there than siding with scum who think acts of violence are acceptable as political expression. who are you trying to be Gringo, Pancho Villa?

You most certainly are on the wrong side of history and siding with real scum, The vast majority of political violence in Thailand since the first take-over of the airports that cost Thailand so dearly has been propagated by Sutheps paid thugs. During the last riots it was so pathetic to see foreign TV interviewing paid thugs who had not a day's schooling in their lives claiming to be "Bangkok middle class". Murderous, traitorous Scum is a very apt description of them.

[MiKT]

Or maybe they just don't like thieves.

Seizing control of the country and depriving the people of a say in their destiny is a pretty audacious theft in my opinion.

So what will your opinion be when they give it back, hopefully with improvements?

Has Thaksin ever suggested he'd pay the tax on Shin Corp he corruptly avoided?

About the same amount of tax that Suthep will pay on all the money he stuffed into his hat!

[MiKT]

I think Nostitz was upset by people using his copyrighted photos, especially those displaying yellow shirts with their massive war weapons arsenal.

In a theoretical rematch, would anyone like to lay odds on a fight between these lads with sticks and the ones below?

What else but?

Edited May 8, 2015 by MiKT

[Chao Lao Beach]

The oldest trick inthe book, a recording

[halloween]

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

I'm quite well aware of what high treason is. What YOU will not address is WHAT HE DID to warrant that charge - he used is so-called right to free speech to make radio broadcasts which aided the enemy by reducing troop morale. Tokyo Rose was jailed in the US for the same crime, and 25 odd years later Jane Fonda got a pass.

"There's is also a huge difference in an armed insurgency and the attacks on the protestors.."

I was actually referring to the attacks BY the "protesters", or at least the armed mercenaries using them as camouflage while they used military weapons against the security forces trying to control them. But that never happened, right, or it's just spin.

"Right to free speech" Spreading an Enemy of his countries Rhetoric and propaganda ?

Well yes. That's the thing about free speech, it's the right to say anything you want whether it's objectionable or not.

Or were you referring to Peace TV?