stevenl Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) Another Thailand trial for the world to watch and to learn all about true democracy and the proper way to have freedom of speech in a Junta run Thailand. By a Thai navy who are even frightened at words never mind bullets Booooooooooooooo!You do know this started already before the junta? What does that have to do with the present topic? This is about the navy under the junta taking journalists to court. Do wish you junta-lovers would stop referring back to previous governments. Two wrongs don't make a right. Ah, but that's not correct, it was the navy under a 'democratic' government taking journalists to court.So yes, reference to previous government is justified and has to be made, no connection to me loving or not loving the junta. Edited July 14, 2015 by stevenl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikiea Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 What a bunch of pansies the Navy must be, love to see them in a war.....................ohhhhhhhhhhh pls sir he shot a bullet at me waaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaa waaaaaa huh , you got that wrong , its mamsie pamsie pansies............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lupatria Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) The movie "Das Boot" should be a mandatory watch for Thailand's deckchair submarine squad. I wonder how many of those white clad beach photo posers would be left after that. Edited July 14, 2015 by Lupatria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowgard Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) I don't know but I think a lot of People (especialy in the english speaking world) don't understand the law for "Freedom of Speaking"!!! This don't give you the right to write bullshit and UNTRUE articles about another. If the article is TRUE, everything must be proovable. So the journalist can give all names from the involved navy staff to the court. But if him can't him has a problem because him wrote bullshit about the navy. So easy is it!!! Based on what was mentioned, PW merely quoted from a Reuters article. If the Navy feels that it is lies, they should charge Reuters directly, for the actual article. Just my 5 cents. I understand what you mean but in this moment him forward a UNTRUE (or lied) story (not provable) in Thailand. They can catch him here and done it!!! As a journalist him must know that him just can write true and provable stories. If him take a story from other journalists him have to check it also. http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/legal/ Edited July 14, 2015 by snowgard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowgard Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I don't know but I think a lot of People (especialy in the english speaking world) don't understand the law for "Freedom of Speaking"!!! This don't give you the right to write bullshit and UNTRUE articles about another. If the article is TRUE, everything must be proovable. So the journalist can give all names from the involved navy staff to the court. But if him can't him has a problem because him wrote bullshit about the navy. Didn't know the Navy has paid trolls nowadays! Oh!!!! Did they pay you???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowgard Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I don't know but I think a lot of People (especialy in the english speaking world) don't understand the law for "Freedom of Speaking"!!! This don't give you the right to write bullshit and UNTRUE articles about another. If the article is TRUE, everything must be proovable. So the journalist can give all names from the involved navy staff to the court. But if him can't him has a problem because him wrote bullshit about the navy. So easy is it!!! If you want to see someone who's writing bullshit look no further than your own mirror. You clearly don't understand Thai Defamation laws based on what you've posted. In LOS any person can sue another for defamation, even if what the defendant has written is 100% true. The deciding factor is whether what the defendant has written and published has damaged the 'reputation' of the plaintiff. This law (and the threat of it) is very often used by the unlawful rich/powerful to suppress criticism or damaging accusations. You are wrong!!! If it is right and provable you will win!!! But sure they can sue you. In the most other countries too. Private ...!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowgard Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 you have the right to write what you like. you have the right to say what you want. you have the right to think what you want. perhaps you missed voltaire and went all 1984.its ok to write bullshit and untrue things . it need not be provable. You have the right to write what you like. - if it is true. Otherwise it is libel/defamation!!! You have the right to say what you want. - if it is true. Otherwise it is libel/defamation!!! You have the right to think what you want. YES, 100% TRUE!!! And it is not OK to write bullshit and untrue things for miscrediting other!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langsuan Man Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Does anyone really have any doubts about how this is going to end ? A case initiated by a branch of the military in an country run under a military dictatorship This whole boondoggle is a perfect case of the real face of Thainess , not to even mention the nerve of a local military commander being able to levy a criminal charge against a web site that happens to be located near his base Can you imagine the mayor of any city in any country in the world suing the commander of a local military base for defamation.........it boggles the mind I guess the Thai military has no concept of the chain of command. If the local Admiral decides that he is going to sink some fishing boats because he doesn't like what they are doing is he going to be supported by the Navy headquarters, in one word, probably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 you have the right to write what you like. you have the right to say what you want. you have the right to think what you want. perhaps you missed voltaire and went all 1984.its ok to write bullshit and untrue things . it need not be provable. You have the right to write what you like. - if it is true. Otherwise it is libel/defamation!!! You have the right to say what you want. - if it is true. Otherwise it is libel/defamation!!! You have the right to think what you want. YES, 100% TRUE!!! And it is not OK to write bullshit and untrue things for miscrediting other!!! Absolutely not true in Thailand and some other places in the world particularly when applied to people in the public eye. The truth is not an absolute protection against defamation in Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowgard Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Well, he is a public servant. This prosecution proves that there is at least one naval officer involved. That is enough to say that the Thai navy is involved. Any armed force is held accountable for the conduct of its troops and officers. That is how it works. What a nonsens!!! Do you want tell us that the complete US Army, US Navy, Air Force, Britains Army , ........ are DRUGDEALERS? More than ONE Person of this armed forces are in prison for dealing with drugs!!! But this are just this persons and not the armed forces!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowgard Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Maybe this help you to understand the Thai Laws better: ----------------- What do the laws in Thailand say about Defamation?--------------------- There are two types of defamation in Thailand. Under Section 423 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code, defamation is defined as a person who makes false statements and circulates it as fact. The false statements must injure the reputation, credit, earnings, or prosperity of another person. If the defamer is found liable, the defamer shall compensate the defamed for any damages arising from the false statements. Even if the defamer does not know that his statements are false, as long as he knows that it should be false, the defamer is liable for defamation. The court is not bound by the criminal code’s limits on punishment in a civil case. Under Section 326 of the Thai Criminal Code, defamation is defined as whoever imputes anything about another person to a third person in a manner likely to impair the person’s reputation or place the person in contempt or hatred by others. When defamation is committed by publication or other media made visible by any means, the offender is liable for imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to 200,000 baht. If the person who is accused of defamation is able to prove that the statement is true, the person shall not be punished. But the truth is not a defense for private matters that is not a benefit to the public (Section 330). Source: http://www.siam-legal.com/thailand-law/defamation-in-thailand-natural-fruits-corporation-vs-andy-hall/ ------------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Well, he is a public servant. This prosecution proves that there is at least one naval officer involved. That is enough to say that the Thai navy is involved. Any armed force is held accountable for the conduct of its troops and officers. That is how it works. What a nonsens!!! Do you want tell us that the complete US Army, US Navy, Air Force, Britains Army , ........ are DRUGDEALERS? More than ONE Person of this armed forces are in prison for dealing with drugs!!! But this are just this persons and not the armed forces!!! No I would say that there are undoubtedly drug dealing soldiers all over the world. That doesn't defame whatever armed forces they work for. If a public servant breaks the law, and it is written about, it isn't defaming the organisation to name it. Who is saying that the complete Thai navy is involved in trafficking? Are all Thai coppers bent? Nope. Is the Thai police force corrupt. Yes...because a reasonable amount of coppers are bent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenixdoglover Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) I understand the Phuket site reposted excerpts from an original report by Reuters. I have read the Reuters report. It is still online and was published in July 2013. The Reuters report directly implicates the Thai Navy based on interviews conducted with refugees and smugglers. In my view, the Reuters report is a reasonable and ethical piece of investigative journalism. The Thai Navy refuted the Reuters report in under 2 days. This makes clear that the Navy did not conduct an investigation, despite serious allegations by a respected news organization. In many places a defamation case like this would never be accepted by a court. In Thailand the barrier is very low. Lets hope justice is served. Edited July 14, 2015 by phoenixdoglover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BestBitterPhuket Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Prayuth's credibility is on the line here. The fact that it has already gone to trial has already diminished his credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiSoLowSoNoSo Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 The movie "Das Boot" should be a mandatory watch for Thailand's deckchair submarine squad. I wonder how many of those white clad beach photo posers would be left after that. That would be a very bad idea But they could always crew them with some of the Slaves Rohingya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmyT Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Prayuth's credibility is on the line here. The fact that it has already gone to trial has already diminished his credibility. ... in your (and people like you) eyes. but seems like Khun Prayut does not care too much about this. so relax a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 I understand the Phuket site reposted excerpts from an original report by Reuters. I have read the Reuters report. It is still online and was published in July 2013. The Reuters report directly implicates the Thai Navy based on interviews conducted with refugees and smugglers. In my view, the Reuters report is a reasonable and ethical piece of investigative journalism. The Thai Navy refuted the Reuters report in under 2 days. This makes clear that the Navy did not conduct an investigation, despite serious allegations by a respected news organization. In many places a defamation case like this would never be accepted by a court. In Thailand the barrier is very low. Lets hope justice is served. I think you're touching on the cause here. Reuters did a balanced piece, PhuketWan only published a small part, the part accusing the navy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmh8 Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 I don't know but I think a lot of People (especialy in the english speaking world) don't understand the law for "Freedom of Speaking"!!! This don't give you the right to write bullshit and UNTRUE articles about another. If the article is TRUE, everything must be proovable. So the journalist can give all names from the involved navy staff to the court. But if him can't him has a problem because him wrote bullshit about the navy. So easy is it!!! Based on what was mentioned, PW merely quoted from a Reuters article. If the Navy feels that it is lies, they should charge Reuters directly, for the actual article. Just my 5 cents. I understand what you mean but in this moment him forward a UNTRUE (or lied) story (not provable) in Thailand. They can catch him here and done it!!! As a journalist him must know that him just can write true and provable stories. If him take a story from other journalists him have to check it also. http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/legal/ aha another of those hot shot computer wizz kids from thai military. tell me na krab what is untrue about the report, he did his research for reuters and wrote the original report or at least contributed to it. did it become not true when the navy decided to take a piece of small ass because reuters to big and no face saving possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmh8 Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Prayuth's credibility is on the line here. The fact that it has already gone to trial has already diminished his credibility. I would disagree , I don't belevie there is any credibility to put on the line in the first place. take a look at the evidence - sends people to attitude adjustment dows it for me, but there is also limiting /heavily censoring the press - similar to burma, arresting students for disagrreing with him, dislike of certain words likening him to mussolini and hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmh8 Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Well, he is a public servant. This prosecution proves that there is at least one naval officer involved. That is enough to say that the Thai navy is involved. Any armed force is held accountable for the conduct of its troops and officers. That is how it works. What a nonsens!!! Do you want tell us that the complete US Army, US Navy, Air Force, Britains Army , ........ are DRUGDEALERS? More than ONE Person of this armed forces are in prison for dealing with drugs!!! But this are just this persons and not the armed forces!!! you may understand it better if you realise in every country the armed forces look bad when one of their number looks bad. just look at the americans looking after prisoners of war in agghanistan, ( ok poor example its probably common practise in thailand) look at the news headline british ex soldier caught selling drugs and arrested - yup makes the lot of them look bad. but by your ting tong logic it is defamation of whole armed forces for reporting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kannot Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) These guys seem awful thin skinned. Charging these journalists does not seem like a particularly manly thing to do. Would I get charged if I called them the wimps they appear to be? They make themselves appear very guilty with this childish and churlish act. too busy with their "nivea for men" pansy face whitening cream, I bet the Thai Navy has an extra large mirror supply for its vessel-s? Edited July 15, 2015 by kannot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidermike007 Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 These guys seem awful thin skinned. Charging these journalists does not seem like a particularly manly thing to do. Would I get charged if I called them the wimps they appear to be? They make themselves appear very guilty with this childish and churlish act.too busy with their "nivea for men" pansy face whitening cream, I bet the Thai Navy has an extra large mirror supply for itsvessel-s? Yes, I am sure that the face creams are part of the recruitment package. Maybe pedicures and manicures too. And foot massage. They sure are soft. Some would say half men. Or man children. Oh man am I scared. I could get sued by wimps. We could come up with some good mottos. The Thai Navy. The power of a Caterpillar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FritsSikkink Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 I don't know but I think a lot of People (especialy in the english speaking world) don't understand the law for "Freedom of Speaking"!!! This don't give you the right to write bullshit and UNTRUE articles about another. If the article is TRUE, everything must be proovable. So the journalist can give all names from the involved navy staff to the court. But if him can't him has a problem because him wrote bullshit about the navy. So easy is it!!! Based on what was mentioned, PW merely quoted from a Reuters article. If the Navy feels that it is lies, they should charge Reuters directly, for the actual article. Just my 5 cents. The junta did initially pursuit to go after Reuters but was dropped. Now the paragraph in Phuketwan was a direct word-to-word extract of the Reuters report and yet they are pursuing them and not Reuters. I think the case will be dropped just on this technicality. the junta didn't pursuit, the charges occurred during the democratic government of YL Shinawatra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FritsSikkink Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 I don't know but I think a lot of People (especialy in the english speaking world) don't understand the law for "Freedom of Speaking"!!! This don't give you the right to write bullshit and UNTRUE articles about another. If the article is TRUE, everything must be proovable. So the journalist can give all names from the involved navy staff to the court. But if him can't him has a problem because him wrote bullshit about the navy. So easy is it!!! If you want to see someone who's writing bullshit look no further than your own mirror. You clearly don't understand Thai Defamation laws based on what you've posted. In LOS any person can sue another for defamation, even if what the defendant has written is 100% true. The deciding factor is whether what the defendant has written and published has damaged the 'reputation' of the plaintiff. This law (and the threat of it) is very often used by the unlawful rich/powerful to suppress criticism or damaging accusations. Thaksin used it all the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WitawatWatawit Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Snowgard is not Thai and is not a computer wiz from the Thai military. Have another look at his style of writing - Thais do not write English like that. He is a native speaker who is trolling and pretending to be a non-native speaker (but not necessarily Thai). I enjoy someone who plays devil's advocate for the sake of a good argument - snowgard, sadly, lacks the intellectual capacity to carry it off. You are decommissioned, snowgard - return to shore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soalbundy Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 you have the right to write what you like. you have the right to say what you want. you have the right to think what you want. perhaps you missed voltaire and went all 1984.its ok to write bullshit and untrue things . it need not be provable. You have the right to write what you like. - if it is true. Otherwise it is libel/defamation!!! You have the right to say what you want. - if it is true. Otherwise it is libel/defamation!!! You have the right to think what you want. YES, 100% TRUE!!! And it is not OK to write bullshit and untrue things for miscrediting other!!! In Thailand you are not allowed to write anything which would discredit an individual or organization even if it is true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobb Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 The Thai police, military and government officials say they are not guilty of these crimes. Every one in prison if you ask them they will tell you that they were not guilty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morakot Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) Snowgard is not Thai and is not a computer wiz from the Thai military. Have another look at his style of writing - Thais do not write English like that. He is a native speaker who is trolling and pretending to be a non-native speaker (but not necessarily Thai). I enjoy someone who plays devil's advocate for the sake of a good argument - snowgard, sadly, lacks the intellectual capacity to carry it off. You are decommissioned, snowgard - return to shore. Looks like Snowgard has just been sunk! Well done, Witawat. Edited July 15, 2015 by Morakot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebrown Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 I don't know but I think a lot of People (especialy in the english speaking world) don't understand the law for "Freedom of Speaking"!!! This don't give you the right to write bullshit and UNTRUE articles about another. If the article is TRUE, everything must be proovable. So the journalist can give all names from the involved navy staff to the court. But if him can't him has a problem because him wrote bullshit about the navy. So easy is it!!! Based on what was mentioned, PW merely quoted from a Reuters article. If the Navy feels that it is lies, they should charge Reuters directly, for the actual article. Just my 5 cents. I understand what you mean but in this moment him forward a UNTRUE (or lied) story (not provable) in Thailand. They can catch him here and done it!!! As a journalist him must know that him just can write true and provable stories. If him take a story from other journalists him have to check it also. http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/legal/ Sorry 'snowgard', but you should really aquaint yourself with Thai Defamation Laws before posting your drivel. In Thailand it doesn't matter whether what was written/copied/published by Phuketwan happened to be true or a lie. The deciding factor is whether what was written was damaging to the Thai Navy's 'reputation'. The fact that it was true or false and/or a quote of Reuters is beside the point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed as well as the replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now