harris campaign, clean up on aisle Electoral College

[webfact]

Public Gatherings Act is now enforceable



BANGKOK: -- The Public Gatherings Act which requires organizers of a rally or a political protest to notify authorities concerned 24 hours in advance and which ban gatherings within 50 metres from the Government House, the parliament or the court has already come into force after its publication in the Royal Gazette.

Although the law guarantees the right to public gatherings, it requires that the gatherings must be peaceful and participants of the gatherings must not carry any firearms.

The law empowers the national police chief to declare the parliament, Government House or the court off-limits to protesters within 50-metre radius from any of the aforementioned places.

Using loudspeakers at public gatherings also requires prior permission. If the protests or rallies cause disruption, temporary or permanent, of public transport, communication system. Electricity generation system or other public utilities, the organizers of such gatherings will face an imprisonment of up to ten years and/or a fine of 200,000 baht.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/public-gatherings-act-is-now-enforcible


-- Thai PBS 2015-07-15

[NongKhaiKid]

I suppose pro-govt rallies are covered in the written law but what about actual application ?

Edited July 15, 2015 by NongKhaiKid

[phoenixdoglover]

Well, It's great news that "the law guarantees the right to public gatherings".

The problem is that you must inform or ask permission of authorities, and if you don't, you could be jailed.

So this begs the simple question: When is a right not a right?

[deckape]

Just in time for Uni students and Vocational students to get the ball rolling. Let the sitting and clapping begin!

[zaphod reborn]

Well, It's great news that "the law guarantees the right to public gatherings".

The problem is that you must inform or ask permission of authorities, and if you don't, you could be jailed.

So this begs the simple question: When is a right not a right?

You don't understand free speech rights, do you? Thailand's Constitution provided one of the world's broadest protections for free speech rights. Because of the guaranteed right of political protest, mobs were able to incapacitate elected governments (ie, 2007 PAD occupation of airports and government house, 2008-9 UDD riots, 2013-14 PDRC occupations of government buildings).

Free speech rights always come with restrictions to preserve civil order. Permits are almost always required if the gathering will disrupt traffic. Occupations and closures of public buildings is never permitted. The US has restrictions prohibiting political gatherings in front of the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court.

It's about time that Thailand joined the rest of the world and put an end to mob rule.

Edited July 15, 2015 by zaphod reborn

[oneday]

The real test will be when organizations ask for permission and they are given or denied permission. I hope someone tests this real soon.

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

Well, It's great news that "the law guarantees the right to public gatherings".

The problem is that you must inform or ask permission of authorities, and if you don't, you could be jailed.

So this begs the simple question: When is a right not a right?

You don't understand free speech rights, do you? Thailand's Constitution provided one of the world's broadest protections for free speech rights. Because of the guaranteed right of political protest, mobs were able to incapacitate elected governments (ie, 2007 PAD occupation of airports and government house, 2008-9 UDD riots, 2013-14 PDRC occupations of government buildings).

Free speech rights always come with restrictions to preserve civil order. Permits are almost always required if the gathering will disrupt traffic. Occupations and closures of public buildings is never permitted. The US has restrictions prohibiting political gatherings in front of the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court.

It's about time that Thailand joined the rest of the world and put an end to mob rule.

I think what he was saying was that this law would make it possible for a government to allow pro-government protests and ban anti-government protests. Lets take an example. Say this law was inplace in 2013 during the BKK protests and the government banned these protests but allowed redshirt protests. What would the effect of such an implementation of the law have on the right of people to protest ? What would the anger levels be if a government used this law incorrectly ? But above all will any non-junta government ever be able to enforce this law ?

[FangFerang]

Very oddly, the writ describes the PDRC protests in detail. Maybe they don't want the other side using the same tactics.

[Emster23]

Any way this can be made retroactive (acceptable here, unlike most places) so can arrest Suthep and his gang that sank elections?

[doggie1955]

WOW, you get less time & baht if you kill someone...And if you are a drunk actress who kills a cop, them you get "No" time & baht.

[Thai at Heart]

This would have been covered by all sorts of previous laws. Blocking a road with a permenant structure? And yes, I will remember not to carry my firearm...

[tbthailand]

And so what?

5 or more people gathering for anything deemed 'political' is still not allowed under the junta.

And don't flash the hunger games salut, don't walk alone to the police station, don't wear black in your FB photos in December, don't talk about the Thai Navy and human trafficking, don't ask the "PM" stupid questions, and certainly don't talk about his bank account off-shore....

[mikemac]

You would be a fool to talk about his offshore bank account. Asking for trouble. Especially if you make up stories about him transferring vast amounts of money to it just to discredit him.

[phoenixdoglover]

Well, It's great news that "the law guarantees the right to public gatherings".

The problem is that you must inform or ask permission of authorities, and if you don't, you could be jailed.

So this begs the simple question: When is a right not a right?

You don't understand free speech rights, do you? Thailand's Constitution provided one of the world's broadest protections for free speech rights. Because of the guaranteed right of political protest, mobs were able to incapacitate elected governments (ie, 2007 PAD occupation of airports and government house, 2008-9 UDD riots, 2013-14 PDRC occupations of government buildings).

Free speech rights always come with restrictions to preserve civil order. Permits are almost always required if the gathering will disrupt traffic. Occupations and closures of public buildings is never permitted. The US has restrictions prohibiting political gatherings in front of the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court.

It's about time that Thailand joined the rest of the world and put an end to mob rule.

I understand fully the conditions affecting freedom of assembly in the US.

You should take a look at NYC guidelines for example.

And while there are buffer zones, you can definitely protest in front of public buildings in Wash DC.

The Thai rules introduce "permission". This is the rub.

You know the Thai authorities did not need this new law to take action against protests in Bangkok which significantly interfered with the rights of others.

The big picture is clear. Rights are being curtailed in Thailand on broad basis. This new law is just part of that.