Loei mining firm seeking to sue 15-year-old schoolgirl

[onetime]

This is exactly why the defamation laws in this country need to be overhauled. The laws, as they stand now, only give leverage to people to use them in nefarious ways.

A 15 year old girl rendered what was probably an accurate an opinion about something that is hurting the environment, and a large company, with a little dictionary, wants to show the little girl who's in charge. Pathetic! Or maybe I should say; that's so ghetto...

This is not the reason they need to be reformed. This is an example of why they were written - namely a victim that actually may lose money based upon unfounded allegations. It's a little different than defamation by slandering someone as an SOB

You must be in a galaxy far far away, Time traveler....

[inzman]

A big company suing a little school girl for telling it like it is. In any civilized country the public outrage would stop this in its tracks. TIT, let's see how fast Thailand can become like N.Korea.

[ratcatcher]

Maybe someone should sue Thung Kham Ltd. for attempted murder by poisoning the water.

That would be in an ideal world. However, this company Tung Kham Ltd, is part of a very powerful mining corp.

http://www.tongkahharbour.com/tongkah/about_history.html

[Thai at Heart]

And ThaiPBS has no case to answer?

[wabothai]

For the lawyers here:

Can a 15 year old be sued?

[SABloke]

Test the river water. Either she's right or wrong.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn't matter...you don't have t be wrong to be charged with defamation.

[Orac]

Maybe someone should sue Thung Kham Ltd. for attempted murder by poisoning the water.

That would be in an ideal world. However, this company Tung Kham Ltd, is part of a very powerful mining corp.

http://www.tongkahharbour.com/tongkah/about_history.html

A company with a few skeletons. Had all those fun and games with the Australian lady with defamation charges a few years back. Is ex Police Chief Somyot still on the board there?

[Krataiboy]

The more I read about my adopted country of 15 years, the less I want to stay here. If it weren't for the love of my Thai family, I would be off tomorrow.

[Rocceao]

" Morning NKK, lovely day isn't it ?

I refuse to answer on the grounds i may incriminate myself.

Meeting your pal for a beer today ?

I refuse to answer ... etc

Why won't you answer me ?

I refuse to answer on the grounds I may incriminate myself.

I refuse to answer on the grounds I may incriminate myself. isn't that called the fifth amendment in the USA?

[Batboy]

This mine was shutdown probably 3 years ago by locals protesting about possible contamination of the river which was never proven. If the locals had not it would probably have shut anyway because of their financial situation anyway. It originally started as a gold mine but there was more copper associated with the ore so they upgraded the plant to produce a copper concentrate which they then shipped in bulk bags loaded in containers. I suspect that this young girl has been manipulated by a group being underage to again stir up trouble for the mining company. Maybe its the same group that are now targeting the Chatree Gold mine with the same type of accusations. Do not always believe what you read. Look at the metal things you rely on every day and think where the metal came from. Mining has to happen if we like it or not.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Thailand..."land of the free."

[BuriramDevelopers]

Animal behaviour.

Feeling threatened and offended by a child , and attacking it.

Nothing more nothing less

Like an animal

[lucky11]

It'll no doubt be thrown out of court. But this brave young girl will almost certainly never speak up again in future.

The mine company is the lowest of the low. They themselves should be fined and ordered to compensate the girl when its found she did nothing wrong

Just maybe, the mining company has not polluted the local river and is within it's right to sue the girl.

However, if it can be proven that pollution has taken place then she can counter sue them for the damage caused to the environment affecting peoples lives adversely.

Are posters implying that this legislation is exclusive to Thailand and not going on in courts all over the world - especially in the US!!

How preposterous is it that someone who left a pub drunk as a skunk punched someone in the face for no good reason at all, ending up suing the bar for serving him too many drinks!! He won the case.

Here is just some of the litigation on the subject.

• Many states hold commercial vendors of alcohol, such as bars, taverns and package stores responsible for injury caused by drunk patrons
• Laws in most states require the injured person suing a commercial alcohol vendor to prove that the serving of alcohol was a "proximate cause" of the injury
• Commercial vendors are liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated customer if they serve liquor to him after he was visibly intoxicated

Shame on the US for having such stupid laws!!

[Artisi]

It'll no doubt be thrown out of court. But this brave young girl will almost certainly never speak up again in future.

The mine company is the lowest of the low. They themselves should be fined and ordered to compensate the girl when its found she did nothing wrong

Just maybe, the mining company has not polluted the local river and is within it's right to sue the girl.

However, if it can be proven that pollution has taken place then she can counter sue them for the damage caused to the environment affecting peoples lives adversely.

Are posters implying that this legislation is exclusive to Thailand and not going on in courts all over the world - especially in the US!!

How preposterous is it that someone who left a pub drunk as a skunk punched someone in the face for no good reason at all, ending up suing the bar for serving him too many drinks!! He won the case.

Here is just some of the litigation on the subject.

• Many states hold commercial vendors of alcohol, such as bars, taverns and package stores responsible for injury caused by drunk patrons
• Laws in most states require the injured person suing a commercial alcohol vendor to prove that the serving of alcohol was a "proximate cause" of the injury
• Commercial vendors are liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated customer if they serve liquor to him after he was visibly intoxicated

Shame on the US for having such stupid laws!!

What the xxxx has the US got to do with the story to hand?

[Artisi]

For the lawyers here:

Can a 15 year old be sued?

Is she old enought to vote, drive a car, get married?

But weasel attornies and dodgy companies will try anything to win a point or two.

Maybe all the kids should start a campaign against the company - that should give the company something to think about.

[lucky11]

It'll no doubt be thrown out of court. But this brave young girl will almost certainly never speak up again in future.

The mine company is the lowest of the low. They themselves should be fined and ordered to compensate the girl when its found she did nothing wrong

Just maybe, the mining company has not polluted the local river and is within it's right to sue the girl.

However, if it can be proven that pollution has taken place then she can counter sue them for the damage caused to the environment affecting peoples lives adversely.

Are posters implying that this legislation is exclusive to Thailand and not going on in courts all over the world - especially in the US!!

How preposterous is it that someone who left a pub drunk as a skunk punched someone in the face for no good reason at all, ending up suing the bar for serving him too many drinks!! He won the case.

Here is just some of the litigation on the subject.

• Many states hold commercial vendors of alcohol, such as bars, taverns and package stores responsible for injury caused by drunk patrons
• Laws in most states require the injured person suing a commercial alcohol vendor to prove that the serving of alcohol was a "proximate cause" of the injury
• Commercial vendors are liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated customer if they serve liquor to him after he was visibly intoxicated

Shame on the US for having such stupid laws!!

What the xxxx has the US got to do with the story to hand?

I'm just illustrating the fact that Thailand doesn't have a monopoly on shameful and stupid laws, especially regarding crazy litigation cases (that are more often won than not)!!

Why do people pour scorn on the company when it is in their right to sue someone for slandering them. In order to prove their case they must show that they haven't polluted 'said' river.

[Artisi]

A big company suing a little school girl for telling it like it is. In any civilized country the public outrage would stop this in its tracks. TIT, let's see how fast Thailand can become like N.Korea.

seems to be on the right track .............

[Artisi]

It'll no doubt be thrown out of court. But this brave young girl will almost certainly never speak up again in future.

The mine company is the lowest of the low. They themselves should be fined and ordered to compensate the girl when its found she did nothing wrong

Just maybe, the mining company has not polluted the local river and is within it's right to sue the girl.

However, if it can be proven that pollution has taken place then she can counter sue them for the damage caused to the environment affecting peoples lives adversely.

Are posters implying that this legislation is exclusive to Thailand and not going on in courts all over the world - especially in the US!!

How preposterous is it that someone who left a pub drunk as a skunk punched someone in the face for no good reason at all, ending up suing the bar for serving him too many drinks!! He won the case.

Here is just some of the litigation on the subject.

• Many states hold commercial vendors of alcohol, such as bars, taverns and package stores responsible for injury caused by drunk patrons
• Laws in most states require the injured person suing a commercial alcohol vendor to prove that the serving of alcohol was a "proximate cause" of the injury
• Commercial vendors are liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated customer if they serve liquor to him after he was visibly intoxicated

Shame on the US for having such stupid laws!!

What the xxxx has the US got to do with the story to hand?

I'm just illustrating the fact that Thailand doesn't have a monopoly on shameful and stupid laws, especially regarding crazy litigation cases (that are more often won than not)!!

Why do people pour scorn on the company when it is in their right to sue someone for slandering them. In order to prove their case they must show that they haven't polluted 'said' river.

How about if the company proves that it hasn't - bet they won't enter into that event.

Easily done if there is nothing to hide, water quality monitoring 24/7 under the supervision of what ever authority is in change.

One alternate system that has worked before is to insist that the company discharges all waste up-stream of their water intake.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Artisi

[Prbkk]

Maybe someone should sue Thung Kham Ltd. for attempted murder by poisoning the water.

That would be in an ideal world. However, this company Tung Kham Ltd, is part of a very powerful mining corp.

http://www.tongkahharbour.com/tongkah/about_history.html

A company that was financed by a wonderful man who would turn in his grave at this story.

[lucky11]

If the company wishes to pursue it's lawsuit then it will have to prove that the river is not polluted, as this is the argument in their case.

How they do/do not prove this is besides the point. It could be the case that the river is monitored and shows that their is no pollution caused by their activities and they have written evidence via records in their possession stating this to be the fact. It makes more sense, in bringing this case against the 15 year old, for them to privy to such information - as they would only be highlighting a major problem which could cease production if it was bad enough and potentially shut them down for good. Do you think they would risk all of this by bringing this case unless they were confident there was no pollution?

[billphillips]

If the company wishes to pursue it's lawsuit then it will have to prove that the river is not polluted, as this is the argument in their case.

How they do/do not prove this is besides the point. It could be the case that the river is monitored and shows that their is no pollution caused by their activities and they have written evidence via records in their possession stating this to be the fact. It makes more sense, in bringing this case against the 15 year old, for them to privy to such information - as they would only be highlighting a major problem which could cease production if it was bad enough and potentially shut them down for good. Do you think they would risk all of this by bringing this case unless they were confident there was no pollution?

No they don't, not in Thailand. Whether they are or are not causing pollution is irrelevant in a deformation case, it's the deformation that has to be proved.

[lucky11]

If the company wishes to pursue it's lawsuit then it will have to prove that the river is not polluted, as this is the argument in their case.

How they do/do not prove this is besides the point. It could be the case that the river is monitored and shows that their is no pollution caused by their activities and they have written evidence via records in their possession stating this to be the fact. It makes more sense, in bringing this case against the 15 year old, for them to privy to such information - as they would only be highlighting a major problem which could cease production if it was bad enough and potentially shut them down for good. Do you think they would risk all of this by bringing this case unless they were confident there was no pollution?

No they don't, not in Thailand. Whether they are or are not causing pollution is irrelevant in a deformation case, it's the deformation that has to be proved.

Er! They are saying that she has defamed them by stating that they are polluting the river. Now what do you imagine would be the best way for them to prove that defamation has occurred?

Think about it. She is claiming pollution - they are saying this is false, by showing no pollution has occurred they can prove her claims as being false.

[LannaGuy]

If the company wishes to pursue it's lawsuit then it will have to prove that the river is not polluted, as this is the argument in their case.

How they do/do not prove this is besides the point. It could be the case that the river is monitored and shows that their is no pollution caused by their activities and they have written evidence via records in their possession stating this to be the fact. It makes more sense, in bringing this case against the 15 year old, for them to privy to such information - as they would only be highlighting a major problem which could cease production if it was bad enough and potentially shut them down for good. Do you think they would risk all of this by bringing this case unless they were confident there was no pollution?

No they don't, not in Thailand. Whether they are or are not causing pollution is irrelevant in a deformation case, it's the deformation that has to be proved.

Er! They are saying that she has defamed them by stating that they are polluting the river. Now what do you imagine would be the best way for them to prove that defamation has occurred?

Think about it. She is claiming pollution - they are saying this is false, by showing no pollution has occurred they can prove her claims as being false.

no - you have fundamentally misunderstood Thai law or "Thailawness" it is irrelevant if it is true you are NOT allowed to say it

[lucky11]

If the company wishes to pursue it's lawsuit then it will have to prove that the river is not polluted, as this is the argument in their case.

How they do/do not prove this is besides the point. It could be the case that the river is monitored and shows that their is no pollution caused by their activities and they have written evidence via records in their possession stating this to be the fact. It makes more sense, in bringing this case against the 15 year old, for them to privy to such information - as they would only be highlighting a major problem which could cease production if it was bad enough and potentially shut them down for good. Do you think they would risk all of this by bringing this case unless they were confident there was no pollution?

No they don't, not in Thailand. Whether they are or are not causing pollution is irrelevant in a deformation case, it's the deformation that has to be proved.

Er! They are saying that she has defamed them by stating that they are polluting the river. Now what do you imagine would be the best way for them to prove that defamation has occurred?

Think about it. She is claiming pollution - they are saying this is false, by showing no pollution has occurred they can prove her claims as being false.

no - you have fundamentally misunderstood Thai law or "Thailawness" it is irrelevant if it is true you are NOT allowed to say it

What is IT exactly? So, basically you are not allowed to say anything to anybody in Thailand as IT might be against the law to say it!! Further more, it can be true or false as this doesn't matter.

From 'the Thailand law society'

Defamation in Thailand

Defamation in Thailand is defined as a false statement that is generally classified as intentional and harmful and made by a person against another whether orally or in writing.

Actually, the definition states that it MUST BE false!! In other words, they must show that what she say's IS FALSE and harmful to their reputation.

[DrTuner]

Thailand's libel laws, the most advanced PC enforcement in history of mankind. And even more amazingly, strictly enforced.

[waldroj]

The miner v's the minor!

There is real history here (including interference by NCPO). See https://protectioninternational.org/2014/08/10/ncpo-interferes-in-loei-communities-conflict-with-gold-mining-operator-tkl/

Edited December 15, 2015 by waldroj

[Colabamumbai]

I do not like the "firm" they are ruining the environment. Sue me too...

[Baerboxer]

Typical 'Thainess' concentrate on destroying the messenger instead of investigating if it's true. If such feudal laws were allowed to persist in Europe or America there would be no uncovering of scandals like Thalidomide etc.

It's an utter, utter disgrace and very frightening for the 15 year old and how dare the 'system' be allowed to bully and harass like this. Freedom of the press? about 5% i'd say at most

You describe what the system was designed for - to stop ordinary people saying things the rich business owning class don't like.

Doesn't matter if she's right. They will go for the "hurting their reputation" etc.

These laws have nothing to do with real defamation and libel. Simply gags of convenience to stop people telling the truth as they see it.

[Aussieroaming]

Mining firm scum.

Have a think about where you would be without the mining scum providing the raw materials for just about everything you use...<deleted> comment

[lemonjelly]

Hopefully the international press will air this