3 hours ago, madusa said:

Is it possible to have the video shown I would love to see if it's true.

Not before the watershed I am afraid

5 hours ago, Briggsy said:

You are right.

 

The defamation law here is used to preserve the traditional power structure and stop ordinary citizens making legitimate (or otherwise) complaints against persons of privilege or the institutions they represent.

 

The result is inequities, power imbalances and exploitation flowing from the power imbalances continue unchecked.

Thailand in a nutshell. Well said. 

2yrs 8mths for deformation. hi-so killers 0yrs 0mths

"..... people wanting to discredit the abbot and the temple."

 

Mmmm.........why would anyone think of discrediting an abbot or temple 

Sounds like a job for investigative reporters - if there any left in this supine society.  If there are other victims of sexual advances or abuse it shouldn't be that hard to find them.

On 1/20/2017 at 4:33 PM, Shawn0000 said:

 It doesn't seem to make any sense, for if the video is not evidence of any wrongdoing then how could reposting it defame him again, while if it is evidence of wrongdoing then how can he of successfully sued for defamation as the video would of demonstrated her initial claim was truthful.

 

You don't know Thai law. It matters not at all if what is said or done is the truth, even if it is concrete proof of what happened. If someone is damaged by it then they can sue. Wonderful, isn't it. It means you can witness a murder, have it on video, publish it and the murderer can take you to court for damaging their reputation. Just the way it is in Thailand.

29 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

You don't know Thai law. It matters not at all if what is said or done is the truth, even if it is concrete proof of what happened. If someone is damaged by it then they can sue. Wonderful, isn't it. It means you can witness a murder, have it on video, publish it and the murderer can take you to court for damaging their reputation. Just the way it is in Thailand.

 

 

Except I do know Thai law and there is exactly no truth in what you claim.

 

Section 330. Truth as a Defense

 

In case of defamation, if the person prosecuted for defamation can prove that the imputation made by him is true, he shall not be punished. But he shall not be allowed to prove if such imputation concerns personal matters, and such proof will not be benefit to the public.

Edited January 21, 20179 yr by Shawn0000

1 minute ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

 

Except I do know Thai law and there is exactly no truth in what you claim.

 

Section 330. Truth as a Defense

 

In case of defamation, if the person prosecuted for defamation can prove that the imputation made by him is true, he shall not be punished. But he shall not be allowed to prove if such imputation concerns personal matters, and such proof will not be benefit to the public.

 

Quote that to a BP journalist who published wrongdoings of a VIP and was forced to leave the country before being arrested.

8 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

Quote that to a BP journalist who published wrongdoings of a VIP and was forced to leave the country before being arrested.

 

I wasnt saying the law is universally upheld, but that your comment claiming what the Thai states was factually incorrect.

On 1/20/2017 at 4:33 AM, Shawn0000 said:

 It doesn't seem to make any sense, for if the video is not evidence of any wrongdoing then how could reposting it defame him again, while if it is evidence of wrongdoing then how can he of successfully sued for defamation as the video would of demonstrated her initial claim was truthful.

How dare you bring logic into the equation! (smile) Reminds me of the book Catch 22.

Actually, unlike more reasonable countries, Thai defamation laws are less equitable. Truth is not necessarily a defense.

On 1/21/2017 at 6:08 AM, Shawn0000 said:

Except I do know Thai law and there is exactly no truth in what you claim.

Section 330. Truth as a Defense

 

In case of defamation, if the person prosecuted for defamation can prove that the imputation made by him is true, he shall not be punished. But he shall not be allowed to prove if such imputation concerns personal matters, and such proof will not be benefit to the public.

Caveat Emptor

Seems the video in question is very much a personal matter and is questionable in terms of it's benefit to the pubic. 

2 hours ago, timendres said:

Caveat Emptor

Seems the video in question is very much a personal matter and is questionable in terms of it's benefit to the pubic. 

 

I guess that is how it is being treated, but obviously it shouldn't be, a monk breaking his vows and abusing his powers to seduce school girls is not a personal matter and proof of this is of benefit to the public.

On 21/01/2017 at 9:08 AM, lvr181 said:

"..... people wanting to discredit the abbot and the temple."

 

Mmmm.........why would anyone think of discrediting an abbot or temple 

....let alone months of prevarication trying to catch one