Summary
Thai police arrested US academic Paul Chambers on charges of insulting the monarchy and violating computer crime laws, linked to remarks made during an online seminar.
Chambers, a political science professor at Naresuan University, was summoned after a complaint by the Thai Army.
He denied the charges and was denied bail, with no trial date set. Thailand enforces strict lèse-majesté laws under Article 112, carrying up to 15 years in prison.
And that, friends, is why it’s important to understand that when you travel to other countries, you’re a guest, and you need to fucking act like it.
Edit: my point is that not all countries have freedom of speech, and the consequences for violating it in some places are quite severe. I’m not saying freedom of speech and expression is bad, or not worth defending. Im saying you need to understand where protesting and civil disobedience will make a difference, and which countries will treat you as grist for the mill. You wouldn’t want to do something like this in the PRC or Russia, for instance, either.
Sure, but freedom of speech should be protected from government prosecution or suppression to the extent possible - a simple concept that seems to be fading from our collective memory more and more with each passing year.
Well, the effort to make the concept a reality is mostly just a record (a historical one) and the reality is rapidly removing the implementation of it.
That makes it pretty hard to keep it concrete.
Edit: “if” -> “of”.
It’s official. I’ve caught the virus.Fire up the mixer, because we’ve got work to do.
Sure, but freedom of speech should be protected from government prosecution or suppression…
Why? That’s not fundamental to a functioning society. Its not an inalienable right.
In Thailand, a monarchy, the monarchy is sacrosanct. Who are you to tell them that’s wrong?
…to the extent possible*…
…or to the extent that society/community desires… FTFY
Don’t get me wrong, in Canada, I think speech absolutely needs to be protected. But there are still limits to that. For example, hate speech should be prohibited.
Did you know “obscenity” is not protected by the first amendment in the US? What does that even mean? It really depends on how society views things. https://uwm.edu/freespeech/faqs/what-is-obscenity/#%3A~%3Atext=Speech+about+sex+and+sexuality%2Cprotected+by+the+First+Amendment
In Thailand, they put limits on speech that include not insulting the monarchy. It really doesn’t seem that different. (And I won’t give you my opinion on it.)
In Thailand, a monarchy, the monarchy is sacrosanct. Who are you to tell them that’s wrong?
Anyone with a minimal understanding on how a society should work? Why should a random dude have ruling powers by birth’s right?
The reason why free speech is a good idea is because it makes error correction possible. People come at subjects from all different angles, and inevitably someone will misjudge a subject, while a person approaching from another angle has an insight that would be helpful. In other words, people make mistakes, and if it’s illegal to point out a mistake it’s unlikely to be corrected. I don’t follow the Thai monarchy but I’m sure it’s made mistakes, and it should be legal to say so.
I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. I’m saying you can’t project your beliefs on others.
Sure you can. I think it’s wrong to murder people for no reason. I say something like “government should avoid baseless murder.” Maybe I’m offending people who have deeply held pro murder beliefs, but I’m right and they’re wrong.
I’m making a joke here, but to illustrate the principle that just because a country has some tradition or practice doesn’t mean it can’t be criticized. There is such a thing as objective reality.
And of course we have to recognize that we ourselves can be mistaken about the truth so it’s smart to practice a degree of humility and introspection when it comes to people we disagree with. Even so, I’m pretty comfortable saying that laws which imprison people for criticizing a king are counterproductive and harmful to a society.
So I read
yourthe other guy’s edit on the original post, too, and I agree. HOWEVER, now is a time for us to stand up for principles and speak clearly about what we believe. Playing the devil’s advocate is fun, but counterproductive in a world with so many devils willing to advocate for themselves.Since I just realized you’re not the guy I originally responded too, I guess it all comes down to this:
(And I won’t give you my opinion on it.)
I’m sharing my opinion. If your opinion is the same as mine, then let’s join our voices instead of engaging in relativist masturbation. If your opinion is different, then you’re wrong and we can talk about why if you’d like.
And to be clear, I’m a relativist, to an extent anyway.
I won’t give my opinion because I don’t want it to lead to me getting in any kind of trouble, if that makes you feel any better.
But in any case, my point is you can’t project your beliefs onto others.
Except you can and projecting your beliefs onto others is the literal definition of society. You can’t not project your beliefs onto others
We are not bystanders. All societies are negotiated both within them between members and between members and observers outside. The idea that anyone should forgo their opinion on another culture is naive and asinine. You’re asking for all social exchange to stop in order to preserve an arbitrary set of rules in amber. The system you want to uphold as precious is both not real, and not valuable enough to justify the cost
Oh also, free speech is an inalienable right. In fact I’d go so far as to say learning it’s inalienable is how you learned the word inalienable. Free speech is a human right. Anyone anywhere who is limiting it is commiting a crime against humanity. The opinion of the people in charge doesn’t change that. That’s literally how inalienable rights work. So, no fucking clue what you were on about there
Also also, if you were Canadian, what trouble could you possibly get in being critical of Thailand? You’re either an insane coward or a liar for that one
Also also, if you were Canadian, what trouble could you possibly get in being critical of Thailand? You’re either an insane coward or a liar for that one
Perhaps I’m not in Canada right now. Maybe think outside your tiny little box and stop being a numb skull (see, I can insult you, too.)
Do you agree with any limits on free speech in a society?
If you were in Thailand or China and you posted what you did, you’re even more of a moron than I thought.
I reject your false framing. You’re conflating society and the government in your question.
To answer the question I’m pretending you meant to ask: No, The government should not have the requisite monopoly of violence necessary to enforce speech laws. It is a human right. Any sanction should be exclusively received from society.
Thanks for clarifying your view - I get where you’re coming from now. I’m not conflating society and government so much as recognizing that in most real-world societies, the line between the two isn’t always so clean. Governments often represent collective values, even imperfectly, and they’re the mechanism through which rights are codified and enforced.
You might believe in total free speech, but I’d argue that most societies - even the most liberal democracies - accept some limits to protect others’ rights or prevent harm. If speech truly had zero consequences beyond social disapproval, that could leave vulnerable groups exposed to abuse. So, societies have a right to draw those lines differently, based on their own values.
Anyways, since you can’t be civil (i.e. you’re a fucking asshole who can’t argue without ad hominem attacks), I’m done communicating with you.
It has nothing to do with being a guest. Dude lived in Thailand for years as he was teaching there and researching Thai police activities. He’s clearly going down for that not for not being careful.
I couldn’t agree more. I have been to Thailand several times and make it a point even among Thai you consider as friends to just never discuss the Monarchy. I made the mistake of bad mouthing the Pope once in the Philippines.
Hardcore Catholics are hardcore.
Having said that, as someone who grew up Catholic, let me tell you FUCK THE POPE AND THE VATICAN AS A WHOLE!
Yeah I agree with you, the person who scolded me was super progressive and gay. I am not often shocked.
Misdirected social justice. That’s like defending billionaires.
Chambers, who has lived in Thailand for years, specializes in studying the influence of the Thai military, which plays a prominent role in the nation’s politics.
This is the sole reason for the arrest. Besides, why are you arguing someone who has lived in a country for years is just a guest?
Soooo… are all those Americans and Europeans that call themselves expats, uh, immigrants?
Not quite. Immigrants intend to stay forever, while expats don’t (in my opinion).
That is, if these self-called “expats” do intend to stay forever and obtain citizenship they very much are immigrants who don’t want to call themselves immigrants.
The argument is symbolic. He’s still a foreigner and will always look and sound like a foreigner. His Thai friends will consider him part of the community, but he’s just some expat to everyone else.
Me before becoming a U.S. citizen. “I find both parties worth studying. Very interesting from a foreigner’s point of view”.
Me after, and only after becoming a U.S. citizen: “FUCK THE REPUBLICANS, THEY SUCK ARMPITS!!!”
Or in the US, it seems.
its always westerners doing these kinds of sht. i remember one where there is avideo of an american-chinese, went to chinas yulin festival and attacked one of the patrons/sellers there because he got mad because dogs were getting eaten. different culture, respect it, even if they are questionable things happening.
