IN DEFENCE OF LESE-MAJESTE
With news today of the release of author Harry Nicoladies, a recent high-profile victim of Thailand's Lèse-majesté laws, this week's Focus looks at a suject that has long been linked with the Kingdom.
Thailand's Lèse-majesté laws have been featuring prominently in the global media during recent days and weeks. All publishers in Thailand, and that includes me both professionally and as a blogger, must abide by those and all other laws and customs that exist here. Just as you must obey the laws of countries you visit, so you must obey the rules of that country if your product is distributed within its boundaries. Break the laws and you can expect to be punished, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.
It may surprise you but I cannot see many differences between Lèse-majesté (as it relates to publishing) in Thailand and the laws of libel and defamation in other parts of the world.
Take the United Kingdom as an example. There the laws of defamation state that in order for defamation to occur a publisher has to:
- Expose someone to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
- Cause someone to be shunned or avoided;
- Lower that person in the estimation of other right-thinking people;
- Cause a loss of business, trade, rank or professional standing.
Under the UK's libel laws there is also a section called Sedition which, amongst other things, covers damage caused to the Sovereign and the Royal Family. In that sense Thailand is no different to the UK, and there are many countries around the world that enforce similar laws.
Some might argue what has been published recently can be deemed fair comment, but when that comment is damaging I think those who are damaged have every right to take action.
Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code says "Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen or the Heir-apparent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to 15 years." How clear does it need to be?
Some might also cite free speech. This isn't about free speech in my opinion because no matter where in the world you are you will run into problems saying or publishing anything that isn't true.
In order to avoid action being taken publishers need to ensure what they publish is factually correct. Looking at the recent case of The Economist where much of what was written was unsubstantiated opinion, rumours and allegations that were not supported with hard evidence. That’s what caused two editions in the last two months to be withheld from circulation. That decision was taken by the Thai distributors of the magazine because dissemination of Lèse-majesté content is also deemed an offence.
The Economist’s issue of December 6 was the only one recently banned, and having read what was published I totally agree with that decision. I really cannot see The Economist, or any other magazine for that matter, publishing a similarly defamatory story about, let’s say, members of the British royal family without a great deal of hard evidence.
Just because The Economist sells a few thousand copies in Thailand it seems to think it can publish what it wants. That’s evident from a comment earlier this week. Talking about publishing the recent stories it said: "That doing so may break Thai law, and - worse still - offend many Thais is unfortunate and upsetting. But if we want to help non-Thais understand what is going on in that country, it is unavoidable." Certainly it's upsetting and also inconvenient for the Thailand-based subscribers who pay US$230 a year to receive the magazine. It's upsetting and inconvenient for its distribution staff who have to explain to readers why copies are not being delivered. It's upsetting and possibly damaging for advertisers who pay a portion of their fee for exposure within Thailand.
The Economist has been in the spotlight recently but it's not alone. Forbes Asia came pretty close to breaking the law in its recent 'Troubled Thailand' interview with Prime Minister Abhisit. It was just one line in an otherwise pretty meaningless, meandering article where the reported editorialized without substantiating what he wrote. That line was subsequently excluded from a transcript of the article that appearing on The Nation’s website. Clearly others think the same as I do.
Last week's Australian edition of The Spectator has another example of a story that breaks Thailand's Lèse-majesté laws. Incidentally it was written by the same reporter, Eric Ellis, as Forbes Asia's 'Troubled Thailand' piece. In Thailand we don't get supplies of this particular magazine, which is a good thing as if we did I'm certain it would be another banned issue.
Stick to facts and you'll be fine. If a story is likely to cause damage and isn't factually correct then it's likely going to run into problems - not just in Thailand but anywhere in the world.
Agree or disagree? Have you say now and leave a comment. Please keep your comments brief and within the law.
36 comments:
Your argument that there is no difference between lese majeste and defamation law in other part of the world is based on two fundamental errors: (1) "stick to facts and you'll be fine": indeed, truth is a defense to defamation, but it is not a defense to lese majeste. (2) defamation covers statements of false facts, but not opinions, while lese majeste covers any opinion deemed offensive.
There are no defences to lese majeste - truth or fair opinion are not defences. It is incorrect to say to stick to the facts and you'll be fine.
Thanks for the comments.
I'm sticking to publishing-related incidents of lese-majeste - but I have yet to see one example that doesn't involve opinion somewhere.
All the problems have come from unsubstantiated comment, opinion, hearsay and the like. It may be just one line of opinion in an otherwise factual piece but that's been the line that has caused the problem.
I was told by one of Thailand's leading media lawyers late last year that truth could be deemed a defence to LM, but it would take an awful lot of evidence and an awfully brave lawyer to ever take it on.
If anyone has the wording that specifically states truth is not a defence to LM then please post here. If I am wrong I will gladly accept it and publish correct details.
Truth is a deffence to common defamation laws however the wording of the laws in Thailand are not so simple. There is little or no clarification of what constitutes a 'Threat' therefore the law can pretty much cover everything, including publishing True facts which could easily be seen as a 'Threat' to the Kings standing.
I agree with the Laws as I believe there is a need for a level of respect for authority. Nobody is imune from human error and publishing gossip servers nobody except the publishers. I dont agree with the penalty, financial penalties would be a far better deterent and be on an equal level with oher countries, any money gained from fines imposed could then be used by the state to benefit the public, what benefit did anyone get out of jailing Harry Nicolaides?
This first Focus article is very surprising.
You say "stick to the facts", but what is wrong with opinionated writing? Surely all feature articles, editorials, columns, etc. (including Bangkok Bugle Focus!) contain opinions, and everyone is entitled to their different opinions, so why should they not publish them?
Also, writing something that's true could result in a lese majeste conviction. There are certain facts that could not be discussed openly.
You say that those who are damaged have a right to take action, but in fact it is not those who are damaged that take the action. The action is taken by others, who presume to act on their behalf.
Lese majeste is that it is open to abuse. Anyone can accuse anyone else of it, for vindictive or political reasons. And it stifles debate - if no-one is allowed to criticise or contradict a person in power, that's bad for democracy.
Yes, there are laws of libel, defamation, and sedition in the UK and elsewhere, though in practice they are enforced only when a damaging and intentional untruth is published. They do not prevent satire, ridicule, or dissent. Free speech is not about publishing untruths, it's about the right to publish minority opinions, to criticise people, to question authority.
True, The Economist has not provided any evidence to support its analysis, but that's because obtaining such evidence is well-nigh impossible. But The Economist raises some vital questions which it is impossible to answer in Thailand.
Also, how can you expect an international magazine like The Economist to follow Thai law? There is no reason why it should. For example, homosexuality is illegal in Iran, so should UK magazine Gay Times cease publication?
Clearly you've thought about this already, and of course you're entitled to your opinion, but remember that lese majeste prevents anyone with a different opinion from voicing it openly.
Utter and complete nonsense - one gets the idea that the writer wants to make some kind of shock-jock name for himself.
The British royalty are held to account in a way that only the most rabid Thaksin-supporting Thai could imagine.
Pretty much every penny they spend and every action will be accounted for and the British royals will be held under the closest scrutiny to make sure their behaviour is appropriate. To get that level of scrutiny took a long hard debate and struggle. And, ultimately, while the fake 'aura' of the British royalty has been demolished (revealed to be normal human beings) their overall position has been strengthened.
As for an article that is "editorialized without substantiating" I would suggest the writer of this piece takes his own counsel.
As an anecdote - people have issued physical threats to the British royals and received a lesser sentence than that outlined by Thailand's LM laws.
Equating LM to UK's defamtion and libel laws is utterly ridiculous and without any foundation in rational or sentient thinking.
Readers should ignore this article entirely.
So Bangkok Bugle, even a fictional, hypothetical reference to a fictional prince is enough for lese majeste?
Its ridiculous to think truth "could" be deemed a defense since in the convoluted catch-22 mind of the Thai justice system, the King is infallible and inviolable. See the Constitution. No amount of evidence can change that supposition, which is why you call all the things published as unsubstantiated rumors. Your beliefs are far too established to even consider that something else might be true. What I'm basically saying is that neither the official version of events nor the "unsubstantiated rumors" can be thoroughly trusted. Besides, in a democratic society what is an "unsubstantiated comment" but a euphemism for suppressing divergent thought.
The law needs to be applied, yes, but a ridiculous, medieval law should also be put away and replaced with something more modern--for instance, change the law such that only the Royal Family can bring about charges of lese majeste.
P.S. Whilst UK libel law is far from perfect, look at the way the royal family is held accountable for a clue of the difference between the two countries.
"Some might argue what has been published recently can be deemed fair comment, but when that comment is damaging I think those who are damaged have every right to take action. "
In Thailand it's not "those who are damaged" that file LM charges. Anyone can file the charge against anyone. I wonder why you think this is fair.
"In order to avoid action being taken publishers need to ensure what they publish is factually correct. Looking at the recent case of The Economist where much of what was written was unsubstantiated opinion, rumours and allegations that were not supported with hard evidence. "
Virtually every Western news media outlet has published rumours about North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il. Has anyone really bothered to back up their claims with hard evidence? Would you not call what they published "unsubstantiated opinion" as well?
"Certainly it's upsetting and also inconvenient for the Thailand-based subscribers who pay US$230 a year to receive the magazine. It's upsetting and inconvenient for its distribution staff who have to explain to readers why copies are not being delivered. It's upsetting and possibly damaging for advertisers who pay a portion of their fee for exposure within Thailand."
Unfortunately, this sounds like an excuse for businesses to appease dictators if they want to make money. Now I understand why Google agrees to run a censored version in China. From a business point of view it makes a lot more sense to "obey the rules of that country if your product is distributed within its boundaries", doesn't it?
To the latest 'anonymous', I certainly have no need or desire to create any kind of 'shock jock' name for myself, nor to cause any problems. I do, however, value your opinions and thank you for commenting. Everything I have written is substantiated, either by fact or from my experiences of working in the media both in Thailand and the U.K. for most of the last 20 years.
If you read again what I wrote LM is concerned with defamation, therefore to state the link between that law and others is "utterly ridiculous and without any foundation" is simply not true. I do however accept punishments are different but the link exists.
As anyone who spends time on this site knows I do allow anonymous comments (unlike others), however I am sure those with names and identities are given more weight by readers.
Matthew - thanks as always for commenting. I think opinion is acceptable when it is based of fact or supported by evidence. For example saying: "A lot of the Thai popluation ..." as happened in one recent story in The Economist is going to run into problems when it's not backed up with evidence. How do they know? What survey was conducted? That's what I am trying to get at. And getting that evidence, as you say, is almost impossible.
Of course there's also the issue of respect and culture also comes into many editorial decisions regarding coverage - but that's not a law-related issue.
Thailand's Prime Minister said recently pretty much the same about 'stifling comment' and being used for political reasons, but until the laws are changed we must abide by them.
The issue of magazine and bans in other countries is an interesting one, and one that I'm working on for a future post. Believe me Thailand is far from being the worst in this respect.
Tumbler, thanks for your comment.It's much appreciated.
I am not saying it's fair, and in fact I did not even touch on that subject. Yes, anyone can file LM charges - that is the law whether it's fair or not. Of course only those defamed or libeled can take action elsewhere in the world, which is not the same here in Thailand.
North Korea is different in that those Western media you mention aren't being distributed within that country. I'm not expert on North Korea but I expect there would be some action if you published those same stories within that country, or indeed sought to distribute there.
What I am saying about the business side is that The Economist, in this example, cannot have it both ways. It cannot earn money from a country where it knowing breaks the laws of that country.
Look at the cosmetic industry for another example. Some Thai cosmetics have to remove certain ingredients to comply with laws of countries they intend to export to.
I do seem to be in the minority with this post but I've expressed these feelings before in other stories so I'm pretty surprised by the response I'm getting. I guess it's because I have written more than usual.
Thai Progressive, thanks for your input.
Short answer, yes it was. That's what the courts deemed. I'm certain Harry will have a lot more to say about this in the coming days and weeks. I've said before that I felt he was naive to publish something in a country where he was unclear of the laws.
If you, as a publisher, had strong, irrefutable evidence to support a particular claim it would be better than publisher what has come to be known as fact but is lacking any supporting evidence. That line has been blurred a long time now.
Even in the UK a British newspaper wouldn't suggest that Princess X is having an affair with Y without a hell of a lot of evidence.
Bangkok Bugle, thanks for your response.
"If anyone has the wording that specifically states truth is not a defence to LM then please post here."
I don't have the wording of the law, but there's a section in an academic article by David Streckfuss that says LM isn't really as much about the truth (i.e. what actually happened) as the impact of the words or statements in question. Regardless of whether what someone says is true or not, his/her statement can be considered an LM offence if it damages the monarchy's reputation.
Original text:
"Lese-majeste is a purely discursive crime because it bears no necessary reference to reality. That is, guilt is not necessarily assessed by determining the relationship between what was said, on the one hand, and what has actually happened or is actually the case, on the other. Truth or guilt is determined purely by its effect. In a regular slander case, the central issue is substantiating the truth - that is, a statement of truth that sullies someone's reputation is not slander. If the defense can prove what the defendant said was true, the plaintiff's case is lost, even if that truth has stained his or her character. In lese majeste cases, however, it is not necessary to substantiate the truth, for the truth of what was said is not at issue. Ascertaining guilt remains at the level of its hypothetical impact, determined by the projected effect the words, if believed to be true, would have on listeners."
David Streckfuss. (1995) 'Kings in the Age of Nations: The Paradox of Lese-Majeste as Political Crime in Thailand'. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 37:3, p.453
I don't think Abhisit is in any hurry to change the law, regardless of what he said. In fact, I thought the Democrats wanted to increase the maximum jail sentence.
The example you give about "A lot of the Thai population..." is interesting, because the Same Sky website was shut down by its host server after it challenged media reports that "the entire Thai population is in mourning for HRH Princes Galyani".
Re. anonymous comments: under normal circumstances they would perhaps be accorded less weight, but when commenting on this Focus topic, writing anonymously should be understandable.
Yes, respect and cultural sensitivity is important, but that should not prevent constructive criticism (which is currently forbidden), and it should not be an excuse for censorship. In an earlier comment, Lloyd says that authority should be respected, and I agree; but it should also be possible to question that authority.
(Sorry for the error in my earlier comment: delete "that it is" from the sentence "Lese majeste is that it is open to abuse".)
Tumbler. Thanks for the reference and I will check it out. I will also try to get further comment from the media lawyer I spoke to late last year, who stated categorically that truth IS a defence to LM BUT that it would take a brave lawyer to handle it.
Matthew. Will try to delete but I'm not certain I can amend individual words .. let me see.
The SS issue is interesting. Did they provide evidence to support their counter claim or was it just, as happens so often, unsupported comments or claims?
Do you really think there's a need to by anonymous on this topic? I don't think it's even coming close breaking any LM laws. It's just a healthy debate about the links between LM and defamation.
As I posted in the original story, we have to abide my the laws in Thailand so I have no intention of letting it get close to breaking any laws, now or ever.
I didn't mean for you to actually delete it, that would be impossible, but thanks.
Same Sky didn't provide any evidence, again because that would be impossible. But their version (that not the whole population was in mourning) is more likely than the mainstream media version (the entire nation was in mourning). Yet Same Sky was (temporarily) shut down due to fear of lese majeste.
Yes, this is a healthy debate, but the problem is that we don't know if we are "coming close to breaking" the law or not, because the law is so vague and charges can be pressed by anyone. Recall the case of the businessman who was arrested after being rude to a princess on a plane, even though princesses are not covered by the law.
Understood Matthew.
I think, although cannot confirm, LM does cover all members of the Royal Family. It certainly does cover representatives of overseas Governments in Thailand because the British Ambassador joked we should be careful what we write about him at a recent event.
I guess someone could take offence to something I have published here but that's one of the points I am getting at. Bloggers, just as other publishers, have to be careful and abide by the laws regardless of personal opinions as to their legitimacy or otherwise.
I thought it only covered the king, queen, and crown prince?
Probably the British Ambassador really was joking!
Yes, we have to be careful, but with charges being pressed by any citizen, and the possibility of long prison sentences, there is a climate of fear and we must all self-censor perhaps a bit too much.
Most of the Economist's writing was
'unsubstantiated opinion, rumours and allegations that were not supported with hard evidence'.
As a good journalist, you'll no doubt be able to back up your own assertion. Any examples?
Then there's this:
'Some might also cite free speech. This isn't about free speech in my opinion because no matter where in the world you are you will run into problems saying or publishing anything that isn't true.'
You appear to be saying that anyone who exercises the right to free speech is lying.
The Economist's coverage was full of lies? Not a single truthful statement to be found?
What you mean to say, surely, that wherever you are in the world, you will run into trouble if you say something which isn't true, and leave it at that. You might want to rephrase, to look less reactionary and regressive.
Your 'focus' piece is heavy on opinion, light on substance. How about looking at how lese majeste law has been applied? Set it in context, such as the state's crackdown on so-called lese majeste websites?
Or maybe just leave that to Bangkok Pundit...
Thanks for your reply Bangkok Bugle. Let's have a reality check, though, a lawyer building up evidence to use truth as a defense for lese majeste would himself be committing lese majeste. This is the inherent absurdity, the catch-22, add to the fact that cases are not publicized (self-censorship, not any legal requirement), comments are not to be repeated (Sondhi L. was charged for repeating allegedly lese majeste comments), many rabid ultra-royalists calling for the heads of those who even question the law, and a previous attempt to extend lese majeste to cover privy councillors.
To even attempt to use truth as a defense would also violate the Constitution, article 8: "The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated.
No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action."
If this isn't ridiculous and undemocratic, pray tell. I understand your argument that one needs to follow the law, but I disagree. One can oppose a law, even break it, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences--civil disobedience. What is published need not always been official "facts", which, as I have said, the party line is no less verifiable than the "unsubstantiated opinion".
The main goal for the enforcement of lese majeste has always been political. It is not about truth, but about mudslinging your political opponents and claiming legitimacy by ostensibly protecting the King when His Majesty himself criticized lese majeste. Ah, the irony.
P.S. Bangkok Bugle, it would be very easy for SS to provide evidence. All that is required is just one out of 60 million Thais, and I'm sure Giles would count as one. Supporting a negative claim is easier than a positive one.
Again, this brings me back to the point that the official version is likely to be as unverified as the unofficial version. I'm sure no Thai newspaper did a poll or used any actual data to substantiate their claims. Instead, they probably based the premise of their claim in a circular fashion--people who are real Thais are loyal to the royal family, therefore, the people who are not mourning are not Thai, hence, the entire Thai nation is mourning.
The key point here is that no real debate about the royal family which includes cast-iron facts can be had in Thailand. Everything is hidden and secretive and ultimately, unaccountable. There is also no due process when it comes to LM as the supposed LM offense-causing phrase or utterance can't be examined or cross-examined. If a judge decides it is LM that is it, you're off to prison.
It does not compare to the UK in any way shape or form.
Personally I agree that any person, royal or not, should be able to protect themselves from defamation. But the punishment needs to fit the crime. A typical LM punishment is far far beyond what would be deemed as acceptable in any country with established democratic institutions.
I read Harry's offending paragraph and it repeated a rumour I have heard from the mouths of many Thais. And this is the flipside of protecting the royal family in this way - where ever you have secrecy, rumours grow. I find half the stuff I've heard about members of the Thai royalty as just absurd conspiracy nonsense.
I also knew that if a British journalist published something like that he would be face a libel court. But in that court evidence regarding the veracity of that rumour would be thoroughly investigated. If the court found there was truth to the rumour then those bringing the libel case would likely face contempt charges and would be financially ruined.
As for The Economist - their articles, given the secrecy surrounding Thai royality, was very balanced and fair-minded. They drew broad strokes and examined the wider constitutional framework of Thai society in a way that hasn't been done often enough. Hopefully, The Economist's efforts, however weak, will usher in more openness when discussing Thai politics and all the main actors in it.
And yes, I will remain anonymous.
Thanks for all the latest comments. It's getting to the stage where it's impossible to reply in detail to each one, but I really do thank you all for commenting.
I will tackle several points ...
Anonymous. I think The Economist has bottled it by not printing the most recent column concerning press freedom, and with emphasis in part on Thailand, within their magazine. Given how much it's been in the news it really does seem strange to keep it online only. Is this a form of self censorship?
BkkDreamer - I am not saying everything in those articles was lies. What I am saying is the some of what was written, and what got them into trouble, was opinion that wasn't backed up with factual examples. I know people are very unlikely to go on the record when talking in details about this issue but when you make claims that are likely to cause problems you should be able to back them up with specific evidence.
And you say I should back up my own assertions with fact. As you know dissemination of LM content is an offence, and I would need to reprint those pieces which got The Economist into trouble to be able to discuss them. I have no intention of doing that.
To all those who have taken the time to comment, thank you again. We may not agree however it's great to be able to hear different opinions. I will follow-up with certain aspects of what has been said.
With the release of Harry and other ongoing cases I don't think this issue will disappear anytime soon.
"What I am saying about the business side is that The Economist, in this example, cannot have it both ways. It cannot earn money from a country where it knowing breaks the laws of that country."
Maintaining the Economist's hundreds of years old brand image of truth seeking is probably foremost in their decisions. In the long-run, they will be right and survive on this basis as they always have, but...
There are limits to inquiry in many areas besides LM issues in Thailand. For example, I know of reports of Burmese refuge killings in provincial Thailand long before the recent Rohingya case, perpetrated by local militias like those documented in Desmond Ball's work. Stories where real people are dieing would seem to trump wannabe writers (or revolutionaries in Giles case) trying hard to be naughty and topical.
There are scores of local media stories of exploitation that can't be written because some local bigman effectively has his own LM law that says you tell the truth, you die (happens several times a year without nearly as much fanfare as LM). The real heroes go after those stories rather than taking cheap western style "freedom of speech" shots at the institutions that hold the country together which is the real issue here.
Opinions? Well, yes, we all have them.
Some people are of the opinion the earth is flat and some people still think that a Jewish conspiracy runs the planet.
Of course these 'opinions' are not facts and when investigated wither away in the cold light of day.
Furthermore, stating that Thailand's LM and UK's defamation laws are some how equal might be an opinion but it is almost certainly not a fact.
The upshot being that the entire basis of your article cannot be asserted.
Both laws include defamation. That is a fact, but for certain the penalties and implementation are different.
The entire basis of my article offers an answer as to how, under the current LM laws in Thailand, publishers can avoid problems.
No matter where you are in the world you will run into problems of one kind or another if what you punish isn't factually correct. That is especially true in Thailand.
The salient point is that, irrespective of whether it's fair or an infringement of free speech etc, Lese-majeste is Thai law. There is no requirement for a Thai citizen or a visitor to the country or a publisher to agree with the law, they just have to obey, just as anywhere else in the world. If you disobey the law, you suffer the consequences and accordingly I have little sympathy for Mr Nicolaides and the Economist. I'm not sure about the parallel being drawn with British defamation laws - it seems to me that you can still fall foul of Lese-majeste if you insult the King, irrespective of whether what you say is factually corrrect or not. Furthermore, compliance with Lese-majeste is rather more aggressively pursued than British defamation laws. Bottom line is, if you want to stay out of trouble, don't disobey the law.
". . . I cannot see many differences between Lèse-majesté . . . in Thailand and the laws of libel and defamation in other parts of the world. "
You can't see many differences? Really? How about that great honking difference that people who commit LM go to jail?
Or perhaps you're aware of a recent defamation case in the UK when someone has been jailed?
Honestly, if you can't see the difference between a single paragraph in a novel sending someone to prison for nine months, and the way that defamation law is enforced in the UK, then there's no hope for you. Some things are so simple as to need no explanation; you either understand them, or you don't.
Anonymous (most recent), perhaps I am guilty of not making myself clear in the original post. Whilst there is no doubt that punishments vary (as I have pointed out in replies to subsequent comments) the basic principals regarding the act of defaming someone are essentially the same. Publishing something damaging in the UK or in Thailand and you can expect to reap the consequences.
I have commented before about the case of Harry who, at best was naive to publish a book in a country where he was unaware of the laws. He was guilty of LM, whether I, you or anyone else agrees with it.
The point of my post was not about whether LM is right or wrong. That's my personal opinion. That issues can be debated for a long time and it probably will - but not here.
David, thanks. Your last line sums up what I am trying to say, and what I say to global publishers all the time when asked. ".. If you want to stay out of trouble, don't disobey the law."
Just out of interest, what is the 'window' between the time when you assert that a distributor gets to see an electronic copy of the latest edition of the Economist (for example), and when it hits newsstands?
I used to buy the Economist early Saturday afternoon; the edition we get is (or was, back then) published on a Friday, in Singapore. That's a gap of only a few hours.
Who makes the decision? Please don't tell me distributors have a small army of English-proficient laweyers waiting to snap up every issue of the Economist, Newsweek etc before they start distributing it.
"Your last line sums up what I am trying to say, and what I say to global publishers all the time when asked. ".. If you want to stay out of trouble, don't disobey the law.""
I read this alleged summary of your article, then I looked at the title of your article again. What a contrast.
Seriously, "IN DEFENCE OF LESE-MAJESTE" to me means a LOT more than what you said you were trying to say.
BkkDreamer - Each week copies arrive in Bangkok on a Friday lunchtime, having been printed in Singapore in the early hours of that same morning.
The first time anyone outside The Economist, including distributors, get to see the content is at about 3am Bangkok time on a Friday morning.
I do not know whether lawyers for the distributors are/were involved in looking at every single line of what is printed. I would assume managers/executives make that decision.
There are only two or three distributors involved in the import of overseas magazines (and The Economist has recently changed) so they are obviously watching these overseas publications really closely at the moment.
Tumbler. I accept your point regarding my choice of headline. Thanks for your comment.
TO ALL WHO HAVE LEFT COMMENTS:
Thank you again for taking the time to contribute to this important debate.
Comment moderation has been a part of this blog since day 1 in May 2006 and, during that time I have rejected less than a dozen comments - mostly spam.
In the last six or seven hours there were more comments left that I need to look at more closely because, as you can imagine, some of what is being written is getting close to LM itself.
My intention is to stay within the law. I will summarise what I can from these comments in a further comment later on Monday morning.
Here is a summary, edited in places for legal reasons, of three comments recently left.
Anonymous says: “You also make the point about factual accuracy - let's say an irrefutable but highly damaging fact was unearthed - would you support the publication of that either in a Thai underground press/website or in the foreign media?
Clearly then no defamation would have taken place.
And here is where you argument completely collapses on it's sorry ass - in the UK no libel court case where something irrefutable occurs. In Thailand, LM court case, followed by no cross-examination in court, followed by prison sentence. And that's even if truth and facts could be asserted.
It's been written elsewhere here but your argument doesn't stand up - it's just an opinion based on your random interpretations.”
My answer: With respect your question to me is based on hypothetical situations which have yet to present themselves. Whether such a situation will ever happen is probably a more intriguing question. I think you admit that partly when you say: “And that’s even if truth and facts could be asserted.”
I don’t think anyone in Thailand’s media, mainstream or otherwise, would touch such a story and an overseas publisher would probably have to think long and hard. Only when and if it happens will we discover the answer.
I would love to be able to quote from The Economist edition of December 6 – the one which did get banned as opposed to the most recent editions for which the distributor merely declined to distribute. If I were able to you would see for yourself the kind of totally unsupported allegations that led to this edition being banned. It’s these kind of, to use your own words, ‘opinions based on random interpretations’ that are causing problems for overseas publishers.
-----
Anonymous (different to above) says: “But sometimes a law is just plain wrong and should be challenged - not only by openly flouting it but by rationally dissecting it and pulling it apart.
In South Africa Apartheid was once the law - was Nelson Mandela wrong to disobey that? What about women in the Taleban's Afghanistan who secretly met to educate themselves? That too was against the law and against the 'local culture'. Was that wrong as well?
I believe the way the LM law operates at present is completely unethical, immoral and denies natural justice. It is nothing about protecting the King but all about protecting (edited for legal reasons) from being criticised.
So, while you and David might see meek subservience as preferable, history certainly shows that those who challenge such outmoded, repressive laws are generally in the right.
My answer: A well constructed argument to support your opinion of LM. I do not agree with your suggestion of breaking laws just because you don’t agree with them, but totally accept the need for a rational and open debate.
---
Anonymous says: “The author must feel like he is defending the indefensible but I can see where he is coming from. I also work in the Thai media and I can spot a potentially problematic story from overseas a mile off. There are not as many as you might imagine because the huge majority will accept, grudgingly perhaps, they must obey the laws of countries they want to do business with. That is no different to any other industry. Sure we can debate the rights and wrongs of LM forever but it is part of life here and we have to live with it.”
My answer: Thanks. I’m not defending LM in the original piece (and have admitted my choice of headline was not, in hindsight, a good one). My personal views about it will remain exactly that – personal, however it’s good to hear from someone with similar experiences.
----
Check out the latest print edition of the Economist. There's an article criticising Saudi Arabia's highly conservative society. The tone of this article is way less aggressive than the one on the Thai king, yet the writer still remarks that "There is almost no chance that this edition of The Economist will be allowed on sale at kiosks." Again, just because there's an oppressive law in one country doesn't mean a magazine should stop reporting the truth to readers elsewhere.
Hi!!! www.bangkokbugle.com is one of the most excellent resourceful websites of its kind. I enjoy reading it every day. All the best.
Post a Comment