this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
18 points (100.0% liked)

World News

48074 readers
1854 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
18
US academic arrested in Thailand for insulting monarchy (www.dw.com)
submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Am in Thailand rn. He was doing research on thai police and clearly got in trouble over that. The dispute is literally him answering 1 question "whether king has more power than PM" and he said "yes" - at least that's what we currently think is happening.

Either way thai police is been through a lot of shit rn with latest being basically thai version of Epstein killing himself in a cell and in general thai police is struggling to keep corruption hidden with such dataflow and displeasement wirh current leadership.

I'm not thai but that's what I hear from my thai friends here.

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago

Fun fact about thailand. The monarch lives most of the time in the bavarian alps and the starnberger lake

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Aaaand another country made it onto the list of countries I'll avoid visiting.

[–] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 months ago

Thailand has had a weird strictness around the king for a long time now.

[–] SirSamuel@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Good thing nothing like that could happen in the good ol US of A

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Downvoters don't understand irony.

[–] SirSamuel@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Lol I know, right?

They are literally cancelling student visas with no notice and then arresting the students

The only thing I can figure is they want to push a court case to establish precedent of no due process for ICE cases. That will open the door for imprisonment without trial, which then leads to "legal" slavery. Rent the prisoners to the farmers that used migrant labor, farmers pay what they did before, private prisons make money and get federal dollars per head, and the prisoners get more prison and work until they're not useful, then deported

Remember when people were press-ganged into naval service? That, but no pirates

[–] mysticpickle@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean, this is the King. Can you really blame him?

collapsed inline media

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I actually love this picture. Kings don't need to stick to whatever us plebs think of fashion. What's the context of this picture?

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Pants halfway off his ass I'd be more concerned about who else gets off the plane.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Concerned? In Thailand?

That's like clutching your pearls over someone with pants half down in Las Vegas or Amsterdam.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes concerned and you should be concerned about sexual assault in Vegas as well, wtf are you even trying to say.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What the fuck are you trying to say?

Because clearly we are thinking about two different things.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

It's not code dude. Read the sentence, or means what it says. Simple as.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In USA academics are kidnapped and disappeared for protesting genocide.

[–] Malidak@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

And what does that have to do with this case?

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago

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?

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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!!!!!"

[–] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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%7E%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.)

[–] SwampYankee@mander.xyz -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

So I read ~~your~~ the 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.

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BoulevardBlvd@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] BoulevardBlvd@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Thailand’s lèse majesté laws are very strict. The government treats insults to the monarchy as a harm to the entire country.

Just don’t do it! If you’re not a Thai person then what business do you have with the monarchy anyway?

[–] Makhno@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If you’re not a Thai person then what business do you have with the monarchy anyway?

Thats a dumb line. You should be able to criticize anyone, especially those in power

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sure but if you go to Thailand and do it you'll go to jail. It's well known. If you don't like it don't go to Thailand.

Also, while I'm not defending the law, Thais are extremely reverent to their royal family. It's part of their cultural identity. It's not like Britain or something where the royals are merely tolerated.

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's such a shame when people downvote factual things, simply because they don't like to hear them.

In this case it's especially poignant, since the topic is about a person that censors and/or punishes people who say things they don't like.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Meh. I think I have a personal downvoter that downvotes everything I say on principle. No biggie.

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've heard that from others (and thought that) before, too. But I've come to believe there are simply some sad, little trolls on here that are either too cowardly or lazy to comment. It's pathetic.

[–] BoulevardBlvd@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not being invested enough to engage isn't pathetic, it's the normal response. It's not pathetic to not be chronically online my dude

I don't doubt op has a stalker, but not commenting everywhere isn't what makes them pathetic. It's all the times when the stalker is engaging that are pathetic, not the times when they aren't

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's all pathetic. Devoting one's time to following someone around just to downvote them is a pathetic way to live. It's not less pathetic if they comment - the lack of comments is just something I've observed.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It seems like every 10 years or so a story like this comes up.

I remember in the 90s there was a case of a teenager who vandalized or put graffiti on a building in some place like Singapore and was sentenced to caning. There was this huge outcry about how cruel it was and such, and I remember (I was in high school) thinking that the guy was an idiot who made how own bed.

Then you get Otto Warmbier who somehow was allowed into North Korea and then decided it was a good idea to rip a post of the country's founder off the wall.

The lesson? Know where you are. When you're not in Kansas, then don't do Kansas things. Consequences are different in different parts of the world. It's really easy to be a respectful traveler.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah. Sometimes I think people are so used to media (TV, movies, video games) and the distancing effect of being in a vehicle (looking out a window at people) that they’re actually capable of travelling to another country without actually believing that they are there in person.

Apart from stories like this, there are countless other stories of clueless travellers who walk around treating locals like NPCs, not really realizing how annoying and offensive they are. These big blowback stories are just the tip of the iceberg on that whole genre of stupidity.