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.
Read more...
