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.
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?
…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.)
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.
Anyone with a minimal understanding on how a society should work? Why should a random dude have ruling powers by birth’s right?
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:
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.