←back to thread

How Thai authorities use online doxxing to suppress dissent

(citizenlab.ca)
207 points gnabgib | 9 comments | 20 Apr 25 23:15 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
brokegrammer ◴[21 Apr 25 06:55 UTC] No.43749074[source]▶
Thai authorities can also arrest and jail you if you leave bad reviews on Google maps. If you visit Thailand it's best not to say anything but positive things about the country on social media.
replies(6): >>43749221 #>>43749291 #>>43749412 #>>43749444 #>>43749686 #>>43750243 #
1. digianarchist ◴[21 Apr 25 07:39 UTC] No.43749291[source]▶
That’s more about Thailand’s ridiculously strict defamation laws than suppressing criticism of the country.
replies(2): >>43750376 #>>43752219 #
2. brokegrammer ◴[21 Apr 25 10:45 UTC] No.43750376[source]▶
I love Thailand as a country but they should relax the defamation thing. A while ago I wanted to criticize the human zoo they setup in the North but I was advised by some Thai friends to not say anything unless I want to get banned from the country.

Free speech is important for progress.

replies(1): >>43750510 #
3. pcthrowaway ◴[21 Apr 25 11:03 UTC] No.43750510[source]▶
... human zoo?
replies(1): >>43753126 #
4. Braxton1980 ◴[21 Apr 25 14:11 UTC] No.43752219[source]▶
Defamation normally means a untrue statement not a judgment.
replies(1): >>43759518 #
5. recursivecaveat ◴[21 Apr 25 15:35 UTC] No.43753126{3}[source]▶
This I presume? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7215182.stm
6. digianarchist ◴[22 Apr 25 06:16 UTC] No.43759518[source]▶
Not really following. Defamation can result in a prison sentence in Thailand. It's both a criminal and civil offense.
replies(1): >>43765156 #
7. lazide ◴[22 Apr 25 18:55 UTC] No.43765156{3}[source]▶
Saying ‘I don’t like their food’ == judgment. Saying ‘their food isn’t Thai food’ when it is == defamation. Saying ‘I found a cockroach in the food’ when you didn’t == defamation.

The issue in Thailand, is all three will get you in deep trouble if discussing the royal family, or other topics yes?

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation]

replies(1): >>43779154 #
8. digianarchist ◴[24 Apr 25 04:05 UTC] No.43779154{4}[source]▶
Ah I see. Sorry I confused judgement with legal judgement.
replies(1): >>43780364 #
9. lazide ◴[24 Apr 25 08:17 UTC] No.43780364{5}[source]▶
I think it could probably have been more clearly put as ‘opinion’ - aka someone’s individual judgement, as compared to a statement of fact.