←back to thread

How Thai authorities use online doxxing to suppress dissent

(citizenlab.ca)
207 points gnabgib | 6 comments | 20 Apr 25 23:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.345s | source | bottom
Show context
nomilk ◴[21 Apr 25 04:58 UTC] No.43748605[source]▶
> The (pro democracy) protesters were met with severe repression, and in November 2020, Prime Minister Prayuth ordered authorities to bring back the enforcement of lèse-majesté, or Section 112 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes “insulting the monarchy”. Thailand’s use of lèse-majesté has been both arbitrary and prolific; protesters can be arrested for as little as sharing social media posts that are ‘insulting to the monarchy’. Furthermore, the weaponization of lèse-majesté has devastating consequences: those convicted under Section 112 face three to 15 years in prison per count.
replies(2): >>43749049 #>>43749309 #
colechristensen ◴[21 Apr 25 06:52 UTC] No.43749049[source]▶
Absurd and not at all surprising today. And large sections of many populations do not care because their ideology aligns with whoever is doing the abuse of basic freedoms.
replies(3): >>43749223 #>>43749530 #>>43751858 #
foxglacier ◴[21 Apr 25 08:24 UTC] No.43749530[source]▶
Exactly. In New Zealand I got a visit from the police because of something I said on social media. It wasn't an offence, it just made them suspicious so they questioned me then went away. But some western countries are even worse and do imprison people for quite long sentences (sometime years) for saying politically wrong ideas on social media - UK is most notorious for this but it's well supported by the population who mostly just wants to punish anyone who disagrees with their politics.
replies(4): >>43749678 #>>43749848 #>>43750129 #>>43751862 #
1. StefanBatory ◴[21 Apr 25 10:00 UTC] No.43750129[source]▶
Well - what it was, that you have said? You fully know it changes things.
replies(1): >>43750163 #
2. lupusreal ◴[21 Apr 25 10:04 UTC] No.43750163[source]▶
Good job confirming his point.
replies(1): >>43750564 #
3. noelwelsh ◴[21 Apr 25 11:10 UTC] No.43750564[source]▶
There have always been limits to free speech. Free speech has never meant you can incite violence, for example. You cannot order your goons to kill someone and then defend yourself on the basis of free speech.
replies(1): >>43751866 #
4. lupusreal ◴[21 Apr 25 13:35 UTC] No.43751866{3}[source]▶
The UK goes far beyond that. Merely voicing political dissent to mass immigration can get you harassed by the police if you dare to say that immigrants shouldn't be admitted if they don't speak the language or have very different values. That isn't "inciting violence" except through very tortured round-about logic which could just as well classify any political dissent as inciting violence by way of tacitly, implicitly, not actually advocating for a violent revolt. They call it "hate speech" but what it really means is that expression of some political opinions is outlawed. This makes a farce of democracy.
replies(2): >>43752101 #>>43752178 #
5. Braxton1980 ◴[21 Apr 25 14:07 UTC] No.43752178{4}[source]▶
>Merely voicing political dissent to mass immigration can get you harassed by the police if you dare to say that immigrants shouldn't be admitted if they don't speak the language or have very different values.

Can you an example of a person who was convicted and exactly what they said?

replies(1): >>43752946 #
6. pc86 ◴[21 Apr 25 15:19 UTC] No.43752946{5}[source]▶
The fact that you think there needs to be a criminal conviction in court makes me think you haven't the slightest idea what free speech means ideologically.

If police question you based on your speech alone, that itself is a violation. You should not have to answer to the state for voicing disagreement or for having an unpopular opinion.

Here's an example of half a dozen police officers coming to talk to parents for complaining about their school in a private WhatsApp group: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/29/parents-arre... (they were later arrested)

Here's a police officer saying on video that if you tell someone to speak English it "could be perceived as a hate crime:" https://x.com/PeterSweden7/status/1911348268346323047

This was a partially deaf person asking the person they were talking to to please speak clearly (no mention of language was made, not that it should matter). The only appropriate response to a police officer coming up to you to discuss the interaction is profanity.

Here's multiple arrests for protests after the death of the Queen: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62883713

These are ones I found with a Google search in under ten minutes. I'm sure there are dozens, hundreds more - one link I didn't open said there have been approximately 3,000 arrests based on social media posts. I'm sure some of those are justified, I'm sure a lot of them aren't.

A conviction does not need to happen for damage to be done or for speech to be chilled.