←back to thread

How Thai authorities use online doxxing to suppress dissent

(citizenlab.ca)
207 points gnabgib | 2 comments | 20 Apr 25 23:15 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
rayiner ◴[21 Apr 25 13:34 UTC] No.43751858[source]▶
I was born in Thailand--though to be clear, I am not Thai. Thais are not Westerners. They revere their king. Their "ideology" doesn't embrace western "freedoms" of speech and protest to begin with. So the implied accusation of hypocrisy in your comment is simply misplaced.

Westerners generally, and Americans specifically, don't realize how their constant harping on "basic freedoms" comes across as ethnocentric. My parents are American citizens, but they were raised in Bangladesh and they don't really believe in free speech or democracy. My dad always talks about free speech with implicit scare quotes, like he’s referring to an american custom.

replies(7): >>43752156 #>>43752179 #>>43752238 #>>43752458 #>>43753127 #>>43754959 #>>43755706 #
pc86 ◴[21 Apr 25 14:33 UTC] No.43752458[source]▶
Free speech is not an American thing, it's a human thing. The fact that some governments do not recognize it does not make it any less of a right.

Rights are not given to you by your government, your rights are your rights by virtue of you being a human being.

Thinking freedom of speech is even remotely ethnocentric just proves that something is broken in that person's head that they don't even understand the basic concept.

replies(5): >>43752691 #>>43752731 #>>43753411 #>>43754320 #>>43756842 #
1. freespeechlefts ◴[21 Apr 25 15:57 UTC] No.43753411[source]▶
Free speech as you understand it is an american thing. More specifically, it's a popularized and idealized version of free speech that has no basis in reality or law. All free speech rights around the world are defined by governments, culture, law and history. Germany's free speech is markedly different from american free speech for obvious reasons.

Also, you are mistaken when you link free speech to human beings. Corporations have free speech rights. Corporations aren't human beings.

In the idealized abstract, it feels like free speech is a universal and agreed upon ideal. It isn't. Not between nations. Not even within nations. Even in the US, we have no set definition of free speech. Free speech spans from absolutists who believe all speech is legal to those who want to limit free speech to the absolute minimum as they define it.

replies(1): >>43753526 #
2. pc86 ◴[21 Apr 25 16:07 UTC] No.43753526[source]▶
> Germany's free speech is markedly different from american free speech for obvious reasons.

Germany does not have free speech so yes it is markedly different.

> Corporations have free speech rights. Corporations aren't human beings.

I'm not talking about any legal framework around free speech. If I was, I'd be talking about the First Amendment or about a specific law or court case.