←back to thread

How Thai authorities use online doxxing to suppress dissent

(citizenlab.ca)
207 points gnabgib | 1 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 #
rayiner ◴[21 Apr 25 15:00 UTC] No.43752731[source]▶
You’re just trying to launder your cultural beliefs through fancy language. Westerners developed the concept of “rights” as God-given guarantees that were beyond the power of governments to strip away. But of course Thais don’t share your God. And now most westerners don’t believe in the God that was originally invoked as the premise for those rights.

So where do these universal “rights” come from? Do they reflect some fact of human biology? Of course they do not.

replies(3): >>43753079 #>>43754692 #>>43755790 #
pc86 ◴[21 Apr 25 15:30 UTC] No.43753079[source]▶
I'm not trying to launder anything, I think it's pretty obvious that Western culture in general is superior to others. Case in point: the linked article here. No laundering necessary. But even if you disagree with that, there's nothing preventing anyone from acknowledging my actual point, as well as the fact that belief in inalienable human rights does not by definition require any particular religion or belief in any particular God or gods. It simply requires acknowledgement that all humans are worthy of those rights.
replies(1): >>43753329 #
rayiner ◴[21 Apr 25 15:51 UTC] No.43753329[source]▶
What does “worthy” mean? Isn’t that a value judgment? Can’t different groups of people reach different conclusions about worth?
replies(2): >>43753507 #>>43754476 #
pc86 ◴[21 Apr 25 16:05 UTC] No.43753507[source]▶
You have inherent worth by virtue of being a human being. Do you feel that's up for debate? Are cultures that decide you have no worth as a human being based on your skin color, or religion, or caste, or last name, equal to those that don't?
replies(3): >>43754069 #>>43754191 #>>43755088 #
1. mrguyorama ◴[21 Apr 25 18:43 UTC] No.43755088[source]▶
>Do you feel that's up for debate?

Over 2000 years of philosophy would say hell yeah it's debatable.

Without some belief in a "higher power", there is nothing inherent about anything to do with humans. Sure, we can CHOOSE to ascribe every human as having value and a sanctity to human life that means we should harshly react to those who take human life for granted or cause suffering, and I absolutely and emphatically take that view, that human life is important and humans have a right to things like dignity.

But pretending that it is "inherent" is a lie. It's a thought terminating language game. Pretending that such dignity or rights are inherent only plays into those who wish to remove them. They must be CONSTANTLY and AGGRESSIVELY defended and fought for BECAUSE they are not inherent.

If we do not enforce human rights, they do not exist.

Human rights are an outcome of a regulated society. Rights can only exist when a "higher power" DOES exist, so without a god to enforce things, we must make our own higher power to enforce rights. The State.

The only inherent rights in nature are physics, chemistry, and biology. They aren't very conducive to society in general, and certainly not one that wants to build smartphones or farms.