It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Citizen Receives 30 Months in Prison for Insulting Thai Monarchy

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


lesson learnt , dont break the laws oif another country - then expect them to welcome you with open arms , not open handcuffs




he didnt break the laws of another country........he was in THIS COUNTRY when he did it, and it was 2 years ago...

We have freedom of speech here......

Even if they dont have it there, the comments werent made THERE..........

Everyone is saying "well he knew not to insult them" apparently no one is reading the whole article.......

Thats like arresting someone for animal cruelty here, because they ate a dog in china.......


edit on 11-12-2011 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

he didnt break the laws of another country........he was in THIS COUNTRY when he did it, and it was 2 years ago...

We have freedom of speech here......

Even if they dont have it there, the comments werent made THERE..........

Everyone is saying "well he knew not to insult them" apparently no one is reading the whole article.......

Thats like arresting someone for animal cruelty here, because they ate a dog in china.......


edit on 11-12-2011 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)


It's not uncommon to have these "worldwide jurisdiction" laws. A British citizen could be tried in a British court for murder, regardless of where in the world it is committed. I'm sure the US has some similar extra-territorial clauses for some crimes.

Edited to add: And then there's the question of whether, under Thai law, the crime is committed in the country where the post was made, or the country where it has been read. If that site was available in Thailand (which is was as far as I know) it might not be so odd for them to claim jurisdiction.
edit on 11-12-2011 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Indeed, but thats murder..........

Wholly different then controversial speak that didnt even take place in that country.......

If thats the case then any of us could be jailed for saying anything that another country doesnt agree with, if we chose to visit.....

Surely you can see the difference



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 

I did read the article and believe it or not the US has laws like that which apply to what you do outside the US.

This man was sentenced to 9 years in the US for something he did outside the US.

American sentenced to nine years in prison

It seems kind of silly to me for a country to try to apply its laws outside its own borders, but apparently they not only try, but succeed, in both the US and Thailand.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


If he did not want to get arrested for his views on Thai Monachy he could have chosen 2 options, 1. Make your views known on the internet with no intention of ever visiting the Kingdom or 2. Keep his views to himself and choose to visit the country. Unfortunately for himself he chose option 3, not a wise choice!

I have lived in the Kingdom for 26 years and obviously have my own views however, common sense prevails. Thai's revere their monachy especially King Bhumibhol and. (Princess) Maha Chakri Sirindorn who both have committed much of their time to assist the Thai people in building infrastructure in business, farming and helping the poor, over the years. In fact, I remember a time when the Thai Police Force claimed they did not have enough money to buy traffic motorbikes for their traffic cops, so the King paid for a complete fleet of motorbikes for the traffic cops! Two weeks later the Upper Echelons of the Thai Police ordered new fleets of Police Cars - all brand new Mercedes Benz and BMW's for senior officers - which most Thai people felt was a slap in the face for the King (although not voiced publicly).

As for American's claiming 'freedom of speech' tell that to the 'whistleblowers' who paid with their lives for telling what they know!

I know many Americans who feel far more free to do what they want in Thailand, than they ever have or will in the USA!

I would not go into a foreign country and insult their rulers, ever heard the term 'when in Rome'?

Ever heard of Guantanimo?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Now if only the Brits could understand that about their own monarchy...

Maybe they could come out of the dark ages.


I may be wrong, but aren't you Canadian ?


Considering that you lot are so enamoured by your ruling British monarchy, then it seems a bit rich for you to criticise Britain for our stance on the monarchy, when your compatriots are only too happy to bend over for their British royal masters.


In any case, it's ridiculous to compare the figurehead British monarch with the King of Thailand, when that country's monarch has actual power and influence. You can say what you like about the Queen without risking a 2 and a half year jail term.


Some other countries have similar laws prohibiting criticism of their presidents, so the official status of the head of state - whether it be monarch or president - is completely irrelevant.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Indeed, but thats murder..........

Wholly different then controversial speak that didnt even take place in that country.......

If thats the case then any of us could be jailed for saying anything that another country doesnt agree with, if we chose to visit.....

Surely you can see the difference
(my emphasis)

Yes. The mechanism itself exists and exists within our own jurisdictions, which is the point I am making. The difference is that, in relation to its application, courts in the US and UK are not so quick to jail people. Materials related to terrorism (including technical information and essays supporting a radical manifesto) might buy their author a spell in jail if they come here. Phillip Luty is an example who springs to mind, who was jailed for writing a book about machine guns. If memory serves he found himself back in prison a second time because... a copy of his book was found in a suspect's flat. Being the author was sufficient, where he wrote it appeared to be irrelevant. I've not the time nor inclination to dig up the exact facts, the truth may vary slightly to what is presented here


Compare "murder" with "publishing content". If that murder occurs in another jurisdiction, to a citizen of that jurisdiction, with police who are competent to investigate and a judicial structure that is competent to prosecute... why on earth should the UK claim they still have the right to prosecute the defendant? At least with "publishing content" that is made available in the UK, there is some connection with the jurisdiction that is a little less tenuous than an "accident of birth".



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join