Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Huh? Thailand can put an American in jail for posting internet content??
Renegade:
OK here is an extreme, and deliberately silly, for instance a UK citizen writes extensively about the need for uprising, rebellion and civil war in the US. Their writing is particularly effective at increasing tensions in the US and riots break out. The author being very pleased with themselves visits the US to view their handiwork - they don't actually get involved with any of the action but would the US government not be interested in their presence.
-Carol Haynes (December 09, 2011, 04:30 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, I think I disagree with you on how silly that is. :P ;D
But seriously... We all know that would end very badly for the poor fellow.
There is no US law to handle that situation. That's why everyone they don't like is a "terrorist". ;D
Speaking of...
It's related if you know the issues there. Point being, they don't need a reason to do anything they want.
It wasn't that long ago that a UK representative at the UN was denied entry to the US simply because he was muslim - they let his white wife and children through before he realised what was going on.
-Carol Haynes (December 09, 2011, 04:30 AM)
--- End quote ---
You'd kind of think that... oh... wait... thought doesn't apply here. :P
Don't forget the US go one further - they go into other countries and snatch people that they consider a threat to US security, imprison them indefinitely without due process or access to lawyers.
-Carol Haynes (December 09, 2011, 04:30 AM)
--- End quote ---
Yep. It's kind of hard to expect any other country to treate US citizens nicely when the US certainly won't be so kind themselves. What can you do? :(
You can't really expect other countries to give US citizens special exemption from their laws - no one is denying freedom to write or discuss opinions of a Royal family in the US but if you visit that country afterwards that was also his choice. Even in the US freedom of speech often has consequences!
-Carol Haynes (December 09, 2011, 04:30 AM)
--- End quote ---
Actually, now that you mention it, the US DOES have a law similar to Thailand -- You can't talk about assassinating the US President. Someone here I'm sure knows that law better than I do.
When I think about this issue more, I can't see how/why any topic should be disallowed in an open society like what the US is supposed to be. I can understand it for Thailand, but not being an expert on Thailand, I really have no opinion one way or the other. I think that's up to the Thai people entirely. I'm all for free speech, and, well... just don't know in that case...
IainB:
But I just can't...
I just cannot get past that what one does in one country is done in that country, and for another country to prosecute you for that is overstepping its jurisdiction.
-Renegade (December 08, 2011, 09:17 PM)
--- End quote ---
Oh, sorry, I missed that.
If a US citizen goes over to Thailand on a sex tour and has sex with children, and then goes back home to the US, will he be liable for prosecution in the US for paedophilia and/or sex with a minor?
Certainly, that is the case for Australian and New Zealand citizens.
That is an example of "...what (crime) one does in one country is done in that country, and prosecuted for in another country." That would not seem to be overstepping any jurisdiction.
The difference in this Thai case would seem to be in the nature of the adjudged crime. The law of lèse majesté only exists in Thailand, but in this case it was breached by an American Citizen publishing something on an internationally accessible medium - the Internet - so it was accessible from Thailand. The Thais do not run a totalitarian state and would not want to have to resort to censoring access to the Internet for all Thai citizens. The offence was not an offence in the US, so the US authorities could be of no help.
What to do?
Presumably where he might have been when he infringed the law was irrelevant to the Thai authorities, so that when he stepped into their territory, he was now in their jurisdiction and they took advantage of that fact and simply nabbed him at that point.
That would presumably make sense to the Thai authorities, though you might not like it.
Renegade:
But I just can't...
I just cannot get past that what one does in one country is done in that country, and for another country to prosecute you for that is overstepping its jurisdiction.
-Renegade (December 08, 2011, 09:17 PM)
--- End quote ---
Oh, sorry, I missed that.
If a US citizen goes over to Thailand on a sex tour and has sex with children, and then goes back home to the US, will he be liable for prosecution in the US for paedophilia and/or sex with a minor?
Certainly, that is the case for Australian and New Zealand citizens.
That is an example of "...what (crime) one does in one country is done in that country, and prosecuted for in another country." That would not seem to be overstepping any jurisdiction.
-IainB (December 09, 2011, 05:10 AM)
--- End quote ---
I've ranted about this before:
On Sovereignty and States (Wikileaks and Child Sex Tourism)
Quick Summary: It's a slippery slope. Best not to go there.
A line needs to be drawn. <rant>Screaming and pleading and crying about "oh, it's for the children!" is a weak and pathetic plea meant to bend weak minds that aren't capable of reasoning properly. (It's a fallacious argument.)</rant> If it were really about the children, then it's better to step in and actually address the problem and not the symptom. <cynicism>However, there's no profit in that. Like who would want to do research on what makes paedophiles the way they are? How much money can you make? None.</cynicism>
Perhaps I'm a bit cynical there. However, you KNOW that will lead into a downward spiral. e.g. "Oh, but we already do that for child sex offenses. How about these terrorist intellectuals? They're a REAL threat to security! Better arrest them!"
The Julian Assange issue is the same issue. You can't prosecute people for what may be a crime in YOUR country, but isn't in another. Or at least not in a free and open society.
Now, for Thailand, like I said... Laws need to be in a cultural perspective. I'm not qualified to speak on Thailand, so I leave it at that.
The difference in this Thai case would seem to be in the nature of the adjudged crime. The law of lèse majesté only exists in Thailand, but in this case it was breached by an American Citizen publishing something on an internationally accessible medium - the Internet - so it was accessible from Thailand. The Thais do not run a totalitarian state and would not want to have to resort to censoring access to the Internet for all Thai citizens. The offence was not an offence in the US, so the US authorities could be of no help.
What to do?
Presumably where he might have been when he infringed the law was irrelevant to the Thai authorities, so that when he stepped into their territory, he was now in their jurisdiction and they took advantage of that fact and simply nabbed him at that point.
That would presumably make sense to the Thai authorities, though you might not like it.
-IainB (December 09, 2011, 05:10 AM)
--- End quote ---
Yeah... I just don't know. Thailand is Thailand. I'm not qualified to make any judgement there.
Sure, I'm all in favour of free speech, but...
40hz:
Presumably where he might have been when he infringed the law was irrelevant to the Thai authorities, so that when he stepped into their territory, he was now in their jurisdiction and they took advantage of that fact and simply nabbed him at that point.
That would presumably make sense to the Thai authorities, though you might not like it.
-IainB (December 09, 2011, 05:10 AM)
--- End quote ---
One small step from that to making a justification for rendition and allowing extraterritorial enforcement of local laws - as the United States has unilaterally declared for certain offenses.
Not a good idea. It was the same reasoning that led Norwegian police to arrest DeCSS developer Jon Johansen at the behest of U.S. authorities acting on a complaint from the MPAA that the simple act of creating DeCSS violated US law and was a criminal offense.
So why feel the need to bend over backwards to accommodate Thailand's paranoia and self-righteousness? If a western country were to do the same - say arresting an French blogger for criticizing the British Royal Family or the Swedish King - the denunciations would be immediate - and global.
Renegade:
Presumably where he might have been when he infringed the law was irrelevant to the Thai authorities, so that when he stepped into their territory, he was now in their jurisdiction and they took advantage of that fact and simply nabbed him at that point.
That would presumably make sense to the Thai authorities, though you might not like it.
-IainB (December 09, 2011, 05:10 AM)
--- End quote ---
One small step from that to making a justification for rendition and allowing extraterritorial enforcement of local laws - as the United States has unilaterally declared for certain offenses.
Not a good idea. It was the same reasoning that led Norwegian police to arrest DeCSS developer Jon Johansen at the behest of U.S. authorities acting on a complaint from the MPAA that the simple act of creating DeCSS violated US law and was a criminal offense.
So why feel the need to bend over backwards to accommodate Thailand's paranoia and self-righteousness? If a western country were to do the same - say arresting an French blogger for criticizing the British Royal Family or the Swedish King - the denunciations would be immediate - and global.
-40hz (December 09, 2011, 07:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
Thank you for that moment of clarity. I think you've hit on something very important. I had not thought of governments kidnapping people like that. But you're right there.
I suppose I was clinging to some semblance of civility... My bad. :(
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version