No Free Speech If You Talk About Me

[GoodGame]

Interesting case about an American citizen trying to exercise free speech in other countries.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16081337

Joe Gordon, a used car salesman from Colorado who was born in Thailand, admitted lese-majeste, or insulting the king, at an earlier hearing.

He was sentenced to five years in jail, but the judges halved the term because of his guilty plea.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/08/world/asia/thailand-american-insults/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

A Thai criminal court has sentenced a Thai-born American to 2 1/2 years in prison for insulting the monarchy, the latest case involving controversial laws for defaming, insulting or threatening the royal family.

Joe W. Gordon, whose Thai name is Lerpong Wichaicommart, cooperated during the investigation of his case and pleaded guilty, resulting in a lenient sentence, his lawyer said.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej has pardoned foreigners in similar cases in the past. The lawyer, Anon Rumpa, said he plans to file for a royal pardon.

Speaking to reporters after the verdict, Gordon said he was "an American, not a Thai citizen."

Gordon, 54, returned to Thailand last year after 30 years in the United States. He was arrested in May for posting a link on his blog to an unauthorized biography of the king, according to the Asian Human Rights Commission. He has been detained without bail since then.

Discussion

Should free speech be a universal right?

Should this apply to honest criticisms of any ruling party in any country?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Just the fact that he's an American citizen is irrelevant, you follow the law of the country you're currently in. And here's the real scandal: The guy was in Colorado when he posted the link. He didn't violate any Thai laws while in Thailand. Fortunately there's a good chance he'll be pardoned.
If he's not pardoned, then it's not only the right, but the duty of the US government to pressure the Thai government for his release.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

His citizenship is irrelevant. Free speech should be a universal right. Criticizing an unjust regime is not only a right but very nearly a duty.

 

[aronnax]

His citizenship is irrelevant. Free speech should be a universal right. Criticizing an unjust regime is not only a right but very nearly a duty.

I wouldn't call it a duty per se...

But yeah, free speech should be a universal right. I hope that the American Foreign Office tries to get him out.

I do find him waving his American citizenship like it's some sort of get-out-of-jail card annoying.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I wouldn't call it a duty per se...

But yeah, free speech should be a universal right. I hope that the American Foreign Office tries to get him out.

I do find him waving his American citizenship like it's some sort of get-out-of-jail card annoying.

It's the new civis romanus sum.

 

[aronnax]

Michael P. Fay and Bart Simpsons disagrees.

 

[de Maistre]

I think it should be up to the people of Thailand to decide whether they want freedom of speech. Universalism is always implicitly ethnocentric.

 

[GoodGame]

I think it should be up to the people of Thailand to decide whether they want freedom of speech. Universalism is always implicitly ethnocentric.

So you're saying the UN, which guarantees universal rights, is ethnocentric? But it has members from most of the world's countries!

 

[Silurian]

I think this is a bad law and I would like it repealed and this man set free.

This person was a Thai citizen until his twenties and may well still be.
As such he would have been aware of this law.

Having broken Thai law he then decided to go there for medical treatment.

If people believe that another country applying a law to actions in another country is wrong then they should also turn around and start looking at the actions of their own country.

From Wiki

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 113 S.Ct. 2891 (1993)[1], was a controversial United States Supreme Court case which held that foreign companies acting in foreign countries could nevertheless be held liable for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act if they conspired to restrain trade within the United States, and succeeded in doing so

....
....
The Court also found that, in enacting the FTAIA, the U.S. Congress did not intend to write principles of comity into the Sherman Act - but even if they had, this would not affect the outcome. Both the defendant and Hartford argued that the conduct in which the reinsurers had engaged was lawful in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the Court looked to the Restatement (Third) Foreign Relations Law, § 415, Comment j for the principle that:

The fact that conduct is lawful in the state in which it took place will not, of itself, bar application of the United States antitrust laws, even where the foreign state has a strong policy to permit or encourage such conduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Fire_Insurance_Co._v._California

You cannot have it both ways.

 

[warpus]

And I wanted to visit Thailand at some point

I'm pretty sure I've insulted their monarchy at one point or another.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

I wouldn't call it a duty per se...

But yeah, free speech should be a universal right. I hope that the American Foreign Office tries to get him out.

I do find him waving his American citizenship like it's some sort of get-out-of-jail card annoying.

Yeah the third world is filled with people who feel superior and do what they want and then wave their western passports when caught. I was one of them, hehhe.
Hope he will enjoy his stay in Bangkok Hilton!

Regarding free speech, yes it should be universal, but there is also the responsabilty of your actions to take into account. Insult people, be it kings or anyone else, you should expect some kind of retribution. Many other countries, even western, have antiracism laws or blasphemy laws where you can get sentenced for uttering racistic or blasphemous ideas.

On this board there is policies as well to keep us in check cause if there was freedom of speech we would all just shout and argue...

Freedom of speech is the same as with every other human right, if it serves the strongest people/nations than it is good but when it doesn't, they look away.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

OK, I'll be the guy to say no.
No, free -as in unrestricted- speech should not be universal. What should be universal is the right to criticize the government and voice your political opinion without fear of repression, but not every opinion should be equally protected in every country.
Cultures and societies are different and don't necesasrily share the same values, and some sensibilities are very specific. While lese-majeste seems silly to Westerners -including myself- in this day and age, it seems pretty much engrained into Thai culture.
On the other hand, a lot of Germans wouldn't care if someone gets fined or thrown in jail for writing and publishing an essay on how "The Holocaust never happened, and even if it did it was a good thing", while the typical American would say that unpopular speech must be protected or there's no freedom at all. I would disagree and say that Holocaust denial and Nazi propaganda don't contribute anything useful or beneficial to a society and outlawing it doesn't restrict other freedoms.
'But where does it end' I hear people say, while they are struggling to push a straw filled wheelbarrow across a slippery slope. 'Well', I answer 'it stops right here at Holocaust denial and Nazi propaganda'. The law is clear and limited towards the speech it limits. What's important is the actual policy and it's likely effect, and not the abstract principle it supposedly upholds or violates.

 

[warpus]

Insult people, be it kings or anyone else, you should expect some kind of retribution.

Yes, but not legal.

You do not have a right to not be insulted.

 

[Silurian]

So does everyone support the burning of flags.

 

[NovaKart]

5 years for posting a link? Ridiculous.

 

[Hehehe]

From what I understand, Thais are serious about their king. I heard that a tourist got 3 months in prison for yelling "I am the king of Patong" in a public place while drunk (Patong being a place in Thailand)

 

[Silurian]

5 years for posting a link? Ridiculous.

No, he was more active criminally than that.

From the BBC link in OP

Gordon, 55, reportedly translated parts of the widely available biography, The King Never Smiles by Paul Handley, several years ago and posted them on a blog while he was living in the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16081337

So he knew what he was doing, then went to Thailand after committing the crime.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

Yes, but not legal.

You do not have a right to not be insulted.

Well then what kind of retribution would you suggest? I ofcourse can understand when it is trivial matters, but you mean for example that there shouldbe no legal way of sentencing one for outright racist remarks or remarks that violates a person?

So does everyone support the burning of flags.

Flags are cloth dyed in different colors and sewn together... why not burn em? Burning is purifying in most beliefs and mythologies...
I can find far worse things todo with a flag

 

[GoodSarmatian]

So he knew what he was doing, then went to Thailand after committing the crime.

He did something completely legal and then went to a country where it is illegal.
It's basically the same as.:
- German police arresting a Dutch citizen because he smoked pot in Amsterdam.
- American police arresting a German tourist, because he let his at the time underage son have a beer at Oktoberfest 2003.
-Saudi Arabia arresting an American woman on vaction because she had pre-marital sex, drank alcohol, and drove a car in America.

This is unacceptable and should cause an international incident.

 

[aelf]

Will Thailand be inundated by a flood of protests? Only time will tell.