On libel law, Thai media, and freedom | 13.10.05

A number of my readers curiously don’t seem to read comments. Indeed, it appears they don’t even follow links. Well, these guys are missing out big time. Khun JW’s just posted another one of his stimulating comments under the “Channeling Luangta Maha Bua, sort of” post. This time, however, my reply turns out to be too long and hence will be posted here, instead. A happy outcome for some of you perhaps? (You should go ahead and read the thread, however, as JW said other interesting things that aren’t quoted here.)

Khun JW wrote:

While I have stated previously here, I think a lot of the criticism of Thaksin is unjustified. I think that the defamation law that Thaksin (Ok, Shin Corp) is using against Supinya Klangnarong (I don’t know to much about Sonthi’s case) is an abomination and I hope it is struck down by the Constitutional Court as been unconstitutional. It disappoints me that Thaksin is using the law against Supinya or anyone else.

For political speech, I am strongly opposed to criminalising speech, which is what s328 of the Criminal Code does. IMHO, a civilsed society should not criminalise speech in such circumstances.

But then doesn’t such a law (libel law) exist in every country? Would you advocate abolishing it altogether? Keep in mind that a legal recourse (or a threat of one) is virtually the only thing that forces a Thai newspaper to publish a correction.

I’m not familiar with the details of Supinya’s case, particularly what she wrote exactly in the Thai Post that brought on the suit. Whatever it is, in real life as on the internet, it’s never wise to engage a troll and give her the attention she so craves. (I think of Supinya as Sanitsuda with a fouler mouth and but without an established soapbox.) Thaksin, especially, should know by now that such a measure always damages his reputation and elevates that of the opposing party, at least as far as the international media is concerned.

Yet one could say that, too, about the outrageous gossip that the Far Eastern Economic Review published as “intelligence” three years ago. (God, that’s another thing that I just have to blog about.) The government should’ve just issued a protest letter, but instead it (and/or the police) made a big scene and expelled two foreign journalists. Stupid, yes, but totally in line with national tradition and mentality. Do I have remind you that this is the country that banned Anna and the King?

In the FEER episode and the closely following Economist one, the Thai media was divided. I remember a Bangkok Post editorial doing a logical acrobatics by admitting that the article(s) were in fact inappropriate but arguing that the legal actions were still “politically motivated”. Matichon, on the other hand, came down firmly on the government’s side. Yes, it did, and I’ll elaborate on that later in my much ballyhooed article about Thai newspapers. More recently, when Shin Corp sued Supinya, its senior editor (บรรณาธิการอำนวยการ), Pichien Kurathong denounced her along with the Human Rights Watch (who supported her) as “extremists” (พวกสุดโต่ง). Try to reconcile that with Reuter’s description of Matichon as a “constant thorn in the side” of Thaksin.

With all this, I’m trying demonstrate that virtually all Thai people still find the idea of a libel profoundly repugnant (especially if it involves “the institution”) and accordingly distrust free speech. Whatever they say about a particular case, they still like having the option to sue and will not agree to a wholesale decriminalization that Khun JW suggested for fear of getting the rough end of the stick themselves next time around. In this, actually, we may not be alone. George Galloway did sue the Daily Telegraph and I didn’t see Noam Chomsky sign up to support of the latter’s freedom. (And if you distrust a Thai court to sort out an alleged libel, do you really believe Chomsky and Supinya’s other petition signers are better qualified to judge the merits of each case?)

Thai people have no problem with censorship, either, as long as it’s the stuff they don’t like that’s getting banned. Those who are now outraged about the dismissal of Sondhi’s program were demanding that Samak Sundaravej’s programs be investigated and scrapped six months ago. More generally, nobody will come out publicly against the avowed policy of blocking sexual content on the internet, although they may be privately relieved that the cybercops are actually very lax about it. And don’t even mention pulo.org. (For the record, I think no website, PULO’s included, should be blocked.)

Thai reporters believe in freedom of speech? Yes, their own. Just look at how well they take the criticisms that the PM throws back at them. And Thaksin must be one of the very few Thai politicians who are brave or bonkers enough to criticize what I like to call the “อิทธิพลหมึก” (“ink-dark influence”). When real authoritarianism is staring at them in the face, however, the Thai journalists and “academics” who are now acting as if Thailand were a fascist state are downright infatuated. What have they to say, for example, about these countries?

Reporters Without Borders announces its third annual worldwide index of press freedom. Such freedom is threatened most in East Asia (with North Korea at the bottom of the entire list at 167th place, followed by Burma 165th, China 162nd, Vietnam 161st and Laos 153rd) and the Middle East (Saudi Arabia 159th, Iran 158th, Syria 155th, Iraq 148th).

Nothing bad, apparently, except perhaps Iraq (“Things were better under Saddam!”). They’re busy portraying these states and their propaganda machines, China’s and Vietnam’s the chief among them, as the voices of the third world and accordingly parrot their lines. In this, the state-owned Thai News Agency and the Shin-Corp–owned ITV are as guilty as any other Thai media outlet. A conspiracy? I’d sooner settle for idiocy.

And like their comrades abroad, Thailand’s self-volunteered apparatchiks do it all in the name of freedom. Matichon, a major booster of the Chinese and Vietnamese governments if there ever was one, now sports the banner “Press freedom is people’s freedom” on its website. To borrow Luangta Maha Bua’s expression: Freedom, dog’s shit!

I, for one, dare say that I truly believe in freedom, of which the freedom of speech is a major component. I believe that the truth will come out if everyone is allowed to speak, scream, squawk, and squabble freely. But, oh well, you can’t eat faith. The truth isn’t coming out in Thailand, and I mostly fall back on Thai people’s admirable apathy. I was not being sarcastic when I praised their “enviable wisdom and good taste” to watch and read TV soap operas instead of ones scripted and directed by the media.

Capitalism is another name for economic freedom so I believe in it, too. Much the way the truth will come out with free speech, quality and innovation will be rewarded while shoddiness and complacence punished by capitalism. But there you go again. As Thai newspapers are fast racing to the bottom and still making healthy profits, denouncing capitalism the while, I must say the revolution has never seemed more attractive.

PS I’ve seen a report (admittedly unreliable, it’s on the Thai Journalists Association’s website) that the Reporters Without Borders will downgrade Thailand to a 100+ ranking. If that turns out to be true, then I’m really off to join the Chinese, Cuban, and North Korean revolutions.

00:38 ▪ media, politics

« Channeling Luangta Maha Bua, sort of | Main | Thais Rak Tyrants? »

1

JW 13.10.05

“But then doesn’t such a law (libel law) exist in every country?”
But where was the law I linked to located? In the Criminal Code. In Thailand, defamation is a criminal offence which you can go to jail for. I can’t speak for every country in the world, but there is no such law in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US, or the UK. Defamation (or libel/slander depending on where you come from) is a civil offence. If you want a remedy, you go to the civil courts and fight it out. Many countries also provide a defence for politically-linked speech for a civil defamation suit as well. Ditto the US were libel is extremely difficult.

I personally know of 2 examples in Thailand where s328 (or at least what I think was s328) has been applied. First, A makes a comment to B about C. C hears about A’s comments makes a complaint to the police and A is arrested. Second, A fires B. B complains to government department. Government department states that A must provide reasons for dismissal in writing to government department. A complies with request setting out reasons for dimissal. B obtains the letter that A wrote to government department, complains to the police and A is arrested. Now, before you say these are silly hypothetical examples, I can tell you these are real examples which have happened in Thailand.

I have no problem with people being able to use the court system in a civil suit, but don’t believe such speech should be criminalised. The Daily Telegraph or its editor can’t go to jail when Galloway sues, there is a big difference between criminalising something (which Thailand does) and not criminalising it (as occurs in the UK).

I certainly don’t dispute your views that most Thais don’t agree with me, but I wasn’t saying that they did agree with me. I was just stating my opinion. I do think that as times goes on, no doubt also that Thaksin’s actions in these 2 cases will also have an affect, that there could be a change in the Thai psyche about whether such actions should be criminalised - if it was not criminalised then people would still have access to the civil courts to defend their reputation. Newspapers in the UK, Australia, and NZ also publish corrections because of the financial damage that a lawsuit can bring, their editors can be jailed for defamation though.

Now, on the aspect of criminalising speech against the Monarchy and religion. I am personally not for creating exceptions and there are a number of delicate aspects which I would prefer not to put down in written form. I will give an example though. If A says something about B. Should C be the person to decide that what A said was defamatory? Shouldn’t it be up to A to decide and take action through the civil courts. If someone says someting which people find offensive, then can also always not choose to buy that publication.

On FEER, I am a little surprised by your comments. I will leave it at that though.

I was interested to read about your comments about Pichien’s views about Supinya. I wasn’t aware of his views. All I hear from BKK Post and The Nation are seemingly sycophantic statements about CPD and other such NGOs I personally try to ignore all such articles. It surprises me because if some lunatic fringe NGO was to make silly statements in the media, as they had over some of the FTAs, I would expect the media would take it with a grain of salt and provide the governemnt with an opportunity for rebuttal (not to go on rant mode, but why is that every Thai economics lecturer that I seemingly see quoted on the various FTAs is some left-wing Marxist).

Finally, I should say that I do slightly disagree with you (or at least with the implict point I think you are making) that the media in Thailand is less free than what they were 5 years ago. I think the media have exaggerated the extent of the problem, but I still think media freedom in Thailand had taken a small dip. Although it is hardly suprising that overall media freedom under Chuan was better because suppressing the media would actually have required Chuan to do something. And now lets be honestapart from spending a few years dithering around trying to control all the factions, what did Chuan actually do? Although having said that Chavilit and others used to frequently send their heavies around to hassle the media and that was in the late 90s. Just to put media freedom in numbers with 1 being no freedom and 10 being completely free. I would say that in the early 90s Thailand was about a 5, rising to an 8 in 2000. Since Thaksin was in power, I think it has dropped to about 7.5 which is a concern, but people shouldn’t exaggerate the fall in media freedom too much as I was to believe what I read in the papers that it has fallen to a 2 and Thailand is in a dictatorship (I find it somewhat ironic that the media are criticising the government for the media being less free and yet they don’t find it ironic that they are allowed to do this - I mean if Thailand was supposedly a dictatorship wouldn’t they even not be able to suggest that the media was less free).

I will make some further comments on some of other points later.

2

Tom Vamvanij 13.10.05

JW:

Thank you for pointing out the difference between Thailand and other countries in the legal treatment of libel. It’s indeed an important one that I really should’ve noticed, especially since you’d already made that point once already. I do agree that one shouldn’t go to jail for libel.

Still, I would try to excuse myself somewhat with the following. Every report I’ve seen about Supinya’s case talks about the 400-million-baht damages sought and never a jail term. And if libel in Thailand is a criminal offense, it’s of the special kind in which the victim can decide whether or not to bring charges. (Well, as a non-lawyer I’m going out on a limb here, but I don’t think all criminal offenses work like that. Maybe you can correct me, JW.) All in all, libel in Thailand has always felt to me like a tort case, but then of course I fortunately have never been involved in one. I agree with you that the examples you cite are abominable, not to mention darn scary.

Now, on the aspect of criminalising speech against the Monarchy and religion. I am personally not for creating exceptions and there are a number of delicate aspects which I would prefer not to put down in written form. I will give an example though. If A says something about B. Should C be the person to decide that what A said was defamatory? Shouldn’t it be up to A [or rather, B –Tom] to decide and take action through the civil courts. If someone says someting which people find offensive, then can also always not choose to buy that publication.

On FEER, I am a little surprised by your comments. I will leave it at that though.

No, you shouldn’t feel the need to hold back about FEER or anything. This is a blog, not an NGO “forum” where you either with them or against them. Indeed, if you prefer not to talk now, you will certainly have another chance in the future when I write specifically about that issue in the future. (Guess what was I occupying myself with when I accidentally came up with “Anna Leonowens and the censors of Siam”.)

You should be able to tell from the Anna post that I’m no partisan when it comes to, you know, this issue. And I agree totally with the point that you’re making using A, B, and C. I would actually argue further that whether by a legal proceeding or a verbal smear, C’s attack against of A in the name of B is not just wrong, but also extremely dangerous. The outrageous irony of the FEER episode is that Thaksin was accused of mounting such a campaign [being C], when it in fact he’s the victim of one [B]. That sort of campaign now lives on with Sondhi taking the baton and most recently, Luangta Maha Bua.

Finally, I should say that I do slightly disagree with you (or at least with the implict point I think you are making) that the media in Thailand is less free than what they were 5 years ago. I think the media have exaggerated the extent of the problem, but I still think media freedom in Thailand had taken a small dip.

Well, that depends on how you measure media freedom. Although I wasn’t in Thailand back then, I did hear that the press was harsh on Chuan, too. (The Thai Post probably most of all, which in fact makes sense if you think of it.) But were they harsher than they are now against Thaksin? I seriously doubt it. One thing for sure, they’re now screaming louder than ever about being silenced.

And no, that’s not somewhat ironic. It’s sickeningly so.

3

JW 13.10.05

“Every report I’ve seen about Supinya’s case talks about the 400-million-baht damages sought and never a jail term. “

On June 22 [2004], a Thai court also agreed to hear the case as a criminal libel case, which could result in punishment including imprisonment and a heavy fine.
HRW

A landmark trial to begin today on a criminal lawsuit filed against media activist Supinya Klangnarong and editors of the Thai Post daily, by Shin Corp
The Nation

There are a lot more articles in The Nation (who kindly provide free access to their archives) which talk about her ongoing criminal case and the seperate civil suit for the 400 million.

Yes, defamation/libel is like a tort case, but there are 2 cases here; one civil, the other one criminal. The criminal case is the one that concerns me the most although it does highlight s328 of the Criminal Code so hopefully that will eventually be amended.

One more problem with the criminal case is that defamation cases rarely go to court given the costs involved for the person defamed - once you take the lawyer’s fees from the amount you get there might not be anything left. However, when it is a criminal offence, you don’t have to worry about that as the State picks up the legal bill for the plaintiff (this is an assumption and it is how it works in other criminal cases in Thailand like fraud so I don’t see why it would be different here). Now, lets be realistic when talking about Thailand here, the police and the prosecutor will only take on your case if you have enough influence and won’t necessarily make an assessment of the merits of the case.

Now, if you win the criminal case, I would then assume given the higher standard of proof required, it will then be mean you have met the civil standard of proof as well (this is what happens in Australia and I understand is a general rule of evidence elsewhere in the world). It would now be suicidal for the defence not to settle as they might get costs awarded against them if they they fought it in the civil court when they have no case.

Should taxpayers be paying the bill when someone thinks that their reputation has been damaged and wants redress? No, it should be left up to the individual to assess their chances and make a decision on whether to go to court.

For the civil case, there is certainly academic debate about whether corporations should have the power to sue for libel. In some Australian states (and probably elsewhere), corporations cannot sue for libel. Even if they could sue there is an implied constitutional defence for political speech in Australia (and in some other countries).

On FEER, it was more about you saying it was “outrageous gossip” that I didn’t want to comment on - lese majeste is another criminal offence in Thailand and well the thought of not being able to wonder around Siam Square and look at all the attractive looking girls clothes is enough for me to bite my tongue. I don’t want to say anything here is it goes to the substance of the contents in FEER’s article. Sorry, if I didn’t make that clear. Although, it is difficult to know whether what I have heard is true or not true and to me this goes to the heart of the problem. When something cannot be discussed openly, it is talked about in private and this is where rumours spread. Verifying information then becomes difficult. At least if it is made public, it can be open for debate and if it is wrong it can be countered with evidence or if someone has been defamed they can sue for defamation.

I still don’t get why Thaksin doesn’t ignore all these comments by Supinya et al. She and her NGO friends thought the same about Chuan, back then he was the devil incarnate in her eyes (one example ). Thaksin and quicksand go together, he gets stuck and won’t stop wriggling. He won an election this year with 75% of the vote, next time he is criticsed instead of retaliating with a lawsuit (ok, it is Shin that is saying not Thaksin, but surely you would concede that the lawsuit couldn’t go ahead without his approval), he should just retort with ‘how many elections have you won? or something like that. He just further compounds his problems and brings to the forefront his major flaw - thinking carefully before speaking.

Note to self: Next time you are going to make a long post and the battery on your laptop is running out make sure you save your post first, go home and proofread your post before posting.

4

JW 13.10.05

On a complete tangent, in my google search for an article I found the following quote from former Interior Minister Sanan Kachornprasart dismissing Thakin’s chances with his new party, TRT:
Thaksin is not like Viagra. He has been in a number of parties and is nothing new.
Asiaweek 1998 (oh for the benefit of hindsight)

5

poststaffer 13.10.05

I have yet to come across any debate of substance in Thailand about defamation law, which is a pity.

Occasionally editors complain at seminars, but then the issue seems to die. In Australia and New Zealand, the debate about defamation law (along with freedom of speech, reputation, privacy) can get as impassioned as that about media ownership (think Murdoch, Fairfax et al).

There are pages and pages of legal decisions and analysis on the internet, not to mention the stuff you have to learn at journalism school (which I enjoyed studying, in my day).

Some of the concepts involved are complex, such as reasonableness and qualified privilege. In one case brought against a political commentator by former Prime Minister of New Zealand David Lange, the defendant sought to establish a new defence of ‘political expression’.

This was based on the idea that the offending words related to matters which had previously been the subject of public comment by Mr Lange himself.

The NZ Court of Appeal found the defendant was not required to show his conduct was reasonable for a defence of qualified privilege to be made.

After a less ‘generous’ case (to the qualified privilege defence) in Britain decided by the Court of Appeal, the Privy Council urged the NZ Court of Appeal to reconsider.

The court said qualified privilege did not apply in all cases - only to things the public has an interest in knowing about.

The media also must not take undue advantage, it said, by acting recklessly or with cavalier disregard for the truth.

I mention all this to give you some flavour of the debate as it unfolded in NZ (Australia, Britain, other Commonwealth countries).

But hey…what about the fun stuff? Enough of the law already. Here’s the article by Joe Atkinson, which David Lange said defamed him. Make up your own mind!

Note to readers: David Lange (who died recently) was a big guy physically. Fat, you might say.

A skateboarding hippo

IN THE October 1995 edition of “North & South”, Joe Atkinson wrote:

“Former leaders are often anxious to make out that they could do the job better than their successors. David Lange is no exception here, but his willingness to rewrite history in doing so is reminiscent of Daniel Defoe…

“Lange talks now as though he stood alone against [former finance minister and free marketeer] Roger Douglas, when in fact his attack of social conscience was a belated one. He talks as though he invented New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy, when in truth his conversion was somewhat reluctant. He talks as though he actually deserves the media-awarded mantle of international statesmanship, when in fact he handled the issue of nuclear-ship visits with the finesse of a skateboarding hippo…

“And yet in a sense he had also lost the battle, for what he hid from his audience, perhaps even from himself, were his real reasons for leaving: the truth was, he found the job too much like hard work. It wasn’t just the hotel breakfasts Lange loathed, but many other things as well. One of the crucial things he ‘didn’t feel like’ as prime minister, for instance, was going to meetings, including cabinet meetings which he habitually left early…

“But he got a real kick out of press conferences, public performances, rhetorical pyrotechnics. It was the nitty gritty of politics he couldn’t stand, the endless face-to-face wrangles and policy consultations with people he thought boring or worse…

“It must gall David Lange that several of those others, those inferior mechanics (Clark, Cullen and Caygill among them), are now running the Labour Party and doing a vastly better job of it than he was ever capable of doing… ”

There was an accompanying cartoon depicting Lange at breakfast being served a book titled, ‘Selective Memory Regression for Advanced Practitioners’.

Lange argued the article and the cartoon together meant that he was dishonest, lazy, insincere and irresponsible, and that the article was malicious.

He lost.

6

Tom Vamvanij 13.10.05

JW:

On a complete tangent, in my google search for an article I found the following quote from former Interior Minister Sanan Kachornprasart dismissing Thakin’s chances with his new party, TRT.

Well, it may not be all that tangential once you really think of it:

SANAN SCANDAL: Outrage, shock at backflip by daily

Democrat heavyweight drops Bt100m lawsuit after ‘Matichon’ newspaper says its reporter was not sexually harassed

Leading feminists expressed shock and disappointment yesterday at what they perceived as the Matichon daily caving in to political pressure over the 2002 high-profile scandal involving one of its female reporters accusing former Democrat Party secretary-general Sanan Kachornprasart of sexual harassment.

On Wednesday Sanan dropped his Bt100-million defamation suit after senior Matichon editorial staff went to see him at his home to give him Songkran greetings. That day, they also ran a short article saying the sexual harassment story was simply a misunderstanding and no such thing had occurred.

The female reporter and the male reporter involved in her rescue resigned on Thursday after learning about the compromise, sources said.

7

post staffer 14.10.05

‘Matichon daily caving in to political pressure’?

Threat of a B100m lawsuit might have been pressure enough, never mind the political kind.

How about: ‘People’s Champion Gets Cold Feet … Pious Reporters Quit in Disgust…Blast Management as Cowards, Toadies’

Sub-head: ‘We’re in the same industry (whine, whimper) …think what you like…we are not sure what to do,’ says hand-wringer from editor’s office

Poured a little too much Songran water on the old guy’s trembling hands, I suspect.

8

Tom Vamvanij 14.10.05

Your headline’s great, Post Staffer!

The only thing that bugs me is “pious”. I like sarcasm, but not that much and certainly not in these circumstances.

9

post staffer 14.10.05

The more I contribute to this blog, Tom, the more I want to go back to where I come from and get a real job again.

At the risk of wearing another ‘off-topic!’ charge, I want to post something here about what a real media interview should look like. It comes from Australia, where they know how to call a spade a spade, and politicians and journalists alike give as good as they get.

The interview was conducted by Andrew Denton of the ABC series Enough Rope, with the former Labour Leader Mark Latham, who has just published his political diaries in which he attacks former members of his party, the media…

The diaries sound sensational, if extreme. First, here’s Wikipedia’s outstanding entry on Latham, to give you a little background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Latham

A tasty selection:

He once referred to Prime Minister John Howard as an “arselicker”, and to the Liberal Party front bench as a “conga-line of suckholes”. He also once characterised George W. Bush as “the most incompetent and dangerous President in living memory”.

And:

“I’m a hater. Part of the tribalness of politics is to really dislike the other side with intensity. And the more I see of them the more I hate them. I hate their negativity. I hate their narrowness. I hate the way, for instance, John Howard tries to appeal to suburban values when I know that he hasn’t got any real answers to the problems and challenges we face. I hate the phoniness of that.”

Now, the interview. Look at the interviewer’s comments…the way he gets under Latham’s skin. By turns sympathetic and challenging. It’s superb stuff. Can you imagine the Thai media talking to a politician like this?

Here’s a sample:

This is the bit I don’t get about you Mark - you loathe most of the people in your Party, you thought the Party was hopeless and dysfunctional, you found going to business events tedious, you’re disillusioned with the electorate and the country, you had made enemies of most of the people in the media, you were clearly in anguish at the amount of time you were separated from your family - whatever made you think that you could make a go of it as Prime Minister?

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1463685.htm

Under the Wikipedia entry, see ‘Publication of Latham’s diaries and public appearances’ for a look at the pre-release skirmishing between various media outlets and the courts, which carried on right up until the last minute. The courts must get annoyed at being called on to decide which outlet gets to air interviews of publish extracts first.

10

poststaffer 14.10.05

I used pious in the nasty sense of holier-than-thou, self-righteous, Tom…not devout, or religious.

11

Tom Vamvanij 14.10.05

Post Staffer:

I know, and I find it too nasty in this case.

12

poststaffer 14.10.05

I can’t say I feel too sorry for the reporter who went unaccompanied to Sanan’s hotel room. She sounds a fool.

Even bigger idiot is Sanan, who should know better than to see a woman alone in those circumstances, especially if he is - er - missing his wife.

I would not like to be the editor, especially a male editor, in circumstances where a reporter came to me with a complaint that a politician harrassed her.

However, I certainly would not have leapt into print with claims of sexual harrassment, galvanising feminists and other angry chatterers in the process. Looks too much like dirty play to me.

I recall going to a party conference as a parliamentary reporter about 10 years ago, where I ended up next to the NZ prime minister, squeezed into the corner of a noisy room full of people drinking and dancing.

No sooner had I opened my mouth than his chief press secretary (a friend and drinking partner) raced over and shoved a tape recorder under my nose. This was to protect his boss in the event I ran something incorrect or malicious based on the few casual words we were exchanging over a drink.

An unlikely event, as I have my principles, too - I wouldn’t run anything based on such a friendly encounter (in the middle of a ballroom dance, for goodness sake).

Contrast that with another party leader in Wellington who was well-known for his boozing and with whom I shared a few drunken nights. That man didn’t need a tape-recorder for protection - he knew he could drink any journalist under the table, and that any political intelligence he revealed that night would have been lost in a drunken haze by next morning (and so it was).

13

Geoff 9.01.06

I am being sued for defamation in Thailand. I have received a court summons. The alleged offence was committed apparently on email between two private individuals (me and the recipient)when neither were resident in the country. Both are farang. The email copy was obtained illegally by the plaintiff who is also a farang. But the court has accepted the case and I now stand to risk jail if I ignore the summons and return to Thailand on holiday. If I go to court I also risk jail. What an incredible country.

14

JW 10.01.06

Geoff

You really need to seek legal advice. I assume you are this Geoff so you should be able to contact a lawyer in Thailand to assist you.

One of the cases I mentioned in my first comment above, I know was settled out-of-court.

From the limited facts you have given above, the reading of the email would have occurred in Thailand and that would seemingly constitute ‘publication’. I also doubt this could only happen in Thailand - see this link as it could also happen in the UK (and I believe Australia, and NZ as well).

I won’t speculate as to what punishment the court is likely to hand down, but if Andrew Drummond only gets a 60,000 baht fine in regards to a nationwide publication, I doubt the plaintiff in your case would receive much.

Good luck

15

Geoff 10.01.06

Thanks very much for this advice. I am certainly seeking legal help. Of course it is complicated by the fact that I am not even in Thailand; all the matters to which the email (it was a private communication between two colleagues in which I commented adversely on the abilities of a third colleague) referred were in Hong Kong. Clearly libel law needs bringing up to date, not just in Thailand, if I can be sued wherever someone happens to read an email and takes exception to its contents.

Tom, this is a very interesting blog and I congratulate you.