Thai activist jailed under lese majeste laws for sharing an article on Facebook | Hacker News Reader

Thai activist jailed under lese majeste laws for sharing an article on Facebook

eff.org

112 pointsDiabloD389 comments

It's really horrendous what is going on in Thailand with the military dictatorship using the lese majeste laws to suppress any dissent. Many, many people are serving long prison terms for it. Even insulting the king's dog can draw a long sentence[1].

Don't expect the US to even condemn this stuff, much less take any action against the country. Thailand's military is too cooperative in helping the US do dirty business, like hosting the black site[2] at which current CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel[3] oversaw the torture of terrorism suspects.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/15/thai-man-faces...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/cia-deputy-d...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Haspel

Thailand is not a special case: the Gulf countries are exactly the same in this regard. For example, the UAE operates a dozen or so prisons in Yemen where it performs interrogations on "suspected" terrorists and provides intel to US intelligence agencies.

Also, the prison sentence given to this activist is nothing compared to what is thrown around in the Gulf for similar "crimes".

agreed, and unfortunately, having lived, worked, and hired in Thailand for many years, I'm not so certain that western style democracy is the way to go in the country. I'm not saying that the situation outlined in the article is "OK", just that there are many geo-political differences that many westerners are not aware of. An analogy I like to use is that Democracy is like giving money to someone in need. Some will use it wisely, some will not.

One of the things that still seems strange to me after living in Thailand many years is that life under a military dictatorship is so much better than in a "democracy" (evil quotes because the US doesn't seem like a real democracy to me). At least as long as you aren't someone the government decides to target for saying something they don't like. A western style democracy would probably be worse for the majority of people in Thailand. None of that changes the fact that the brutal oppression of free speech (15 years in prison for saying something considered disparaging to the monarchy is pretty brutal) should be rebuked harshly by any country that holds free speech as an important value.

> life under a military dictatorship is so much better than in a "democracy"

I'm replying to both you and the parent since you both seem to support this stance.

You are in no position to decide what is better for a group of people. Further, until the Thai experience democracy, neither you or anyone else actually knows how it will turn out. Perhaps most people you deal with hide their true beliefs about life under a monarchy. The opposite may also be true: people may really end up preferring autocracy! But until they are given a chance to try living in e.g. a proper constitutional monarchy, you simply cannot state such things with any certainty.

> At least as long as you aren't someone the government decides to target for saying something they don't like.

Remember, the government's opinion changes over time based on its interests. You might wake up one day to find that something you believe to be right contradicts directly with what the government thinks.

Here's a simple, recent example I lived through back in 2011.

The UAE government was not very supportive of the Arab Spring, but you were fine as long as you didn't protest or call for a change in the status quo. Pretty fair, given that you are living under a monarchy.

But the UAE decided to back a military coup in 2013 which ousted the Muslim Brotherhood and reverted Egypt back to an autocracy. With this move, the UAE outlawed any criticism or questioning of either the UAE's position or Egyptian military rule in general. So if you supported democracy in Egypt, you were now "forced" to change your opinion or face potential punishment (at best, deportation).

> until the Thai experience democracy, neither you or anyone else actually knows how it will turn out.

Unfortunately we do know how it turns out. The whole Shinawatra fiasco up until the coup shows how Thai democracy goes. I don't think anyone would call the years before the coup healthy.

WHat would the US be expected to do? If they try to “help,” they get criticized for being imperialists, if they don’t help, it’s because of a CIA conspiracy.

Should the U.S. get involved more with Turkey? How about sanctioning Mexico for journalists being killed? Perhaps they should sanction Germany for arresting someone for exercising free speech (despite it being against German law.) Maybe Pakistan for tolerating revenge rapes order by local councils. There is a lot of nastiness in the world, yet for the U.S. it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Why doesn’t Europe do something about Thailand if we are suggesting that a foreign power should “do” something?

Generally I agree. But that doesn't mean the US gov should be friendly with a military dictator, ala Trump's invitation for Thailand's military dictator Prayuth to visit[1]. Although arms sales to Thailand were initially put on hold after the coup it seems they are back on[2]. And Thailand's human rights abuses are not limited to free speech imprisonment. Human trafficking and slavery in the fishing and shrimp farming industry continues unabated while western markets continue purchasing the slave-produced products[3]. There are more than enough reasons to apply sanctions to the regime but, as I said, it's just too cooperative with US spooks to risk losing.

[1]https://www.voanews.com/a/thai-prime-minister-accepts-trump-...

[2]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-thailand-idUSKBN19K193

[3]https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/mar/30/t...

I'd be interested to know what end products these fish go to from point 3.

Investigative journalists publish reports every year or so. You can probably find more recent ones, but here's one from three years ago[1]. Many of the big supermarket chains are the end points for the slave-produced seafood products, Walmart, Carrefour, Costco, Tesco and some others. I think last year a couple of them threatened to stop buying from Thai suppliers, not sure if they made good on it.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jun/10/s...

"for the U.S. it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t."

They're not damned if they don't. They're damned by their inconsistency. And that inconsistency makes it very easy for people to jump to the conclusion that principles are merely used as an excuse to pursue an unrelated agenda, all the while holding themselves forth as the righteous facing up to "evil-doers".

I was about to say that the only principle we have the resources to enforce consistently is neutrality, but that ship sailed long ago--far before we decided to cut the Japanese off from oil and scrap metal.

Nobody wants the U.S. to go invade Thailand. American and other strong countries has a lot of soft power. People on the internet love to make fun of the "strongly worded letter", but that is how diplomacy and influence is done. It's certainly better than the false binary choice between doing nothing and starting a war.

> Why doesn’t Europe do something

We've started doing something:

https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/12...

How about sanctioning Mexico for journalists being killed?

Sanctions are only ever used as excuses for war. If USA actually gave a shit about Mexico we would cease the evil drug prohibition that creates and enriches gangsters who kill journalists. Don't hold your breath!

>Don't expect the US to even condemn this stuff, much less take any action against the country.

Uh we have a dictator wanna-be in office who has invited and praised more than a few bloodthirsty dictators since taking office. What exactly do you expect us to do here? Even with a different president, anything short of CIA or military action won't change life on the ground in Thailand. How many CIA and US military interventions do you applaud exactly? We overthrew Saddam and it cost the Iraqi people nearly 350,000 lives. That's the entire population of Iceland!

The US/EU/NATO/UN should draw a red line with ethnic cleansing, genocide, chemical and nuclear weapons, etc but everyday jailing of dissidents in Asia? We'd be in a dozen wars if we tried to police that and sternly written letters don't get results. Be aware that Amnesty International claims 500,000 people are currently enduring punitive detention without charge or trial in China. This stuff is more or less the norm in Asian countries where Western-style governments never developed.

American troops, State Dept, and CIA resources have better things to do than try to fix the unfixable in Asia.

This is where the slippery slope leads us when we create vague terms like "hate"-speech which then criminalize.

The US is obviously nowhere Thailand, but just questioning the concept of and (lacking) principles around "hate"-speech is enough for some people to consider you a possible sexist, racist, troll... Or just a general "hater".

You know, someone who should be banned because they're obviously up to no good.

No. Europe has had hate-speech laws for a while—separate from libel laws which are a totally different story. What makes "hate speech" specific is its broad recognition by an overwhelming portion of the population (including historians), with facts & events to back up its consequences. It's very different from "you said something that hurts my feelings", and it's purposely narrow in its scope.

I was unable to find polls directly on 'hate speech', but http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen... says 49% support limiting offensive speech, and 46% oppose such limits, in the EU - hardly an 'overwhelming' portion.

Insulting the king's dog is clearly harmless.

Arguing for genocide, or deportations, or coercive "cures" for gayness or etc etc is clearly harmful.

There is no reason to make space for haters. Kick them off the internet.

>Insulting the king's dog is clearly harmless.

Why do you think that? Insulting the king's dog is just a "dogwhistle" for insulting the king. By insulting the king, you break the social cohesion of a country. The respect for the king is one of the major things that has held Thailand together, and kept Thailand as one of the few Asian countries that was able to avoid European colonization. Breaking this social cohesion makes civil war and the breakup of the country more likely, which is a bad thing.

Here are some other harmful things.

Arguing for anything that raises taxes is arguing that people's money be taken from them by force of law - clearly harmful.

Arguing for reducing taxes is arguing that the government have less resources that can be used to fund social programs - which can hurt people who depend on it - so clearly harmful.

Arguing for tougher prison sentences is clearly harmful to those people convicted of a crime.

Arguing for lighter prison sentences is harmful to the victims of crimes.

Arguing to curtail free speech on the Internet is clearly harmful as can suppress valid criticism of the government.

In addition, the wonderful stuff about this supression of arguments for things you harmful, is that you can also suppress the arguments for why you should be allowed to argue for them.

You do realise that someone else might consider arguing against deportations clearly harmful, don't you?

I'm being rhetorical. You probably don't. And that is a frightening problem.

>You know, someone who should be banned because they're obviously up to no good.

This is not what "hater" means in most speech. You seem to be pretty sensitive about this issue. I guess you've been in some unpleasant arguments recently. The vague idea of hate speech is obviously in need of refinement, and has lots of problems. I'm interested in what you would do about hate speech other than criminalize/punish it. Or perhaps more narrowly define it. I won't bite your head off or call you a hater.

> You seem to be pretty sensitive about this issue.

I'm just an avid proponent of free speech, and almost daily now I see it under attack, probably by the most well-meaning people in the world.

Today it's neo-nazis whose rights we are happy to strip away. Next out may be some other "hateful" group... Let's say racists?

But according to what definition of racism? Some people seem to think that recognizing the positive in homogeneity is racist. Others seem to mistake the religion of Islam for a race, so that any criticism of Islam makes someone a racist. And what about the Jews? Are they a race? Or a culture? Or maybe a religion? All of those? Are you a racist if you criticize Israel, a state run by Jews? Some people genuinely says so!

So if we ban "racist" speech, treat it as non-protected... What do we actually ban? And can we trust that whatever we define as racist today, will be the same which is upheld by court tomorrow?

If anything, experience should tell us to be careful, or else we risk sliding down the slippery slope into general censorship.

And it has ofcourse always been done with the best of intentions.

So when I see free speech under attack, I speak up, because I think free speech is a too damned important thing to ruin over petty stuff like individuals feeling offended.

We already have laws against acts of murder, genocide, racism, and what not. We don't need to doubly criminalize it by making speech about it criminal too. That's just redundant and IMO does more harm than good.

> That's just redundant and IMO does more harm than good.

We can agree to disagree on that! I do agree about how squishy the boundaries can be and that it limiting speech is not to be done lightly. Speech vs acts is also fuzzy, since speech both is an act & can cause others to act. Besides the emotional/social harm racist speech causes, it fosters physical harm and financial harm. Even in an imperfect, flawed implementation, a restriction on such speech in public might provide more benefit than what it costs. Buuuuut there is speaking hatefully and then there is discussing ideas, and it would be good if courts could tell the difference.

I personally would do nothing at a legal level.

I don't believe you can legislate such problems away and that society holding the opinions necessary to try is more dangerous than hate speech in and of itself.

The answer to speech is more speech: I suggest making fun of people spouting "hatespeech" and drown their message in an overwhelming amount of mockery. Comedy is a well-known memetic weapon that we've lost the ability to effectively use in our pearl-clutching seriousness.

The criminalization of hate speech is actually counter-productive: it gives easy access to a social lightning rod to powerless losers while giving them more respect and attention than they deserve. It makes a serious issue out of something we're better mocking.

Absolutely.

How is this any different than germans throwing chinese tourists in jail for making nazi salutes? Or saudis throwing atheists in jail because they offended their faith. Or russians throwing lgbt people in jail for being "offensive". Or the chinese throwing pro-democracy groups in jail because they find them offensive. Or Larry Flint in jail for distributing offensive pornography.

Anything can be viewed as offensive by anyone. That's why we have free speech rights. To protect ourselves from the offended.

It's sad that the internet ( what I grew up believing was going to be the defender of free speech ) is slowly turning into a tool for censorship. And it's sad that the population of "netizens" who were extremely pro-free speech in the 90s and 00s are turning in favor of censorship as less educated people brainwashed by the pro-censorship media join the internet.

> while thousands of users shared it, only Jutaphat was found to violate Thailand’s strict lese majeste laws against insulting, defaming, or threatening the monarchy

What can we practically do to help with situations like this far from our normal realm of influence? Countries like NK get sanctions (rightfully), but we don't seem to do anything as a country against things like this.

I'd start by supporting Amnesty International. An organization I've always trusted to put the spotlight on human rights issues and always manages to put pressure governments around the world to do better.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/thailand-activist-...

On the contrary orgs like Amnesty are so focused on putting the spotlight on other countries that they miss the stuff happening right under their noses both in the UK and here.

We need a new generation of activists who are less self serving and more aware of the risks posed by totalitarian tendencies with a more realistic perception of how the world works.

At the moment media, academics and NGOs are quick to turn the spotlight outward and barely register or handwave issues around Snowden, surveillance, whistle blowers, the NSA, GCHQ, privacy, border checks and harassment and the 'endless' wars.

Amnesty hasn't ignored issues around Snowden.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=amnesty+international+snowden

If enough light can be shed on this matter for it to make the regular news and be seen by the masses, it might begin to have an impact on tourism, something Thailand would definitely notice.

It's been more than 3 years since the military staged a coup and has been ruthlessly suppressing dissent using the lese majesty laws and other laws they enacted that make it illegal to protest against the government. Tourist arrivals just keep increasing to record levels[1]. Tourists don't care, at least not enough to choose a different destination.

[1]https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/tourist-arrivals

The counter argument would be neighbouring Myanmar, which is remarkably underdeveloped for tourists by comparison despite comparable tourist potential (and oil money to invest in infrastructure) because its authoritarian government has historically been boycotted, whereas Thailand's series of mostly authoritarian governments interspersed with elections and coups have usually played the international relations game just well enough to avoid becoming a pariah state.

But it's quite difficult to find a tropical paradise destination with progressive liberal democratic government

You mean a "cheap" tropical paradise with a liberal democratic government. You could always head off to Hawaii if you can afford it, or if you are in Asia, Okinawa or Taiwan.

But for those of us on a more restricted budget, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines provide a better value. Thailand has always pulled through in being worth it for me, especially when prices crash after a coup.

Thailand has a coup followed by democratic government followed by coup every 5-10 years for about the past 50 years, what's happening now is no different to what's happened before. You're right, tourists don't care because by and large the Thai people don't care, this is nothing out of the ordinary for them.

Pretty much everyone knows that Turkey is a full blown dictatorship and yet I still have friends who go there on holiday. There's no connection in their mind between spending money on holidays in Turkey and helping Erdogan in the long term.

It's at best doubtful that tanking a country's economy will make it less authoritarian and more open to foreign influence.

"Like and share this if you think he should be free!"

Find and support people who are against persecuting thought crimes within the country.

If I'm following your implication, I think this is less of a slippery slope than you think. When one's ideology is organized around killing people based on the color of their skin, it deserves no space in modern society.

>ideology is organized around killing people based on the color of their skin, it deserves no space in modern society

Please explain why you think a comment that basically said we shouldn't persecute people for crimes of thought/opinion/speech makes that implication.

"Thought crimes" is right-wing-speak denouncing what used to be called political correctness or ... not being racist, sexist or a bigot.

"Thought crime" comes from Orwell for me. Except his meaning was probably a bit different than I thought.

Anyway I define it as criminalizing certain expression of ideas in a violent attempt to control what population thinks. Also you're reacting to Thailand story, so I'm not sure what American right has to do with this.

I'm merely trying to give a possible explanation for codydh's reaction. Searching "thought crimes" for example on Google news also shows how the meaning appears to have changed.

Also this discussion started with somebody asking what they can do to help, given that Thailand is far from our sphere of influence.

In your response of "Find and support people who are against persecuting thought crimes within the country", the "within the country" could be easily interpreted as whatever country the people discussing are in, which will likely be some Western democracy. So I believe your statement can easily be interpreted as trying to make a connection between free speech issues in the Thailand and the 'fight to free speech' of the alt-right in Western Democracies, asking for tolerance of their intolerant opinions (this is not just a US phenomenon btw).

Note also how the example of Chinese tourists getting arrested in Germany for making the nazi salute is used as a suppossed freedom of speech issue in this thread. A news article about that was actually one of the first results in the google search for "thought crimes" [1].

[1] http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/07/chelsea-handler-wants-thou...

Maybe the meaning changed in the US. I'm not from/in US. I just use English.

The only country that was mentioned was Thailand, so I thought that "the country" would have a clear meaning.

I think it's called "hate crimes" nowadays.

I guess that's the framing you choose if you want to lock people up.

Practically nothing. Things that feel wrong will happen no matter what you do in all countries. The best option is just to live with the fact.

Germany arrested chinese tourists for making nazi salute. Should we do something about germany too?

Do chinese and germans deserve free speech too or just thais?

Edit: @0xfeba

> That argument is convincing only on the shallowest level.

Only if you are pro-censorship and have no appreciation for principles.

> Germany arrested, fined, and released those tourists.

Are you saying it's good or bad?

> Thailand has given dissidents lengthy prison sentences.

But that's the law.

> How about we worry about Germany's speech laws after we free people who are stuck in retched prisons for 10 years?

How about we worry about both? How about we worry about free speech and principles.

Talk about shallowness. The german law allows for imprisonment for 3 years for nazi salutes. If the chinese got 3 years and the thai got 3 years, would you think both are equally wrong?

You don't seem to have an argument so you are just nitpicking. I don't remember you being outraged that the chinese tourists were arrested. I remember you celebrating german law.

That argument is convincing only on the shallowest level. Germany arrested, fined, and released those tourists. Thailand has given dissidents lengthy prison sentences. How about we worry about Germany's speech laws after we free people who are stuck in retched prisons for 10 years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9

Was just reading up on Lèse majasté laws and didn't realize that quite a few European countries still have them. Some are for insulting a foreign head of state, like they have in Germany and Poland, and some are still for insulting the royalty. There have actually been several recent prosecutions too.

India had a similar law under the IT Act 66 A, which was struck down by the Supreme Court two years back . http://www.thehindu.com/news/resources/sc-judgement-on-secti...

If one feels offended they can file a law suit for defamation under the various existing laws in the court.

I am curious if the law is enforced more strictly now, because the son of the long time king seems to be a drug addled loser, who took the throne in late 2016.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-of-thailand-maha-vajiral...

Could the lesser amount of respect for the new king, and the increase in enforcement, be linked?

Would FB have a duty to disable the share button on posts like this?

If it's a 'bad' post and the user is in Thailand or similar place then either disable the button or pop up a warning saying 'are you sure? this means a lifetime in jail'. I could see it promoting self-censorship but also cases like this would be reduced.

I guess that this is just a risk of going into a foreign country.

Unless you want to right wrongs all over the world, you go on vacation to enjoy yourself. You chose to go to the country. If you don't agree with the country's policies, vote with your feet. Don't go.

One of the pitfalls of going to a foreign country is that you don't know any of the social mores and what's acceptable and what's not. Whenever I'm travel, I always say please and thank you and am as polite as my limited language allows.

Don't try to change laws/customs in foreign countries. In Thailand, you can't step on currency or point the bottom of your feet at an image of a Buddha. That's how they do things, if you want to do that, do it in your own country.

So he intentially violated the laws of country he lives in, being in the country at the moment of this act. This is not a wise decision, I would say. There will be some kind of consequences and he should be ready for them.

All people should be aware of the laws in the country where they live. As an immigrant, I'm especially careful not to transgress laws (I don't even have the rights of a citizen!!!).

There are times for civil disobedience, but one should not be reckless. You have to weigh the effect that you can have against the cost that you will pay. Courage is a strange thing. Sometimes it requires courage to act. Sometimes it requires courage to stay silent and wait for the right opportunity. It is rarely a straightforward thing, unfortunately.

I hope things go as well as possible for him.

> All people should be aware of the laws in the country where they live.

Good luck with that in many developed countries [1][2], or in developing ones [3].

So many things are illegal that it becomes more a question of "do the powers that be wish me imprisoned?" more than anything else.

1: https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-questio...

2: https://www.quora.com/How-many-laws-are-there-in-England-and...

3: This article

It's very very hard to live in Thailand and not know that the king is off limits.

I agree with you, things often look unfair an corrupt in developing countries, from the point of view of citizens of the developed ones. Why would this motivate one to break the law of one of these countries? Shouldn't one be aware of situation and local law?

> Shouldn't one be aware of situation and local law?

Er, how? Again, there are tons of laws on the books. Are you going to memorize them all?

Further, some of the laws are incredibly vague. For example, did you know that it is arguably illegal to boycott a business in Thailand?

> Section 117 Whoever, instigates or causes a strike, lockout, or concerted cessation of trade or business with any person for the purpose of bringing about any change in the Laws of the Country, coercing the Government or intimidating the public, shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding seven years or fine not exceeding fourteen thousand Baht, or both.

> Whoever, with the knowledge of the above purpose, takes part or assists in the said strike, lock-out, or concerted cessation of trade or business with any person shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding three years or fine not exceeding six thousand Baht, or both.

Are you assisting in a "concerted cessation of business" by actively avoiding an establishment you don't agree with? Are you guilty of "taking part" by liking a Facebook post from a group of workers on strike?

Maybe!

Sure, it's unlikely you'd be prosecuted. But as the article shows, it's always an option if they don't like you or need a sacrificial lamb!

Don't you know that unawareness of law doesn't give you an excuse, in all the worlds law standards?

Oh I'm well aware. I'm saying that aphorism needs revisiting: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031

"People should accept the consequences" is a very dangerous line of reasoning when you have a government that's willing to go after large numbers of citizens without evidence that they've committed a crime at all. Eg https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/depar...

English is not my first language, so "go after large numbers of citizens without evidence that they've committed a crime at all" sounds like "check there is no crime", which sounds reasonable to me, please correct if I'm wrong.

If a crime takes place then the government should investigate and find who did it; the government should never be taking a large number of citizens and check they've done nothing illegal. When there are 1.3 million people to look at that essentially means the investigators don't have any suspects. If someone is murdered in Dallas it wouldn't be reasonable for the police to investigate everyone who lives there in the hope of finding the murderer.

No one should be investigated unless there's a reasonable suspicion that they, as an individual, have actually done something wrong; looking at a legal website is not enough for there to be a suspicion.

I understand what you are saying. But lets imagine gov faced situations when just sitting and waiting for a thing to happen is just too dangerous? Think 911 or mass killing acts in schools? Don't mass investigation would be justified if helped to prevent that number of deaths?

Don't mass investigation would be justified if helped to prevent that number of deaths?

That's a very big 'if'. By all accounts mass surveillance and dragnet investigations don't work to find terrorists. Practically everything I've read on the subject (which admittedly isn't much) terrorists are stopped using information from more traditional investigatory methods like informants.

Giving the government the power to investigate 1.3 million citizens who oppose it is an extremely high price to pay in order save lives that might be taken by terrorists. Whether it's worth it isn't a question I can answer easily.

He didn't directly make the statements. He forwarded something that could be interpreted as a form of slander but is actually journalism. The article doesn't insult the King, merely documents his past and the general opinion of it.

I think its a bit arbitrary to just tie this into him "breaking the law" as if you haven't even given context a moment's worth of processing.

If a law is unjust, it's everybody's duty to violate it.

So if homosexual acts are outlawed... ;)

Oh, really? So I would suggust you to go to the North Korea and give democracy and civil rights talk there, publicly. No? Why not, are you ignoring your duties or just being hypocrite? Nothing personal, just a thought experiment.

Edit: please give a thought out answer, not just silent downvote :)

You will probably get replies when your own comments are sincere and thought out.

Oh, sure, you are right! And btw, I'm used to situations when my comments don't get much love, so that I understand people are not obliged to reply. But in this purticular situation it seems he/ she just left the ring after screaming "ur fool!")

That's a very cold and unforgiving worldview. You have never broken a law in your own country that you felt was ridiculous or unjust?

I did and I met the reaction and was forced to deal with it. Why it should be different for someone else?

So North Korean parents should just "deal with it" that their children fled the country and so they were sent to labor camps? Because, that's the law, you know.

Their children had 2 options and they selected one, having all understanding of what will happen next. What to comply about?

Yes, and every man, woman, and child in an abusive relationship should just leave and find something better, or shut up and stop complaining. It's their choice, after all.

Yes, I had no right protesting my own abusive childhood because I could have given myself up to the state and been put in foster care. I was in the wrong for ever standing up for myself and deserved the consequences I had to suffer.

I mean seriously, listen to how vitriolic and unempathetic you sound. You come across as someone who has no compassion for the unjust authoritarian rule some are forced to endure, someone so sheltered from the extremities of human emotion that you can still perceive the world and the choices people make in stark black and white.

You speak of the usefulness in understanding law, of acting with respect for the system that governs you. So I leave you with this:

"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

What a tone "I leave you with this" :) Okay. I'm just saying that there is single option: Make a decision and meet the reaction without complaints, which your quote states, right? If you have complaints, that was not a decision but a mistake, wasn't it?

If you don't complain and make noise then you won't be nearly as effective in arousing the conscience of the community.

You can accept punishment (as in not martyr yourself or attempt to harm an authoritative figure) while still complaining that your punishment is unjust.

I really don't understand your angle here.

I'm confused - is your argument just 'Them's the breaks'?

Argument againt what? A man broke the local law and faced consequences. My thoughts, that was not a good decision. For me this is the same as someone from a wild tribe ate a software developer in NY and posted an angry comment on HN, why he is sentenced

I just realized how little I know about Thailand. It seems I only hear about sex tourism, crazy drug stories, or actors dying mysteriously when it comes to Thailand.

It's a rather fab place (just come back) but it is important to understand that they take their monarchy very very seriously. Walking around Bangkok and a large motorcade drives by? You do stop what you are doing and stand respectfully.

And stand before the movie starts.

You should visit. It does have a a lot of tourism, and most places lack the sex tourism thing. It is also an upper middle income country and Bangkok is a pretty cosmopolitan city with lots of really well done interior design. In fact, Thailand produces a lot of UX designers in the tech industry given their design culture. Bangkok is not a bad place for a startup, they have a lot of medical-tech startups that goes along with their strong medical tourist industry.

This is why I despise censorship and control. Even against people like daily stormers and neo-nazis.

Chinese tourists gets arrested for making silly nazi salutes. Everyone celebrates it because that's german law.

This guy gets arrested for sharing silly articles. Everyone is upset he got arrested for breaking thai law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com