5 ms·

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

by viach 9y ago

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.

mikekchar 9y ago
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.
- PhoneRemote 9y ago
  > 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-question-how-many-federal-laws-are-there/ https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-questio... 2: https://www.quora.com/How-many-laws-are-there-in-England-and-Wales https://www.quora.com/How-many-laws-are-there-in-England-and... 3: This article
  - viach 9y ago
    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?
    - PhoneRemote 9y ago
      > 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!
      - viach 9y ago
        Don't you know that unawareness of law doesn't give you an excuse, in all the worlds law standards?
        PhoneRemote 9y ago
        Oh I'm well aware. I'm saying that aphorism needs revisiting: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031
  - maehwasu 9y ago
    It's very very hard to live in Thailand and not know that the king is off limits.
jstanley 9y ago
If a law is unjust, it's everybody's duty to violate it.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  So if homosexual acts are outlawed... ;)
- viach 9y ago
  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 :)
  - ant6n 9y ago
    You will probably get replies when your own comments are sincere and thought out.
    - viach 9y ago
      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!")
Quarrelsome 9y ago
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.
kakarot 9y ago
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?
- viach 9y ago
  I did and I met the reaction and was forced to deal with it. Why it should be different for someone else?
  - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
    I'm confused - is your argument just 'Them's the breaks'?
    - viach 9y ago
      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
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - 0xfeba 9y ago
    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.
    - viach 9y ago
      Their children had 2 options and they selected one, having all understanding of what will happen next. What to comply about?
      - kakarot 9y ago
        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.
onion2k 9y ago
"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/department-of-justice-dreamhost-trump-visitor-logs-million-ip/536886/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/depar...
- viach 9y ago
  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.
  - onion2k 9y ago
    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.
    - viach 9y ago
      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?
      - onion2k 9y ago
        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.

by viach 9y ago

mikekchar 9y ago

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.

PhoneRemote 9y ago
> 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-question-how-many-federal-laws-are-there/ https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-questio... 2: https://www.quora.com/How-many-laws-are-there-in-England-and-Wales https://www.quora.com/How-many-laws-are-there-in-England-and... 3: This article
- viach 9y ago
  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?
  - PhoneRemote 9y ago
    > 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!
    - viach 9y ago
      Don't you know that unawareness of law doesn't give you an excuse, in all the worlds law standards?
      - PhoneRemote 9y ago
        Oh I'm well aware. I'm saying that aphorism needs revisiting: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031
- maehwasu 9y ago
  It's very very hard to live in Thailand and not know that the king is off limits.

jstanley 9y ago

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

DarkKomunalec 9y ago
So if homosexual acts are outlawed... ;)
viach 9y ago
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 :)
- ant6n 9y ago
  You will probably get replies when your own comments are sincere and thought out.
  - viach 9y ago
    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!")

Quarrelsome 9y ago

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.

kakarot 9y ago

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?

viach 9y ago
I did and I met the reaction and was forced to deal with it. Why it should be different for someone else?
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  I'm confused - is your argument just 'Them's the breaks'?
  - viach 9y ago
    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
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- 0xfeba 9y ago
  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.
  - viach 9y ago
    Their children had 2 options and they selected one, having all understanding of what will happen next. What to comply about?
    - kakarot 9y ago
      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.

onion2k 9y ago

"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/department-of-justice-dreamhost-trump-visitor-logs-million-ip/536886/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/depar...

viach 9y ago
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.
- onion2k 9y ago
  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.
  - viach 9y ago
    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?
    - onion2k 9y ago
      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.