5 ms·

The defamation laws in Thailand are pretty terrible. For starters, they have both civil and criminal defamation statutes (and criminal defamation statutes are a

The defamation laws in Thailand are pretty terrible. For starters, they have both civil and criminal defamation statutes (and criminal defamation statutes are already pretty bad). The thing that makes it really bad though, is that truth is not always a defence for criminal defamation offences. The law is something to the effect of "disclosing private matters can be defamation even if it's true". I've read a few of articles on this case now, and none of them really seem to grasp how this law work. They say he lives in Thailand though, so he really should know better. It's up there with "never say bad things about the king" in regards to things every expat living in Thailand should know.

strogonoff 6y ago
Japan’s application of anti-defamation laws seems similar[0]. That is, unless this case got special treatment due to the alleged corruption of Thai justice system. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23935469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23935469
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  That certainly wouldn't be surprising, but these laws do routinely treat Thai citizens as badly as they treat anybody else. He's likely not in for particularly fair treatment in any case.
narag 6y ago
The law is something to the effect of "disclosing private matters can be defamation even if it's true". That's common in many countries. "It's true" is only a valid defense if you're accusing someone of a crime.
- Fezzik 6y ago
  Is it true in any first world countries? As far as I am aware publishing anything that is true is always fair game. The very definition of libel (and slander) is that something untrue has been published or said. I’m not aware of a first world/non-dictatorship that treats either libel or slander as a crime or where “it’s true” is not a defense [in a civil case]. This is a good article on the history of the issue: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/941/criminal-libel https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/941/criminal-libel Edit: added the [].
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    While truth is still a defense, in the UK the burden of proof is on the defendant; this means that if you are accused of libel or slander in the UK, you have to prove that what you said is true in order to defend yourself. This can be very difficult; for example, how would your PROVE a hotel clerk said certain things to you? In the US, the burden of proof is on the person suing for libel; they have to prove that what was said is false. So in the UK, yes truth is a defense... but you can still be telling the truth and unable to prove it, which makes it not much help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      I’ll note that the UK has notoriously terrible defamation laws. They’re so bad that Congress passed a law to make defamation rulings from the UK unenforceable in America, just to stop the libel tourism.
      - rwmj 6y ago
        Only in NI. In GB the law was reformed in 2013 so it's now not so bad.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    It's generally true in most countries, since libel laws extend to keeping private matters private since many things can damage a person's reputation even if they are true. For example, a British Lord's Nazi fetish. In the US, the publication of private matters is a separate tort, invasion of privacy. For IOP, truth is not a defense. Or another way of looking at it: libel is a narrower tort in the US than it is in the rest of the world.
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      > For example, a British Lord's Nazi fetish What case was this? Are you sure you're not talking about the Max Mosley (the former racing driver/FIA boss) case against News Group? Because that was a breach of privacy case, not a defamation one.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ShorsHammer 6y ago
  Australian defamation laws are horrendously bad, it needs to be in "public interest", doesn't matter in the slightest if it's the truth. Say a fact in public, and then you go bankrupt in court arguing over the semantics of whether it's in "public interest" for it to be said. At least local journalists are waking up to how bad it is with the wealthy suddenly throwing their weight around and taking every paper in the nation to court over a few words. A terrible import from the UK. Despite all the nastiness and bad words, protected free speech is what the US really did get right. All laws can be used in a multitude of unintended ways, something lawmakers never really consider.
- ezoe 6y ago
  Actually, just because a crime is not a valid defence in my country. One must prove it satisfy the public welfare and truth. Suppose you know a person who committed a crime and be punished years ago and there is no immediate threat of doing it again, revealing that fact is a defamation, unless a person is a public figure like the politician and revealing the fact is important for public welfare.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> For starters, they have both civil and criminal defamation statutes (and criminal defamation statutes are already pretty bad). Many US jurisdictions have both, and Constitutionally-allowable criminal defamation had almost identical conditions to Constitutionally-allowable civil defamation. > The thing that makes it really bad though, is that truth is not always a defence for criminal defamation offences. The law is something to the effect of "disclosing private matters can be defamation even if it's true" Truth isn’t a defense to (civil or criminal) invasion of privacy or public disclosure of private fact claims in the US, either. They are distinct from defamation, rather than the part of the same offense, but aside from that...
ashtonkem 6y ago
That’s not unique to Thailand, a sizable portion of the American population appear to be very confused about how defamation law works here too.

strogonoff 6y ago

Japan’s application of anti-defamation laws seems similar[0]. That is, unless this case got special treatment due to the alleged corruption of Thai justice system. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23935469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23935469

AmericanChopper 6y ago
That certainly wouldn't be surprising, but these laws do routinely treat Thai citizens as badly as they treat anybody else. He's likely not in for particularly fair treatment in any case.

narag 6y ago

The law is something to the effect of "disclosing private matters can be defamation even if it's true". That's common in many countries. "It's true" is only a valid defense if you're accusing someone of a crime.

Fezzik 6y ago
Is it true in any first world countries? As far as I am aware publishing anything that is true is always fair game. The very definition of libel (and slander) is that something untrue has been published or said. I’m not aware of a first world/non-dictatorship that treats either libel or slander as a crime or where “it’s true” is not a defense [in a civil case]. This is a good article on the history of the issue: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/941/criminal-libel https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/941/criminal-libel Edit: added the [].
- cortesoft 6y ago
  While truth is still a defense, in the UK the burden of proof is on the defendant; this means that if you are accused of libel or slander in the UK, you have to prove that what you said is true in order to defend yourself. This can be very difficult; for example, how would your PROVE a hotel clerk said certain things to you? In the US, the burden of proof is on the person suing for libel; they have to prove that what was said is false. So in the UK, yes truth is a defense... but you can still be telling the truth and unable to prove it, which makes it not much help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I’ll note that the UK has notoriously terrible defamation laws. They’re so bad that Congress passed a law to make defamation rulings from the UK unenforceable in America, just to stop the libel tourism.
    - rwmj 6y ago
      Only in NI. In GB the law was reformed in 2013 so it's now not so bad.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  It's generally true in most countries, since libel laws extend to keeping private matters private since many things can damage a person's reputation even if they are true. For example, a British Lord's Nazi fetish. In the US, the publication of private matters is a separate tort, invasion of privacy. For IOP, truth is not a defense. Or another way of looking at it: libel is a narrower tort in the US than it is in the rest of the world.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    > For example, a British Lord's Nazi fetish What case was this? Are you sure you're not talking about the Max Mosley (the former racing driver/FIA boss) case against News Group? Because that was a breach of privacy case, not a defamation one.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ShorsHammer 6y ago
Australian defamation laws are horrendously bad, it needs to be in "public interest", doesn't matter in the slightest if it's the truth. Say a fact in public, and then you go bankrupt in court arguing over the semantics of whether it's in "public interest" for it to be said. At least local journalists are waking up to how bad it is with the wealthy suddenly throwing their weight around and taking every paper in the nation to court over a few words. A terrible import from the UK. Despite all the nastiness and bad words, protected free speech is what the US really did get right. All laws can be used in a multitude of unintended ways, something lawmakers never really consider.
ezoe 6y ago
Actually, just because a crime is not a valid defence in my country. One must prove it satisfy the public welfare and truth. Suppose you know a person who committed a crime and be punished years ago and there is no immediate threat of doing it again, revealing that fact is a defamation, unless a person is a public figure like the politician and revealing the fact is important for public welfare.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> For starters, they have both civil and criminal defamation statutes (and criminal defamation statutes are already pretty bad). Many US jurisdictions have both, and Constitutionally-allowable criminal defamation had almost identical conditions to Constitutionally-allowable civil defamation. > The thing that makes it really bad though, is that truth is not always a defence for criminal defamation offences. The law is something to the effect of "disclosing private matters can be defamation even if it's true" Truth isn’t a defense to (civil or criminal) invasion of privacy or public disclosure of private fact claims in the US, either. They are distinct from defamation, rather than the part of the same offense, but aside from that...

ashtonkem 6y ago

That’s not unique to Thailand, a sizable portion of the American population appear to be very confused about how defamation law works here too.