4 ms·

As a non-lawyer, I see two ways to look at this: 1. It's possibly defamatory. There is a public image of behavior of that order, and someone is falsifying ima

by neilv 3y ago

As a non-lawyer, I see two ways to look at this: 1. It's possibly defamatory. There is a public image of behavior of that order, and someone is falsifying images that contradict that. I don't know about Thai law, but my layperson understanding is that the US, for example, has some laws and precedents that might apply. 2. It's disrespectful/rude. Apparently this is something important to the monks, and people don't realize that, however cool/amusing-looking the art might seem, it bothers the people featured. So maybe focus on other ways, rather than picking on someone (especially not picking on a group that seems so inoffensive).

pixl97 3y ago
Number two is the 'is-ought' problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem If I Buddhists offensive "You ought not" is not a compelling argument. For example I find fascists highly offensive and would continue picking on them even at the risk of peril. Now, you can attempt to deal with the issue socially, "It's not cool to insult Buddhists" media splurge, for example. But the success of this can very greatly depending on the motivation of the attacking group.
- neilv 3y ago
  Treating this as an example of a question we'll have to deal with more... In this example, I initially thought that the 2 fake images of monks I saw were cool and humorous. But then I learned that the portrayal actually bothered those people, which took much of the fun out of it. So probably I either wouldn't make images like those of monks, or if I did for some private amusement, I wouldn't distribute them. Other people, once they're aware that it's upsetting, might also decide not to do it. We collectively already have various values about rudeness and being considerate. These values will come into play more with AI-generated fake images/videos/audio/etc. and with the Internet to distribute them globally. What I think is going to complicate this is both: 1. Being widely connected by Internet, across many cultural groups, means that behaving with goodwill is harder, because there's a lot more things to know about, than just the conventions of our city. 2. Recent "Internet culture" has had a lot of sociopathic behavior in general (e.g., many Twitter behaviors), plus the relative minority of influencers often get status through sociopathic behavior. So we aren't surrounded by conspicuous examples of good behavior that would help intuition for what's good and bad. Relative to how we see ourselves, or how we aspire to be. (Though we do have fashionable mimicking and posturing, which right now is used as weapons in toxic behavior, and often without much apparent thinking. So, for example, we might see ourselves as helping those in need of help, which I think is very admirable. But the Twitter behavior we see as examples is mostly about scorched-earth attacking any peep from anyone that sounds like an idea we've been told is one of the officially bad talking points. Without individually thinking about it beyond that -- neither about what is good or bad, nor about how we respond to it, mostly just mimicking fashion we observe. This not only makes for a toxic environment that's vulnerable to manipulation/co-opting, but can make it harder to respond according to our believed values when presented with a new situation. Like the many implications of what will happen when every schoolchild can make and distribute deepfakes of anyone.)
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >2. Recent "Internet culture" has had a lot of sociopathic behavior in genera So growing up in the pre-internet days, I also saw this behavior in individuals 'in real life'. The typical issue with being a sociopath IRL is for the average person you run out of audience quick. People learn to shun you and stay away, or you meet some bigger badder socio that beats the pulp out of you. I mean, a lot of us have examples of events with lots of teenagers going out of control without a moderating factor there of sometime (generally the cops showing up). But the internet has always had unmoderated places for these sociopaths to play. In the older net, these places were typically separated on servers in different places. In recent years it's been the massive consolidation of social media giants that has pulled groups from across the planet together with different levels of moderation and expectation.
SllX 3y ago
Well defamation isn’t a criminal offense so at most they could file a civil suit in a US court as far as US jurisdiction applies and maybe they would be able to make a case, but US jurisdiction doesn’t extend to Thailand. That said we’re not going to be assisting in an extradition of anyone over something like this either (if a request were filed) since this falls squarely within 1st Amendment jurisprudence.
- kube-system 3y ago
  >Well defamation isn’t a criminal offense I'm not a Thai lawyer, but it sounds like it's criminal there: https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/criminal-code-defamation-sections-326-333/ https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/criminal-code-defama... > If the offence of defamation be committed by means of publication of a document, drawing, painting, cinematography film, picture or letters made visible by any means, gramophone record or another recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding two years and fined not exceeding two hundred thousand Baht. As I understand, the US is relatively very permissive in regards to defamatory speech, and has a very high bar for punishing this type of speech compared to other places.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - SllX 3y ago
    Yes, but context: >>> but my layperson understanding is that the US, for example, has some laws and precedents that might apply >> as far as US jurisdiction applies
    - kube-system 3y ago
      I understand the context of this thread, I'm suggesting I don't think US legal standards are too relevant in this case. In Thailand you can go to prison for insulting the monarchy.

by neilv 3y ago

pixl97 3y ago

Number two is the 'is-ought' problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem If I Buddhists offensive "You ought not" is not a compelling argument. For example I find fascists highly offensive and would continue picking on them even at the risk of peril. Now, you can attempt to deal with the issue socially, "It's not cool to insult Buddhists" media splurge, for example. But the success of this can very greatly depending on the motivation of the attacking group.

neilv 3y ago
Treating this as an example of a question we'll have to deal with more... In this example, I initially thought that the 2 fake images of monks I saw were cool and humorous. But then I learned that the portrayal actually bothered those people, which took much of the fun out of it. So probably I either wouldn't make images like those of monks, or if I did for some private amusement, I wouldn't distribute them. Other people, once they're aware that it's upsetting, might also decide not to do it. We collectively already have various values about rudeness and being considerate. These values will come into play more with AI-generated fake images/videos/audio/etc. and with the Internet to distribute them globally. What I think is going to complicate this is both: 1. Being widely connected by Internet, across many cultural groups, means that behaving with goodwill is harder, because there's a lot more things to know about, than just the conventions of our city. 2. Recent "Internet culture" has had a lot of sociopathic behavior in general (e.g., many Twitter behaviors), plus the relative minority of influencers often get status through sociopathic behavior. So we aren't surrounded by conspicuous examples of good behavior that would help intuition for what's good and bad. Relative to how we see ourselves, or how we aspire to be. (Though we do have fashionable mimicking and posturing, which right now is used as weapons in toxic behavior, and often without much apparent thinking. So, for example, we might see ourselves as helping those in need of help, which I think is very admirable. But the Twitter behavior we see as examples is mostly about scorched-earth attacking any peep from anyone that sounds like an idea we've been told is one of the officially bad talking points. Without individually thinking about it beyond that -- neither about what is good or bad, nor about how we respond to it, mostly just mimicking fashion we observe. This not only makes for a toxic environment that's vulnerable to manipulation/co-opting, but can make it harder to respond according to our believed values when presented with a new situation. Like the many implications of what will happen when every schoolchild can make and distribute deepfakes of anyone.)
- pixl97 3y ago
  >2. Recent "Internet culture" has had a lot of sociopathic behavior in genera So growing up in the pre-internet days, I also saw this behavior in individuals 'in real life'. The typical issue with being a sociopath IRL is for the average person you run out of audience quick. People learn to shun you and stay away, or you meet some bigger badder socio that beats the pulp out of you. I mean, a lot of us have examples of events with lots of teenagers going out of control without a moderating factor there of sometime (generally the cops showing up). But the internet has always had unmoderated places for these sociopaths to play. In the older net, these places were typically separated on servers in different places. In recent years it's been the massive consolidation of social media giants that has pulled groups from across the planet together with different levels of moderation and expectation.

SllX 3y ago

Well defamation isn’t a criminal offense so at most they could file a civil suit in a US court as far as US jurisdiction applies and maybe they would be able to make a case, but US jurisdiction doesn’t extend to Thailand. That said we’re not going to be assisting in an extradition of anyone over something like this either (if a request were filed) since this falls squarely within 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

kube-system 3y ago
>Well defamation isn’t a criminal offense I'm not a Thai lawyer, but it sounds like it's criminal there: https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/criminal-code-defamation-sections-326-333/ https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/criminal-code-defama... > If the offence of defamation be committed by means of publication of a document, drawing, painting, cinematography film, picture or letters made visible by any means, gramophone record or another recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding two years and fined not exceeding two hundred thousand Baht. As I understand, the US is relatively very permissive in regards to defamatory speech, and has a very high bar for punishing this type of speech compared to other places.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- SllX 3y ago
  Yes, but context: >>> but my layperson understanding is that the US, for example, has some laws and precedents that might apply >> as far as US jurisdiction applies
  - kube-system 3y ago
    I understand the context of this thread, I'm suggesting I don't think US legal standards are too relevant in this case. In Thailand you can go to prison for insulting the monarchy.