8 timmar sedan, skrev turisten:
Håller inte med. Har aldrig hört talas om att artikel 112 har använts i något fall som inte är relaterat till kungafamiljen på ett eller annat sätt. Juntan har gått ut stenhårt med att LM-lagen behövs för att skydda monarkin, Thailand är unikt etc. etc. och måste ha denna lag. Om dom själva skulle börja vattna ur lagen genom att använda den för annat så tappar dom helt i trovärdighet vad gäller upprätthållandet av denna lag (vilket iofs inte vore helt fel) och detta är dom väldigt medvetna om själva. T.om det löjeväckande fallet om jycken var ju faktiskt relaterat till kungafamiljen. Som sagt, hur många fall finns det där någon dömts mha LM-lagen enbart pga kritik av juntan eller något annat helt orelaterat till kungafamiljen?
Eftersom det även är straffbart att återge vad de som anklagats eller dömts för brott mot LM-lagarna har gjort, skrivit, eller sagt, är det svårt att rada upp exempel här. Men den som söker ska finna Turisten, tro mig.
Att lagarna missbrukas alltmer av alla politiska läger för att stödja sina egna politiska syften trodde jag dock var en rätt okontroversiell åsikt. Men inte för dig naturligtvis, det borde man ju fattat.
Mer generella artiklar om hur LM-missbrukas kan man dock skriva. Utdrag nedan ur en från 2013:
"In January, a red shirt leader was sentenced to two years in prison for merely hinting at the monarchy. Later that month, veteran activist Somyot Pruksakasemsuk was found guilty of lèse majesté in a high-profile case with much international attention and followed by strong reactions. His offense: editing – not writing himself – two political essays that at best made allusions to the royal family for a now-defunct political red shirt magazine. Somyot was sentenced to 11 years even though he had already been in detention since April 2011 and been denied bail 15 times until today.
Numerous lèse majesté complaints filed this year also showed how frivolously the law is being misused: an activist targeted for distributing mock banknotes depicting Thai historical figures other than the King; a TV host filing a complaint against a student activist months after she was sitting on it; a sibling rivalry turned bitter with one brother accusing the other of insulting the King, causing him to be jailed for a year before he was acquitted; and even ex-yellow shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul was found guilty because he quoted inflammatory remarks by somebody else. In related news, a court upheld a suspended sentence against Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn for not deleting web comments quickly enough that were deemed insulting to the monarchy.
In November, the courts added a new dimension to lèse majesté that was previously unheard of by stating that the law also applied to previous kings, thus not only arbitrarily expanding taboo topics, but also making critical, academic research into current Chakri dynasty impossible.
What is apparent is the need to openly discuss the law and how it is being misused, as ThaiPBS attempted to earlier this year. But it was met with outrage and resistance by a vocal minority, still maintaining and promoting the perception that even talking about the law is illegal, which is factually wrong and deliberate misinformation. With the current political polarization deeper than ever, even a consideration to reform the lèse majesté is now further away than ever.
https://asiancorrespondent.com/2013/12/siam-voices-2013-review-part-2-lese-majeste-and-thailands-media-in-the-crossfire/