US academic arrested in Thailand for insulting monarchy – DW – 04/08/2025
www.dw.com
Thailand has one of the world's strictest laws against criticizing the country's powerful monarchy. Foreigners are very rarely charged under the law, which prescribes up to 15 years in prison for those found guilty.

Summary

Thai police arrested US academic Paul Chambers on charges of insulting the monarchy and violating computer crime laws, linked to remarks made during an online seminar.

Chambers, a political science professor at Naresuan University, was summoned after a complaint by the Thai Army.

He denied the charges and was denied bail, with no trial date set. Thailand enforces strict lèse-majesté laws under Article 112, carrying up to 15 years in prison.

  • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.caEnglish
    1·
    4 days ago

    Also also, if you were Canadian, what trouble could you possibly get in being critical of Thailand? You’re either an insane coward or a liar for that one

    Perhaps I’m not in Canada right now. Maybe think outside your tiny little box and stop being a numb skull (see, I can insult you, too.)

    Do you agree with any limits on free speech in a society?

    • BoulevardBlvd@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      11·
      3 days ago

      If you were in Thailand or China and you posted what you did, you’re even more of a moron than I thought.

      I reject your false framing. You’re conflating society and the government in your question.

      To answer the question I’m pretending you meant to ask: No, The government should not have the requisite monopoly of violence necessary to enforce speech laws. It is a human right. Any sanction should be exclusively received from society.

      • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        Thanks for clarifying your view - I get where you’re coming from now. I’m not conflating society and government so much as recognizing that in most real-world societies, the line between the two isn’t always so clean. Governments often represent collective values, even imperfectly, and they’re the mechanism through which rights are codified and enforced.

        You might believe in total free speech, but I’d argue that most societies - even the most liberal democracies - accept some limits to protect others’ rights or prevent harm. If speech truly had zero consequences beyond social disapproval, that could leave vulnerable groups exposed to abuse. So, societies have a right to draw those lines differently, based on their own values.

        Anyways, since you can’t be civil (i.e. you’re a fucking asshole who can’t argue without ad hominem attacks), I’m done communicating with you.