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.
I won’t give my opinion because I don’t want it to lead to me getting in any kind of trouble, if that makes you feel any better.
But in any case, my point is you can’t project your beliefs onto others.
Except you can and projecting your beliefs onto others is the literal definition of society. You can’t not project your beliefs onto others
We are not bystanders. All societies are negotiated both within them between members and between members and observers outside. The idea that anyone should forgo their opinion on another culture is naive and asinine. You’re asking for all social exchange to stop in order to preserve an arbitrary set of rules in amber. The system you want to uphold as precious is both not real, and not valuable enough to justify the cost
Oh also, free speech is an inalienable right. In fact I’d go so far as to say learning it’s inalienable is how you learned the word inalienable. Free speech is a human right. Anyone anywhere who is limiting it is commiting a crime against humanity. The opinion of the people in charge doesn’t change that. That’s literally how inalienable rights work. So, no fucking clue what you were on about there
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?
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.
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.