71–80 of 294 posts
Thailand is the country where the price made their pet dog a high ranking member of the military. I present to you: Air Chief Marshal Fufu! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fufu_(dog)
Thais have been embarrassed by the prince many times, though his father, the king was generally very respected. I don't think most would want all of thailand to be judged on the prince's antics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ar…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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: http…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn’t Thailand, but a long time ago I went to Bali and while walking around it dawned on me it was the Australian equivalent of Miami Beach. Those locals put up with a ton of shit from drunk Aussies. But I’m sure they make enough money to put up with it.
> Australian equivalent of Miami Beach That's the Gold Coast. Maybe it's more like Cancun?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way would you ever rationalize putting someone in prison for a bad review?
The guy said in one of the reviews the resort used slaves... that's a pretty defamatory claim.
It is that police came to his work and put him in jail based off of a complaint by the hotel. Does that seem reasonable to you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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: http…
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.
Thailand is the country where the price made their pet dog a high ranking member of the military. I present to you: Air Chief Marshal Fufu! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fufu_(dog)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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: http…
There are two clearly distinct legal traditions: the common law in the anglo countries and civil law in the rest. Also USA and UK seem to have very different and each of them unique treatment in this matter.
So it's not a question of first world countries vs the rest. It's more of a USA vs UK vs the rest of democratic countries, not sure where other Commonwealth countries fall.
Edit: I feel I wasn't clear. Civil law countries mostly adhere to ancient legal doctrine, some coming from Roman Empire, some from middle ages tradition, some from Bonaparte, some from German theoreticians. This corpus is pretty consistent, grown through statutes, while common law tend to develop idiosyncratic variants following practice in every country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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: http…
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…
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.