Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Ja" is the informal rural equivalent of "Ka", which is used here as an acknowledgement. "Ja" may have been interpreted as improper in this context, as it is not formal. Language is something different to Thais - the West does not really have an equivalent, which probably makes this confusing to some. For instance, royalty in Thailand have a whole unique language that they, and their servants, converse in (Ra-cha sap…
Can you source that? It sounds really interesting, but Google turns up nothing
The Thai cleaning lady facing prison for 'I see'
41–47 of 47 posts
Re: The Thai cleaning lady facing prison for 'I see'
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm misreading you, but this seems disrespectful—to victims of tyrants in general, and to the victim of this possible prison sentence in particular—and I can't see what it adds to the discussion.
You can't be made a slave without your permission. You can be made a fugitive, a prisoner, or dead... but you can't be made a slave.
Blame the victim.
Re: The Thai cleaning lady facing prison for 'I see'
#43German comedian faces prison for mocking Turkish leader [1] In Canada men went to jail for disagreeing with feminist. He was latter released on bail, but could not use computer and electronic devices for 4 years. Father of five is graphic designer...[2] [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/ger... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott
I believe that the way you phrased that second thing is potentially misleading. Not being allowed to use twitter or "have a smartphone or use a computer with Internet access" (direct quote from wikipedia because I'm not sure whether the internet access part applies to the smartphone part.) was part of the bail. The 4 years were between the time which he was charged (Nov 2012) , and the time that all charges were dism…
What is inaccurate? He was in jail and he could not use computer for couple of years. Whatever he was found guilty is just technicality. The damage was done:
> Elliott was released on bail on the condition that he did not tweet or access Twitter, have a smartphone or use a computer with Internet access.
> when it was discovered that the tweets were actually made by an account impersonating Elliott.
... and it took 3.3 years to discover that.
Anyway I find your tone threatens my opinion. Please send me your name and address...
Re: The Thai cleaning lady facing prison for 'I see'
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that the way you phrased that second thing is potentially misleading. Not being allowed to use twitter or "have a smartphone or use a computer with Internet access" (direct quote from wikipedia because I'm not sure whether the internet access part applies to the smartphone part.) was part of the bail. The 4 years were between the time which he was charged (Nov 2012) , and the time that all charges were dism…
What is inaccurate? He was in jail and he could not use computer for couple of years. Whatever he was found guilty is just technicality. The damage was done: > Elliott was released on bail on the condition that he did not tweet or access Twitter, have a smartphone or use a computer with Internet access. > when it was discovered that the tweets were actually made by an account impersonating Elliott. ... and it took 3.…
I did not say that you said anything inaccurate. (Well, the unimportant 4 vs 3, but that is unimportant.)
I said that the way you said some of it was prone to being misinterpreted as meaning some other things which are not accurate.
Now, perhaps my initial misunderstanding was just due to me being exceptionally stupid, but I think that there is a fairly high chance of misinterpreting the things in question.
As such, I thought it would useful for it to be expressed in way which would be less prone to misinterpretation, because you don't want people thinking you mean something other than what you do mean, especially when what you mean is true, and the misunderstanding of what you mean is false.
I'm under the impression that he was forbidden from using a computer connected to the internet, not from using a computer in general, but I only read the Wikipedia article, so I could be wrong about that. ( Also, that distinction might not be very important.)
Indeed, that he was found not guilty does not reduce the harms he suffered.
But, as far as what is indicated about the legal system, I think it IS relevant. I don't know much anything about Canadian law, but I would figure that the purpose of the forbidding is rather different than what it would be it it were part of sentencing. Was it not meant by the authorities as a (rather too extreme) means to prevent more of what they suspected might be harm, until they could determine whether what was being done constituted harm? Or something like that?
Again, this of course does not make things better for the person. But as for the implications about what the law is, I think it is extremely relevant.
Regarding the impersonator, uh, I thought the things said by the impersonator only came up near the end of the case. Did I misunderstand this?
I thought it was kind of an addendum?
> Anyway I find your tone threatens my opinion. Please send me your name and address...
Haha, very funny.
___
Has any of what I said been false or unclear?
Re: The Thai cleaning lady facing prison for 'I see'
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is inaccurate? He was in jail and he could not use computer for couple of years. Whatever he was found guilty is just technicality. The damage was done: > Elliott was released on bail on the condition that he did not tweet or access Twitter, have a smartphone or use a computer with Internet access. > when it was discovered that the tweets were actually made by an account impersonating Elliott. ... and it took 3.…
I did not say that you said anything inaccurate. (Well, the unimportant 4 vs 3, but that is unimportant.) I said that the way you said some of it was prone to being misinterpreted as meaning some other things which are not accurate. Now, perhaps my initial misunderstanding was just due to me being exceptionally stupid, but I think that there is a fairly high chance of misinterpreting the things in question. As such,…
> Has any of what I said been false or unclear?
Not really.
> especially when what you mean is true, and the misunderstanding of what you mean is false
He was punished for disagreeing. Jail, lost job, a few years without a computer and money spend on defense. Guilt is irrelevant if trial takes years and does not postpone punishment.
Computer without internet is useless today. Would you employ graphic designer who can not use computer connected to internet?
Also guilt is irrelevant, if false accuse is left unpunished. His accusers should be forbidden to use internet, and should go to prison for harassing him
Re: The Thai cleaning lady facing prison for 'I see'
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except this isn't "criticizing the monarch". This is making a case out of basically nothing against the mother of a "student activist".
I think that this point is easy to miss, since it's practically a throwaway remark in the article: this does not appear to be in any direct sense about the woman's Facebook comment; rather, it is an intentionally overzealous application of a law to a situation where it applies only tenuously at best, in order to silence someone else 's dissenting voice.
oh the rich rich irony of your comment here, you silencer of dissenting opinions you.
Re: The Thai cleaning lady facing prison for 'I see'
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are a democracy, with regular elections. That's almost laughable. The country has been under martial law for two years, with its constitution revoked. If the article is to be believed, the military prohibits campaigning against pieces of "legislation" they want passed -- like the new constitution, which basically just confirms military rule as law. A country with harsh (and enforced) laws on the book prohibiti…
> the military prohibits campaigning against pieces of "legislation" they want passed -- like the new constitution They prohibit campaigning either for or against
Sure, except that the military "nudges" people toward voting in the direction they want.
Regardless, even if they didn't, your argument is in no way in support of the idea that they have a democracy. A democracy requires public discourse in order to be healthy.