FACT - Freedom Against Censorship Thailand

Rich people and bad laws mean tough times for free speech
The Economist: May 8, 2008

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11333006

WHEN writing about litigious issues, big British newspapers favour phrases such as “he strenuously denies all wrong-doing” (possible translation: has no convincing explanation of his behaviour); “has failed to dispel speculation that…” (was scandalously involved in), as well as words like “controversial” (outrageous) and “murky” (corrupt)…Such expensively lawyered prose helps present a semblance of balance that usually protects editors against the severity of English libel law…Perhaps. But for those used to the defence of free speech entrenched in America’s First Amendment, English law seems anything but fair. It is not just that defending a libel action costs the equivalent of $200,000-plus up front, and much more if you lose. The plaintiff has to prove only that a statement was defamatory; it is up to the defendant to justify it, usually on grounds of truth or fairness…Courts further afield may be even harsher and less predictable. Time magazine is appealing against a recent Indonesian Supreme Court judgment that ordered it to pay one trillion rupiah ($100m-plus) to the family of the late President Suharto, whom it accused of corruption in 1999. (This newspaper is one of a score of amici curiae petitioning for review of the verdict.) In English law, dead men can’t sue. But (to be safe): Mr Suharto vehemently protested his innocence.