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.

Over 130 trade unionists, social activists, students and academics sign open letter condemning The Manager media group

Please sign this open letters by adding your name, affiliation, email address, website and comments below. FACT will make sure you are added to the signatories.

Over 130 trade unionists, social activists, students and academics have put their names to an open letter condemning the behaviour of The Manager media group.

Those signing the letter include many academics at Chulalongkorn and Thammasart Universities, including the Dean of the faculty of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University. Former Senator Jon Ungpakorn and Rawadee Prasertcharoensuk from the N.G.O. Coordinating Committee, Professor Niti Eawsriwong, Textile trade union leaders, worker activists and an academic from the Midnight University are among the signatures.

The letter is in response to the actions of Mr Sonthi Limtongkul’s Manager group in promoting violence against a young student activist Chotisak Oonsong, who is being accused of lèse majesté because he refused to stand up for the King’s Anthem at the cinema. Both Manager group websites and its radio station, Metro Life, have encouraged Ultra-Rightwing Royalists to attack Mr Chotisak. Ms Jitra Kotchadej, Chairwoman of the Triumph workers union has also been made a target for violence by The Manager media. Ms Jitra was singled out because she wore a T-shirt supporting the right to different views in society, including not standing up at the cinema. Both Mr Chotisak and Ms Jitra’s photographs and home addresses were published alongside urges to attack them. The Manager media also encouraged people to attack and break up a meeting on Human Rights at Thammasart University recently.

Those signing the open letter compare the behaviour of The Manager with the past behaviour of Rightwing media such as Dao Sayam newspaper and the Tank Corps radio station in inciting violence that led to the 6th October 1976 blood bath.

The letter calls on people to boycott The Manager media group for abusing basic human rights. The letter also calls on P.A.D. leaders Somsak Kosaisuk, Pipop Thongchai and Somkiat Pongpaiboon to come out and officially condemn The Manager.

Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn
Open Letter Coordinator

Full list of names and text of open letter follows. Read the rest of this entry »

Rights body seminar warns Tesco Lotus over libel suits
The Nation: May 9, 2008

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/05/09/headlines/headlines_30072642.php

Tesco Lotus came under fire yesterday as the National Human Rights Commission and the Foundation for Consumers held a seminar on the hypermarket chain’s negative impact on communities and the mass media’s freedom of expression…Suthichai Yoon, editor in chief of Nation Multimedia Group, told the seminar that Tesco Lotus’s recent libel suits could be seen as a “classic” case study on multinational firms’ ethical conduct as far as public sentiment and social responsibility are concerned…Suthichai said the public and mass media had the right to express their opinion in good faith. As a result, these critics, wanting to protect a minority in society (the traditional trade), should not face such intimidation…The Campaign Committee for Human Rights also issued a strongly worded statement criticising Tesco Lotus and urging the public to boycott its business.

Writers criticise Tesco for ‘chilling’ Thai libel actions
The Guardian: April 30, 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/apr/30/tesco.supermarkets

Leading authors have called on Tesco to drop its “grossly disproportionate” libel actions against critics in Thailand who have questioned the growth of the supermarket chain…Nick Hornby, Mark Haddon, and fellow authors criticised Tesco for resorting to “deeply chilling” lawsuits to silence the critics, one of whom could be jailed for two years. In an open letter to Sir Terry Leahy, Tesco chief executive, the writers urged the supermarket to “impress your critics with the force of argument, not the threat of imprisonment”. The authors - including Joanne Harris (Chocolat), Marina Lewycka (A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian) and Deborah Moggach (Tulip Fever) - say that continuing the lawsuits would “be damaging to Tesco’s brand in the UK and internationally”. They support free speech advocates who say that Tesco is attempting to snuff out criticism of its expansion in Thailand…Tesco is suing three critics in the country.

[FACT comments: This is why defamation laws are so dangerous--they are used by the powerful against those without.]

Law Professor Accuses Students of Defamation
By LYNNLEY BROWNING
The New York Times: May 1, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/01legal.html?ref=todayspaper

At the University of Arkansas in Little Rock, an award-winning law professor has sued two of his students, alleging that they defamed him by unfairly describing him on campus as a racist…In a constitutional law class in 2005, he displayed what some of his black law students described to university officials as a belittling satirical article from The Onion on Rosa Parks…Professor Peltz last month filed a civil lawsuit against two of the law students, Valerie D. Nation and Chrishuana L. Clark, both third-year students. The lawsuit also names as defendants Eric S. Buchanan, who is a lawyer for the W. Harold Flowers Law Society in Little Rock, an association of black lawyers in Arkansas; the society itself; and the local chapter of the Black Law Students Association…The complaint alleges defamation of character and seeks unspecified monetary and punitive damages.