3 replies to this topic

[Sexpat]

"The media must show more caution in using photos or stories about domestic violence, or face tougher legal action than they ever expected under the new domestic violence law, legal experts warned yesterday. . .violating the law could mean a maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or a fine of 60,000 baht.

The new act for protection of victims of domestic violence was passed on Aug 14, and will take effect on Nov 14. While protecting victims of domestic violence it also gives offenders the opportunity to reform so as to maintain a family relationship.

Article 9 of the law prohibits the media from broadcasting or publishing photos, stories or information about parties involved in domestic violence in ways deemed damaging to the reputation of the victim or the offender, directly or indirectly, after the case is reported to police and the legal process begins.

''This means the media can no longer publish the names, addresses, or any information that will disclose, directly or indirectly, the identity of the victims or even their abusers. That is certainly against the law,'' said Mr Narong.

Foundations or police investigators who expose the victims or the offenders to the media face similar penalties. People discovering violations by the media can report them to police without requiring a complaint from a damaged party, said Mr Narong.

Media groups earlier expressed concerns the restrictions under Article 9 could infringe upon press freedom, or at the least make their jobs very difficult. Even after a guilty verdict the media cannot publish information that could damage the reputation of either party."

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/14Sep2007_news11.php

[Dick]

Even after a guilty verdict the media cannot publish information that could damage the reputation of either party."

In other words, they can't report that Khun X had been sentenced to death for killing his wife ? Surely, they must jest !!!!!!

[BORG]

It's just so typical of this military-appointed NLA government, which seems hell bent on passing as many ill-considered laws as it can before an elected Parliament is brought back into power. What's amazing about this law, if you read that article, is that even its supporters seem to recognize that it goes too far in imposing a ban of all press coverage of domestic violence, but they don't have the time to pass a better law because time is running out on their tenure in power. What they are doing is inviting the elected parliament to pass a blanket repeal of all laws passed by the NLA once it gets elected.

[Hedda]

What they are doing is inviting the elected parliament to pass a blanket repeal of all laws passed by the NLA once it gets elected.

And don't you think that hasn't occurred to the junta's sponsors, especially now that the PPP is officially advocating amnesty for all banned TRT politicians.

It's also the reason why the new Constitution will make it a lot harder to repeal those laws, given the expectation that the politicians will fracture into so many parties that all you will get is a weak coalition government that gets stymied by the apparatus to do much dismantling of the junta's laws.

Laws have a way of perpetuating themselves, once passed. A lot of Thailand's present legal code was enacted by former dictators or unelected leaders, including laws creating lese majeste, criminal defamation and other draconian infringements on free press, speech or assembly. Some of these laws have lasted for decades because (1) weak parliamentary governments had not the political strength to repeal them over the objection of the power elite, or (2) strong authoritarian governments had not the will to repeal them, being quite happy to enforce them for their own selfish perpetuation of power.

Thaksin proved for the first time in Thai history, that a strong parliamentary majority can be assembled by using the ballot box to enlist people who have traditionally been treated as powerless. Such a majority can wreak havoc with the status quo, if its leaders do not forget the interests of the people who elected them, once elected.

Before Thaksin, too many politicians were content to spend their time getting rich on the spoils system of government, rather than sponsor populist programs for the poor that not only cost real money, but might ultimately empower the poor even more. Thaksin proved that you can do both, if you have a mind to do it, by spending money on the poor while getting richer himself. In that respect, he may have made the old school of Thai politicians obsolete.

The sponsors of this coup are quite aware of Thaksin's special status with many poor people and they resent it because, ultimately, it represents a challenge to the elitist society they have fought so hard to preserve. They see Thaksin as the devil incarnate because there is no place in their pantheon for crass politicians. Whether they have the strategy or means to deal with Thaksin politically, however, short of more tanks in the streets, remains to be seen.
.