Thread: Will notstickmanbangkok go to jail?

It's quite simple really...simply bung the judge a few baht and watch the other party get locked up.

Life must be pretty bad,when two complete fcukwits spend their time and energy on this sort of shite.

I wonder if either of these two arseholes understand the term "mind your own business"

As most of you know confrontation and criticism are not positive in the LOS. Face is lost and face is more important than anything else. Also, criticism may expose corruption within politics, the army or the police - can't have that. Hence, Thailand's defamation laws are among the strongest in the world.

There's 2 types of defamation: 1. Criminal, 2. Civil.

As I understand it:

You can bring a criminal case to court by either: 1. a complaint to the police, they'll prepare the case and present it to the prosecutor, if he agrees there's a case, he'll initiate the prosecution. The defendant can only counter sue the police. 2. Pay a solicitor to prepare the case and present directly to the court. Benefits of this are that the police are not in the chain so less easy for a rich defendant to 'divert' the case. Negative is that the defendant can counter sue the plaintiff directly.

I believe civil cases can only be presented to court by a solicitor and bypass the police. The whole process takes years and the court will push both sides to compromise whenever it can. Eventually there will be an investigation by the court of the evidence.

Defamation is a serious crime in Thailand. I couldn't figure out whether this case is civil or criminal but I guess civil. In either case the defendant has to prove his/her words are true. So for example calling someone crazy, you'll have to prove they are crazy. Accusing someone of dishonesty, you'll have to prove they're dishonest despite the other sides testimony and evidence. You'll also need to prove that you had no intention of damaging the plaintiff (pretty clear Galt's intention). And you'll need to prove you had reason to write your words, not a problem for a paper whose job is to report but more difficult for a wacko with a website.

Galt is in the shit. He will lose but he'll only pay damages or he could skip the country. His ego will fuk him up though and he won't know when to accept a compromise. The dafamation laws were written to shut people up and they work. Remember when the Bangkok Post published pictures of cracks on the runway of suvanhibuhm. Real evidence but the next day BK Post sacked their editor and issued an apology - why? their solicitors had spoken to the publisher about defamation laws