This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/world/asia/thai-court-gives-10-year-sentence-for-insult-to-king.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Thai Court Gives 10-Year Sentence for Insult to King Thai Court Gives 10-Year Sentence for Insult to King
(about 7 hours later)
BANGKOK — A Thai court on Wednesday sentenced a labor activist and former magazine editor to 10 years in prison for insulting Thailand’s king, the latest in a string of convictions under the country’s strict lese majeste law. BANGKOK — A labor activist and former magazine editor was sentenced to 10 years in prison on Wednesday for insulting Thailand’s king, the latest in a string of convictions under the country’s strict lèse-majesté law, and an additional year for libeling a senior general.
The case of Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, 51, was different from previous lese majeste cases because Mr. Somyot directly challenged the law itself, saying it violated the right to free expression. The case of the activist and editor, Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, 51, stood out because Mr. Somyot directly challenged the lèse-majesté law in court, saying it violated the right to free expression. The law makes it a crime to defame, insult or threaten the king, queen, heir to the throne or regent.
Thailand’s constitutional court swept aside that challenge last month and laid out the justification for the law, saying the king deserves “special protection” under the law because he is the “center of the nation.” Thailand’s constitutional court swept aside that challenge last month and laid out the justification for the law, saying the king deserves “special protection” because he is the “center of the nation.”
“The king holds the position of head of state and is the main institution of the country,” the court ruled. Insulting the king, the court said, “is considered an act that wounds the feelings of Thais who respect and worship the king and the monarchy.”“The king holds the position of head of state and is the main institution of the country,” the court ruled. Insulting the king, the court said, “is considered an act that wounds the feelings of Thais who respect and worship the king and the monarchy.”
Mr. Somyot was not the author of the two articles that the court said violated the law - the writer, Jakrapob Penkair, a former government spokesman, has fled to Cambodia. But as the editor of the magazine, which was called The Voice of Taksin and is now defunct, Mr. Somyot was responsible for its content, the court said. Mr. Somyot did not write the two articles that the court said violated the law, but as the editor of the magazine, The Voice of Taksin, he was responsible for their content, the court said. The magazine is now defunct, and the author of the articles — Jakrapob Penkair, a former government spokesman — has fled to Cambodia.
Similar to a decision last week, where an anti-government protester was sentenced to two years in prison for insulting the king, the articles never mentioned the king’s name. As in a case decided last week, in which an antigovernment protester was sentenced to two years in prison for insulting the king, the two articles in The Voice of Taksin never actually mentioned the king.
The first article is a jumbled tale about a family that plots to kill millions of people to maintain its power and quash democracy. The court ruled on Wednesday that the writer was describing the Chakri dynasty of Thailand’s current King, Bhumibol Adulyadej. The first article was a jumbled tale about a family that plots to kill millions of people to maintain its power and quash democracy. The court ruled on Wednesday that it was clear that the writer was describing the Chakri dynasty of Thailand’s current king, Bhumibol Adulyadej.
The second article is a fictional tale about a ghost who haunts Thailand and plots massacres. The court ruled that the author was comparing the ghost to King Bhumibol. The second was a fictional story about a ghost who haunts Thailand and plots massacres. The court ruled that the author was comparing the ghost to King Bhumibol.
“There is no content identifying an individual,” the court said. “But the writing conveyed connection to historical events.”“There is no content identifying an individual,” the court said. “But the writing conveyed connection to historical events.”
International human rights groups immediately criticized the verdict. Human Rights Watch said it would “further chill freedom of expression in Thailand.” International groups immediately criticized the verdict on Wednesday. Human Rights Watch said it would “further chill freedom of expression in Thailand.”
Amnesty International called the verdict a “regressive decision - Somyot has been found guilty simply for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression and should be released immediately.” Amnesty International called the ruling a “regressive decision” and said, “Somyot has been found guilty simply for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression and should be released immediately.”
The European Union issued a statement saying the ruling undercuts “Thailand’s image as a free and democratic society.” The European Union issued a statement saying the ruling undercut “Thailand’s image as a free and democratic society.”
The United Nations human rights chief, Navi Pillay, criticized the “extremely harsh” jail sentence as a setback for protection of human rights in Thailand and expressed her support for moves to amend Thailand’s lese majeste laws. The United Nations human rights chief, Navi Pillay, criticized the “extremely harsh” jail sentence as a setback for protection of human rights in Thailand and expressed her support for moves to amend Thailand’s lèse-majesté laws.
Mr. Somyot’s sentence “sends the wrong signals on freedom of expression in Thailand. The court’s decision is the latest indication of a disturbing trend in which lese-majesty charges are used for political purposes,” Ms. Pillay said in a statement released in Geneva on Wednesday. Mr. Somyot’s sentence “sends the wrong signals on freedom of expression in Thailand,” Ms. Pillay said in a statement released in Geneva on Wednesday, noting “a disturbing trend in which lèse-majesté charges are used for political purposes.”
  Ms. Pillay also criticized the lengthy detention of Mr. Somyot — he has been denied bail since he was arrested in 2011 — and his appearance in court in shackles.
Thailand’s lese majeste law calls for prison sentences of three to 15 years in jail for “whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir to the throne or the regent.” “People exercising freedom of expression should not be punished in the first place,” she said.
The court added one year to Mr. Somyot’s 10 year-sentence for a separate case where Mr. Somyot was accused of libeling a general involved in the 2006 coup.
Mr. Somyot, who has been denied bail since being arrested in 2011, was brought to the courtroom in shackles. His lawyers said he would appeal the verdict.
Ms. Pillay also criticized Mr. Somyot’s lengthy pre-trial detention, repeated denial of bail and his appearance in court wearing shackles. “People exercising freedom of expression should not be punished in the first place,” Ms. Pillay said.    
His wife, Sukanya Pruksakasemsuk, said she was concerned about her husband’s health because he suffers from high blood pressure and gout.
“Is it reasonable to send someone to 11 years in jail for expressing something?” she said. “I don’t think so.”