Most of Thai people will support the idea that the state cannot regulate or control the free of speech because this right is adopted and protected by the 1997 Constitution of Thailand. Of course, in civil society and democratic administration country, the state must not intervene with this fundamental rights.
However, not every speech will be protected in the scope to this category. Typically, we cannot assert the freedom of speech doctrine to defame someone else; we cannot assert this basic right of human being to conduct the obscene speech; we can neither excercise this right to conduct the criminal act or incite the violence against the public order. We might consider the indecent speech which is not obscence. This kind of speech also can still be controlled by the state under the application of of time, space and manner consideration in the different context.
There are several convincing evidence and the United Supreme Court decisions about the freedom of speech regulation. The United States Supreme Court adopts the pivotal rule concerning the legal concept and the judicial review standard over the state statutes which are aimed at the control the freedom of speech.
Becauses this fundament rights are obviously protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has set up the standard to review the constitutionality of the statutes which suppress the free speech rights. This standard can be divided into two categories: Strict scrutiny standard, and Intermediate standard. If the statutes is classified as the content base, which proscribe the freedom of speech and the like, the strict scrutiny will apply to this legislative anactment.
The components of strict scrutiny is very stringent for the state in that the state has the burden of proof that the provisions in such statutes are satisfied the exacting requirement of constitution. Firstly, the state must show the compelling state innterest or the public interest which outweight the individual interest. Secondly, the state prescibe the statute in the way that is narrowly tailored necessity to achieve the compelling state interest. Lastly, the state must showe that there is no other alternative which is least stringent than the means described in such statute.
Ironically, I have not seen any firm legal theory applied to the situation in Thailand, especially the political congregation event control. As far as I have read the newspaper, at least one of law professors in Thammasat University relentlessly asserts the privision relating to the freedom of speech in the 1997 constitution that the state connot constrain the individual's activities. He, in fact, as the legal scholar, should have correctly and impartially delineated the standard to review the state regulation which is aimed at to control this fundamental right. He chooses to demontrate his opinion without the profound legal knowledge and with his emotion of harted to the government.
In my point of view, it will be more beneficial to all Thai people if he and the scholars in Thailand attempt to enumerate the legal basis to deal with the political problems in the current period. We cannot rely on the emotion or the like to solve any problem. Learning society is very important factor to bring about the prosperous and well-being status to our people. If the scholars disregard the real educational principle, how can the people be able to pick up and make their decisions to achieve their ultimate and sound goals. They will merely act emotionally as do the scolars, and in turn there will render the vast damage to the country as a whole.
However, not every speech will be protected in the scope to this category. Typically, we cannot assert the freedom of speech doctrine to defame someone else; we cannot assert this basic right of human being to conduct the obscene speech; we can neither excercise this right to conduct the criminal act or incite the violence against the public order. We might consider the indecent speech which is not obscence. This kind of speech also can still be controlled by the state under the application of of time, space and manner consideration in the different context.
There are several convincing evidence and the United Supreme Court decisions about the freedom of speech regulation. The United States Supreme Court adopts the pivotal rule concerning the legal concept and the judicial review standard over the state statutes which are aimed at the control the freedom of speech.
Becauses this fundament rights are obviously protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has set up the standard to review the constitutionality of the statutes which suppress the free speech rights. This standard can be divided into two categories: Strict scrutiny standard, and Intermediate standard. If the statutes is classified as the content base, which proscribe the freedom of speech and the like, the strict scrutiny will apply to this legislative anactment.
The components of strict scrutiny is very stringent for the state in that the state has the burden of proof that the provisions in such statutes are satisfied the exacting requirement of constitution. Firstly, the state must show the compelling state innterest or the public interest which outweight the individual interest. Secondly, the state prescibe the statute in the way that is narrowly tailored necessity to achieve the compelling state interest. Lastly, the state must showe that there is no other alternative which is least stringent than the means described in such statute.
Ironically, I have not seen any firm legal theory applied to the situation in Thailand, especially the political congregation event control. As far as I have read the newspaper, at least one of law professors in Thammasat University relentlessly asserts the privision relating to the freedom of speech in the 1997 constitution that the state connot constrain the individual's activities. He, in fact, as the legal scholar, should have correctly and impartially delineated the standard to review the state regulation which is aimed at to control this fundamental right. He chooses to demontrate his opinion without the profound legal knowledge and with his emotion of harted to the government.
In my point of view, it will be more beneficial to all Thai people if he and the scholars in Thailand attempt to enumerate the legal basis to deal with the political problems in the current period. We cannot rely on the emotion or the like to solve any problem. Learning society is very important factor to bring about the prosperous and well-being status to our people. If the scholars disregard the real educational principle, how can the people be able to pick up and make their decisions to achieve their ultimate and sound goals. They will merely act emotionally as do the scolars, and in turn there will render the vast damage to the country as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment