A case to answer on lese majeste

Vint Chavala writes that more than 90 per cent of those charged with lese majeste were accused of “besmirching” or “slandering” the monarchy, not merely criticising it.

The key word here is “accused”. Why should anyone be put in jail without bail for merely being accused of something? Also, it is often a matter of opinion as to what constitutes “slander”, as opposed to “criticism”. For example, were the two college students who were sentenced to two and a half years for producing a play that poked fun at a fictional monarchy guilty of slander? And should the punishment for such slander be imprisonment?

In the past Mr Chavala has himself called for reform of the lese majeste law. So why is he now mad at us for agreeing with him?

Eric Bahrt