Freedom of expression and problems with bullies, trolls and terrorists
Nothing to do with Scandinavian folklore, an Internet troll is a person who sows discord by posting mendacious, inflammatory and spurious messages with the deliberate intent of provoking extreme emotion, or disrupting normal on-topic discussions, for the
With the referendum on the new constitution drawing near, Thai political trolls are out in full force. They are not only spreading false information and half-truths about the draft charter, but going as far as producing fabricated versions, troll versions, of the charter draft and distributing them online, in print and on air. They take a little bit of truth and wrap falsehoods around it, knowing that this is the best way to sell a lie.
A great example of this method is the “birther” argument in America – that since Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan, the president is not a natural-born American and hence not qualified to be commander-in-chief.
With the draft charter, there are many versions of lies wrapped in truth.
Example 1: Certain career politicians came out and stated categorically that if the new constitution passed, poor people would lose their “Bt30 healthcare” entitlement. Fact check: The Bt30 policy was not born of any constitution, yet the false propaganda cites Article 52 of the 1997 constitution, and Article 51 of the 2007 constitution as the basis of the entitlement. The fact is there was no mention of the Bt30 mandate in either. Both articles simply stipulated that all Thai citizens have “equitable” entitlement to “standard” public health services. The draft constitution says nothing about the Bt30 policy, saying only that all are entitled to public health services; the only missing words are “equitable” and “standard”. But enough fear has already been sowed in the minds of low-income citizens for them to go out and kill the draft charter on August 7.
Example 2: Several websites have sprung up depicting the charter draft as “constitution of thieves” that would rob citizens of human rights and progressive political freedom. Fact check: The draft was written with the intention of preventing political thieves from gaining full control of the polity. It is not intended to rid Thai citizens of their freedom.
US policymakers in the Obama administration have expressed a desire to work with Thailand on mechanisms that could prevent future military coups. They have promoted the mechanism of the “no-confidence” vote. What they failed to realise is that Thailand had already implemented that mechanism, but it was overridden when one large political party had absolute control not only of the administration but over both chambers of Parliament. The challenge brought by the opposition party against the Yingluck government over the rice subsidy programme, as a policy and in its fraud-ridden implementation, went nowhere despite arguments founded on hard fact and evidence.
During our “democratically elected” governments, MPs mixed their role as legislators with logrolling, both financially and politically. As a result hundreds of draft bills were left untouched before the coup. The new charter is intended to address and rectify those problems. Some of its provisions have hit the bull’s eye, sending politicians into a tailspin and drawing their vociferous objections.
This is not to say that this proposed constitution, or any legislation for that matter, could effectively codify human behaviour. As long as people remain devoid of conscience, shady trolls will always find a way to sneak through cracks in the laws, get away with murder, and laugh all the way to the bank.
The government has tried its best to counter every untrue account of the constitution with facts. But it is an unwinnable position. Fabricated bad news travels fast and furiously.
Meanwhile the international community has been dragged into the Thai political fight. Its favourite tactic is to claim the government is curbing freedom of expression. But freedom of expression has limits, beyond which chaos and anarchy ensue.
The West categorises physical actions as a form of expression. Sit-ins and T-shirt slogans are equated with free expression. What about bullies, body-shamers and homophobes, do their expressions merit protection? Extending this twisted logic, isn’t suicide-bombing merely an extreme form of free expression?
Must we also tolerate the lewd comments and fictitious stories about the monarchy spewed out across the cybersphere and aimed at defaming and debasing the institution? Wasn’t it just last week that a Dutchman was jailed for insulting the king of the Netherlands?
Thailand is plainly a favourite whipping boy of the West, which demands more from us than they do of themselves and many others. To put things in perspective, one only has to look to Egypt and more recently at Turkey.
As referendum day approaches, political trolls are out fighting for their personal benefit while ignoring the wider national interest. It will turn uglier and more vicious. More lies will be wrapped around a core of truth to fuel fear, hatred and retaliation.
Few people have read the draft charter. Many are still sitting on the fence. Meanwhile, negative propaganda against it abounds. Maybe the political trolls will get their way and succeed in voting down the draft. But in that case, what will the country left with? Whose loss will it be and at what cost?
