Hotel guest in Thailand jailed for defamation after posting bad online reviews
I&#x27;m going to stand up on a soapbox and use this incident to flog my pet issue, here. It may not be obvious to everyone how it relates, so bear with me.<p>Many people wonder how a &quot;free speech absolutist&quot;, such as myself, can hold the point of view that we do: how can we advocate for absolute free speech when it allows anti-vaxxers or bullies or holocaust deniers or racists or fake news purveyors to freely promote their reprehensible views?  Many people think we must, on some level <i>agree</i> with these terrible views, or at best be severely misguided, in order to so vociferously actually <i>defend</i> their rights to say it.<p>Not at all. We defend the rights of the least popular, even reprehensible, points of view in order to protect our own right to say and hear ideas with which others may disagree. Remember, many beliefs we hold now, were once illegal: equality of races, <i>marriage</i> between races, that one should worship <i>or not</i> as their own conscience dictates, <i>marriage</i> between same sexes - these were not only illegal - but it was illegal even to advocate for these. In some places even today it is <i>still</i> illegal to express such points of view.<p>We free-speech advocates believe that a good idea is stronger than a bad idea, and as a stronger idea, will win in the marketplace of ideas. Good medical information will always defeat bad information; good moral ideas will always defeat bad moral ideas, and so forth. By legally suppressing the expression of reprehensible ideas, a government is conceding that they believe that these bad ideas are somehow <i>stronger</i> and <i>more convincing</i> than good ideas. Yes, there will always be people who are convinced by a bad idea, but if the expression of the idea is suppressed, no right-thinking person will ever bother to argue against it.<p>And now I get to my point: laws such as this one that criminalize defamation, or those against &quot;blasphemy&quot;, or against &quot;profaning the honor of the country&quot;, or against spreading lies, or even hate speech, are all the same at the end of the day: they might sound like they are helping society, but they will be used in unexpected ways, as we see here.  Often they will be to suppress speech that offends the powerful, as we see here. Moreover, they will chill adjacent speech, that is not necessarily illegal, but since non-lawyers are never really sure where the bounds of the law lie precisely, they will be reluctant to cross even imaginary barriers.<p>Now I&#x27;m hopping off my soapbox, and I would love to read your reply <i>especially</i> if you disagree!