Thai prosecutors drop case against US academic accused of insulting royalty
Paul Chambers, a lecturer at Naresuan University, was arrested after the army filed a complaint against him.
On Thursday, prosecutors said they would request for charges against him to be dropped, though this has to be reviewed by the police. If they disagree, the decision will fall to the attorney-general.
Mr Chambers' arrest marked a rare instance of a foreigner being charged under the lese-majeste law, which the government says is necessary to protect the monarchy but critics say is used to clamp down on free speech.
"The director-general had decided not to indict the suspect," said the Office of the Attorney-General, adding that prosecutors would seek to dismiss the case in court and coordinate with police.
Mr Chambers first lived and worked in Thailand 30 years ago, and in recent years has been lecturing and researching at Naresuan University in northern Thailand. He is one of the world's foremost experts on the Thai military.
The complaint against him centres on a notice for an academic webinar organised by a Singapore research institute about Thailand's military and police reshuffles. Mr Chambers was one of the webinar's speakers.
The army had accused Mr Chambers of "defamation, contempt or malice" towards the royal family, "importing false computer data" in a way "likely to damage national security or cause public panic", and disseminating computer data "that may affect national security", according to a letter from police that was received by the university's social sciences faculty.
Mr Chambers stated that he did not write or publish the notice for the webinar. The army based its complaint on a Facebook post by a Thai royalist, who translated the webinar notice into Thai.
Thailand's lese-majeste law has been in place since the creation of the country's first criminal code in 1908, although the penalty was toughened in 1976.
Since late 2020, the legal aid group Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) has seen more than 300 cases of lese-majeste involving more than 270 people, including 20 children under the age of 18, said Akarachai Chaimaneekarakate, the group's advocacy lead.
Last year, a reformist political party was dissolved by court order after the court ruled the party's campaign promise to change lese-majeste was unconstitutional.
The European Parliament called on Thailand last month to reform the law, which it said was "among the strictest in the world", and grant amnesty to those prosecuted and imprisoned under it.
Thailand's lese-majeste law explained
The many ways to get arrested for lese-majeste in Thailand
Thai arrest warrant issued for US academic under ban on insulting royalty
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
34 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
It's the Worst Time To Be an American Farmer in Decades
America's farmers are locked in a generational crisis, fending off an array of threats that could jeopardize food supplies and spell financial disaster for those often hailed as the "backbone of the nation." "They love their way of life, and they love that dirt," President Donald Trump said this week, in a somewhat off-piste response to a question on the importance of farmers. "They don't know how to do anything else, but they don't want to do anything else." But the current storm of rising debt, declining commodity prices and labor shortfalls has begun to echo the great Farm Crisis of the 1980s and may be testing the love farmers hold for their profession. Farm sector debt is expected to reach a record $561.8 billion in 2025, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, up 3.7 percent from 2024. The Kansas City Federal Reserve has attributed this primarily to increased lending for small- and mid-sized farms. This growing financial pressure has also pushed up bankruptcies. Researchers at the University of Arkansas recently found that Chapter 12 filings-specifically for farmers and family fishermen-reached 88 in the first quarter of the year, nearly doubling the previous year's figure. "Bankruptcies are on the rise and you will see many more on the auction block in the coming months especially this fall," said John Boyd, a crop and livestock farmer and founder of the National Black Farmers Association. Boyd has been farming since the early 1980s, currently growing soybeans, corn and wheat across 1,500 acres in Virginia while raising 150 head of beef cattle. He told Newsweek that 2025 marked the first time in his career that he was unable to receive an operating loan, which provides farmers working capital needed to cover daily expenses, and blamed this on the trade policies of the current administration. "I was turned down by banks for the simple fact of low commodity prices due to the president's tariffs," he said. The higher costs for foreign importers have dampened foreign demand, leading to further reductions in the price of America's agricultural exports. Corn futures, as an example, have fallen about 15 percent since the start of the year, according to TradingEconomics. "Mexico buys U.S. corn, China buys soybeans," Boyd said. "We cannot survive on low crop prices with input costs at an all-time high.I have not seen such political chaos like this, and I have been farming since 1983." A May survey by Purdue University found that a strong majority (70 percent) of U.S. farmers believe Trump's tariffs will strengthen U.S. agriculture-some telling Investigate Midwest that they will help the U.S. pressure China to boost its imports. But according to Caleb Ragland, president of American Soybean Association, the "tit-for-tat trade war"-which has still not given way to a full-fledged deal despite several weeks of negotiations-could see American soybean farmers lose out on this critical market. "Make no mistake, American soybean farmers do stand at the edge of a cliff and will suffer if tariffs are not replaced with trade agreements that reduce tariffs before our harvest this fall," Ragland said in his May testimony before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee. "American farm and ranch families need a workforce that is ready, willing and available," said Michael Marsh, president and CEO of the National Council of Agricultural Employers (NCAE). "The shortage of these workers is perhaps the most significant challenge facing U.S. agriculture." "This year, the labor shortfall in U.S. agriculture will exceed 400,000 jobs," he added. "Technology will not fill that need." The California Farm Bureau listed "access to a stable workforce" among the key challenges facing America's farmers, and pointed Newsweek to its recent statement warning that "current immigration enforcement activity has caused disruptions to farming operations." Farms have been one the key targets of the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration, raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) resulting in worker shortages and even rotting crops as the country heads into harvest season. "The president's immigration policies have hurt America's farmers," Boyd said. "Who's going to do the hard work that is required in 100-degree heat and enduring work conditions?" "A significant portion of our domestic workforce is here in unauthorized status," Marsh said. "Congress has failed since 1986 to pass meaningful agricultural labor reform. As a result of that and stepped-up efforts to remove unauthorized persons from the U.S., people on our farms and ranches are frightened." However, beyond the current enforcement actions, Marsh said the issue has been exacerbated by labor regulations, which "expanded significantly during the last administration." "For instance, in just 18 months the Biden administration issued 3,000 new pages of regulations for users of the temporary H-2A visa program," he said, referencing changes made by the Department of Labor in 2024. That, he said, has been "jeopardizing the ability of farm and ranch families to sustain the enterprise but also jeopardizing the safety and security of our people." For the consumer, the struggles of American farmers in 2025 are beyond simply a rural community crisis and carry direct repercussions at the checkout line and dinner table. "When our farmers face persistent challenges, the broader consequences can include higher food prices, fewer choices at the grocery store and reduced access to the variety and quality of food Americans have come to expect," California Farm Bureau President Shannon Douglass told Newsweek. "In the long run, it could also weaken our domestic food supply and make the U.S. more reliant on imports." For farmers, the impacts could be even more dire. "We as Black farmers are facing extinction!" said Boyd, adding that this group has "never really benefited" from the billions in subsidies paid annually by the government. The sweeping tax and spending package signed into law by Trump on July 4 frees up significant funds to support America's farmers. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" will continue commodities programs and boosts subsidies for farmers by an estimated $66.4 billion over 10 years. While a lifeline for many, analysis has shown that these benefits will be unevenly distributed, depending on the type of crops are grown, with larger farms and those in the South expected to reap the greatest benefits. "It fails to offer any meaningful support for independent farmers-who face increasing challenges from low prices, trade wars and the climate crisis-and the communities they feed," was the response of the National Family Farm Coalition, a nonprofit that advocates for small- and medium-scale family farmers and fishing communities. And to others, while subsidy programs are a step in the right direction, they fall short of addressing the structural issues plaguing U.S. agriculture. "There are provisions included in the Big Beautiful Bill that benefit farmers and ranchers," the California Farm Bureau said. "However, a comprehensive farm bill is still needed." Newsweek has reached out to the Department of Agriculture via email for comment. Related Articles Agriculture Secretary Brooke L. Rollins: A Common-Sense Plan to Strengthen America's Food Safety | OpinionTrump's Plan To Combat Bird Flu Will Ensure More Bird Flu | OpinionWoman Speechless at 'Huge' Egg Laid by Chicken-Then Sees What's InsideTrump Pressures California to Reroute Water to Farms, Cities 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Miami Herald
34 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Smithsonian Issues Update on Trump's Impeachment Exhibit Controversy
The Smithsonian National Museum of American History on Saturday released a statement on its website announcing that it would reinstall President Donald Trump to its exhibit about impeachments, saying that it never intended his removal to be temporary. Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment by email outside of normal business hours on Saturday evening. The museum removed references to Trump's two impeachments from its exhibit on presidential impeachments last month, igniting a debate about historical accuracy and political influence in public institutions. The controversy centered on "The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden" exhibit, which included a temporary label about Trump's impeachments that was added in September 2021. Trump remains the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice. During his second administration, Trump has influenced the museum, which is independent of the government but receives funding from Congress. In March, he signed an executive order to eliminate "anti-American ideology" in the museum and to "restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness." The Smithsonian confirmed the temporary label remained in place until July before being removed during a review of legacy content. In a statement posted to the museum's website, the Smithsonian said the placard "did not meet the museum's standards in appearance, location, timeline and overall presentation." "It was not consistent with other sections in the exhibit and moreover blocked the view of the objects inside its case," the statement continued. "For these reasons, we removed the placard. We were not asked by any Administration or other government official to remove content from the exhibit." The museum assured that the exhibit in the coming weeks would see its impeachment section updated to reflect "all impeachment proceedings in our nation's history." "As the keeper of memory for the nation, it is our privilege and responsibility to tell accurate and complete histories," the museum wrote. The decision to remove the placard stoked concerns in the public about possible government interference, the shaping of public memory, and the integrity of historical curation at America's most prominent museum complex. A Smithsonian spokesperson previously told Newsweek: "In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the 'Limits of Presidential Power' section in The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden exhibition needed to be addressed. The section of this exhibition covers Congress, The Supreme Court, Impeachment, and Public Opinion. Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance. Trump faced two impeachment efforts by Democrats during his first administration: First on December 18, 2019, and then again on January 13, 2021 - just one week before he left office. He was ultimately acquitted both times. The first impeachment charged Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over his dealings with Ukraine. Both articles passed the House with no support from any Republicans, and some Democrats split from the party. The second effort occurred following the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, with some Republicans in the House - most notably Liz Cheney - breaking from the party and supporting the effort to impeach. What People Are Saying Political analyst Jeff Greenfield wrote on X: "Orwellian is a much-overused phrase; but forcing the Smithsonian to erase the fact of Trump's impeachments is right out of 1984. Did they drop that stuff down the memory hole?" Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, posted images of media coverage about Trump's impeachments on X, writing: "This is what Donald Trump wants you to forget. American never will." Former GOP Congressman and Trump critic Joe Walsh called the Post's report on X: "Despicable. Reprehensible. Dishonest. Cowardly. Trump's 2 impeachments are historical facts. They are both part of American history. He's using the powers of his office to try to rewrite history. I'm done saying 'shame on him.' Shame on us for electing him." A White House spokesperson told NPR: "We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness. The Trump administration will continue working to ensure that the Smithsonian removes all improper ideology and once again unites and instills pride in all Americans regarding our great history." The Smithsonian acknowledged the need for a comprehensive update of its presidential impeachment exhibit. The institution stated the impeachment section will be revised in the coming weeks to "ensure it accurately represents all historical impeachment proceedings." No specific timetable was provided for when Trump's impeachments or other new content will be permanently reintroduced. Related Articles Removal of Trump From Smithsonian Impeachment Exhibit Sparks OutrageTiny Flying Reptile Found in Arizona Fills 200-Million-Year Evolutionary GapWho Is Kim Sajet? Donald Trump Fires National Portrait Gallery DirectorHistory-Making Carl Nassib Reflects as His Jersey Heads to the Smithsonian 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Time Business News
2 hours ago
- Time Business News
Digital Footprints as Evidence: How Online Activity Can Shape Court Cases
The intersection of digital technology and courtroom proceedings has reached a critical juncture, with legal experts warning that Americans' online behaviors are increasingly becoming their own worst enemies in litigation. Recent comprehensive analysis by The Texas Law Dog reveals a startling reality: your digital presence may be silently sabotaging your legal rights, regardless of how secure you believe your privacy settings to be. Legal professionals are witnessing an unprecedented shift in how evidence is gathered and presented in courtrooms across America. What many citizens fail to recognize is that every click, post, and digital interaction creates a permanent record that can be legally accessed and weaponized against them during litigation proceedings. The scope of this phenomenon extends far beyond what most individuals anticipate. Research tracking digital evidence usage across major social media platforms including Facebook, LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok has uncovered compelling statistics that should concern every internet user. Data analysis spanning from fall 2022 through fall 2023 demonstrates that digital evidence played a decisive role in approximately half a million legal cases, fundamentally altering trial outcomes and settlement negotiations. A dangerous misconception pervades public understanding of digital privacy. Many users operate under the false assumption that privacy controls on social media platforms provide legal protection against evidence discovery. This belief has proven catastrophically wrong in countless courtrooms nationwide. Federal courts have established clear precedent regarding digital evidence admissibility. Under established Federal Rules of Evidence, judges consistently rule that relevant social media content qualifies as legitimate evidence, regardless of privacy settings or user intentions when posting. The American Bar Association has documented the systematic approach courts use to authenticate digital evidence, noting that social media posts present unique verification challenges compared to traditional electronic communications like emails or text messages. The authentication process requires courts to examine multiple factors, including potential account access by third parties, the possibility of planted evidence, and the overall reliability of the digital platform. However, once authenticated, this evidence carries substantial weight in judicial proceedings. The practical implications of digital evidence have been demonstrated through numerous high-profile legal cases that serve as cautionary tales for social media users. In the landmark case Romano v. Steelcase Inc. , a plaintiff's claims of permanent, home-confining injuries were completely undermined when defense attorneys successfully obtained access to her supposedly private Facebook and MySpace accounts. The content revealed activities and lifestyle patterns that directly contradicted her sworn testimony about physical limitations. Similarly, the Nucci v. Target Corp. case illustrates how seemingly innocent social media activity can destroy a legal claim. The plaintiff, who sued for significant injuries and emotional trauma following a slip-and-fall incident, was compelled by the court to provide recent Facebook photographs. These images revealed a lifestyle inconsistent with her claimed injuries and emotional distress, ultimately weakening her case and reducing potential compensation. Insurance companies have rapidly adapted to this new evidentiary landscape, deploying sophisticated digital investigation techniques to challenge claims. Adjusters now routinely scour social media platforms for content that contradicts injury claims, seeking evidence of physical activities that appear inconsistent with alleged limitations or emotional states that don't align with claimed psychological distress. This systematic approach to digital evidence gathering has fundamentally shifted the power dynamic in personal injury litigation. What previously required expensive private investigators and extensive surveillance can now be accomplished through comprehensive social media analysis, making it easier and more cost-effective for insurance companies to challenge legitimate claims. Given this evolving legal landscape, individuals must approach their online presence with the same caution they would exercise when giving sworn testimony. Every post, photograph, and interaction should be evaluated through the lens of potential legal scrutiny. Legal experts recommend implementing comprehensive digital hygiene practices, including regular privacy audits, careful consideration of all posted content, and understanding that deletion doesn't guarantee permanent removal. The key is recognizing that your digital footprint extends far beyond your immediate social circle and can be accessed by opposing legal teams with proper court authorization. As Matt Aulsbrook from The Texas Law Dog emphasizes, 'The digital age has fundamentally changed how legal cases are won and lost. Understanding the permanent nature of online activity and its potential legal implications isn't just advisable—it's essential for protecting your rights and ensuring fair legal outcomes.' The message is clear: in today's interconnected world, your smartphone screen might as well be a courtroom window, and every post could become evidence in ways you never imagined. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
