US Citizen Visiting Thailand Arrested For Blog Posting 456
societyofrobots writes "A US citizen, upon visiting Thailand for medical treatment, was arrested for lese majeste (insulting the king) and computer crimes ('entering false information into a computer system'). He is charged for posting a link on his blog to a banned book, The King Never Smiles, and for translating excerpts of it. He made the posting four years ago in 2007, while in the US. Trials for lese majeste are traditionally held in secret, for reasons of 'national security'. AFP has more information."
"lese majeste" (Score:5, Insightful)
Latin for "law that let's us put whoever the fuck we want in jail"
Re:"lese majeste" (Score:5, Interesting)
Even the king himself has been censored under these rules. He gave his blessing to a biography that was later banned for insulting the king.
He's also against these rules and has sworn to pardon anyone tried under these rules, so we can at least hope the US guy gets off scot-free.
Re:"lese majeste" (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with Thailand is that the king himself has spoken out about the use of les majeste against the population, but the political parties ignore him. The king claimed (before he became as ill as he is now) that anyone can comment on the family, just not be abusive about it.
There's a bigger problem brewing though. When the king dies, which won't be far off judging by his health, the crown prince will take over. This guy is an idiot, thinks he's some sort of playboy. He is the total opposite of what a Thai royal should be, so there will be a lot of anger against the crown. The only thing that keeps Thailand together at this stage is the current king, so it will be interesting where this goes.
As for this American guy, well, he shouldn't have gone to Thailand if he's going to be linking banned books and posting excerpts. There's enough information on how Thailand's authorities view both the book and it's claims. Feeling sorry for him is like feeling sorry for the drug smugglers in a Bali prison, they knew the laws of the country, and if not, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.
Re:"lese majeste" (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless the Thai authorities are way ahead of the game, they must have about a zillion other cases that they could be taking an interest in(or local troublemakers they feel like beating down, it isn't stability city over there), rather than some random Yank who said something mean four years ago, and (seeing as he went there for treatment) will either be leaving when recovered or going out the back door, depending on what he is being treated for. He seems like a low-priority case.
Is this just a matter of some google-using authoritarian jackoff justifying his job by bring cases, no matter how cold and irrelevant, or is the american in question of interest for some other reason(suspected enthusiasm for underage ladyboys, dubiously ethical business dealings, meddling in local revolutionary politics, or something) and this is just the easiest way to bring him in?
Re:"lese majeste" (Score:4, Insightful)
To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely no problem applying my standards(some of which are, albeit imperfectly, reasonably close to qualifying as "American") to another culture. If the Thais wish to be self restrained, I wish them all the best. If they wish to restrain the speech of those who they don't think are self restrained enough, fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
The world over, I respect the right of people to respect whatever they fancy(though I agree with some and mock others for doing so, depending on what they chose). However, I nowhere respect the right of anybody to compel others to display 'respect' for their chosen object, whether it be the flag, the nation, the monarch, the god, the literary masterpiece. If this makes me an insensitive, cultural-imperialist prick, so be it. At least I'm an equal-opportunity bigot.
Re:"lese majeste" (Score:5, Informative)
The 4th Amendment, for example [wired.com].
Re: (Score:3)
"The Supreme Court has determined that brief investigative encontuers do not constitute a serach or seizure."
Just because the SCOTUS claims that some law is not unconstitutional does not mean that it actually isn't.
Even historically, SCOTUS overruled its own cases decided in the past (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson) - and a law cannot be constitutional yesterday and then unconstitutional today, it's either that or the other - so when they rule differently from the past, they acknowledge that old understanding was a mistake.
Furthermore, so far as I know, SCOTUS didn't rule on the legality of these particular checkpoints -
Re: (Score:3)
he SCOTUS doesn't "claim", it decides. If it says it says something is constitutional, it is. Period.
The SCOTUS can say that black is white and pi is exactly 3, but it doesn't make it so. Constitution is written in English, and most of its provisions are fairly straightforward. An interpretation of them which directly contravenes the semantical meaning and/or the laws of logic is not legitimate regardless of who delivers it. E.g., even if Jesus himself descends from heavens tomorrow, and says that the 1st does not protect your freedom of political speech, that wouldn't make it true.
Any attempts to change t
Re: (Score:3)
It's not the article that claims 100 mile zone, it's the DHS - if you have an issue with the number, take it up with them. One particular case mentioned in the article happened within that zone and closer than 100 miles. Others have happened further away - there is one case specifically documented at 40 miles. JFGI.
In any case, most of San Diego is still not "the border" under any sane definiton. The border is that fenced area which says "border" on it [wikipedia.org], or checkpoints in said area, or airports and other poi
Re:"lese majeste" (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know.. The whole warrant-less spying of American citizens? [newyorker.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Can you backup this statement with any facts showing where US citizens have lost their freedoms
"The United States of America has an incarceration rate of 743 per 100,000 of national population (as of 2009), the highest in the world.[2] In comparison, Russia has the second highest 577 per 100,000"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate [wikipedia.org]
Most of that incarceration rate has resulted from citizens choosing to use a commonly available and relatively harmless herb for their own enjoyment.
Re:"lese majeste" (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with Thailand is that the king himself has spoken out about the use of les majeste against the population, but the political parties ignore him. The king claimed (before he became as ill as he is now) that anyone can comment on the family, just not be abusive about it.
Don't be so fucking naive.
The political parties doesn't ignore him. He's not the Queen of England and he has a traditional influence in Thai politics and has interfered in public life since he's come to power. The lese majeste laws are useful to him, so he keeps it around. He just pardons expats or minor abuses so he can pose as a nice guy. When it's useful, you're fucking going to be judged in secret and then will be DEAD.
King Bhumibol Adulyadej is an ASSHOLE. Let's put the truth out there!
Bhumibol ascended the throne following the death by gun-shot wound of his brother, King Ananda Mahidol, on 9 June 1946 in mysterious circumstances, prompting suggestions that Bhumibol had been involved in or responsible for his death.
That evening, Sarit Dhanarajata seized power, and two hours later Bhumibol imposed martial law throughout the Kingdom.[33] Bhumibol issued a Royal Command appointing Sarit as "Military Defender of the Capital" without anyone countersigning this Royal Command.
Bhumibol retains enormous powers, partly because of his immense popularity and partly because his powers - although clearly defined in the Thai constitution - are often subject to conflicting interpretations. This was highlighted by the controversy surrounding the appointment of Jaruvan Maintaka as Auditor-General. Jaruvavn had been appointed by The State Audit Commission. However, the Constitutional Court ruled in July 2004 that her appointment was unconstitutional. Jaruvan refused to vacate her office without an explicit order from Bhumibol, on the grounds that she had previously been royally approved. When the Senate elected a replacement for Jaruvan, Bhumibol refused to approve him.[75] The Senate declined to vote to override Bhumibol's veto.[76] Finally in February 2006 the Audit Commission reinstated Jaruvan when it became clear from a memo from the Office of the King's Principal Private Secretary that King Bhumibol supported her appointment.
He's the effective ruler of Thailand, he plays around with the military coups to keep his power (Thailand has a military coup every other day) and he likes the fucking lese majeste laws.
Stop with this the King is a nice guy propaganda bullshit. The Thai might like to have a dictator in power and that's their problem but he's not a powerless king that loves his people. He's a politician like every other.
Re: (Score:3)
You'd be deluded if you thought otherwise.
As someone who has quite intimate knowledge of SE Asia (growing up there and my father still lives in Thailand), I can assure you that the king is a very important person. Not for power, but for the rubber stamp. It's how all the coups have happened. The king gives tacit support, the military takes over. Otherwise they are too scared of the people.
The king is an important part of people's lives, he is a symbol of tradition, history, and ancestors. To go against the
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No. He did that years ago, in the US, and he's a US citizen. Translating part of a book shouldn't ban you fro
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"He did that years ago, in the US, and he's a US citizen. Translating part of a book shouldn't ban you from a country forever."
Yeah, and I'm sure US will be really happy to let you in if they'd known you're been translating and promoting "terrorist" and anti-US books before.
He is lucky it was the authorities who catched him. If he was going around talking bullshit about the king there would had been a really good change the locals would have seriously kicked his ass or even beat him up so much that he dies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He is lucky it was the authorities who catched him. If he was going around talking bullshit about the king there would had been a really good change the locals would have seriously kicked his ass or even beat him up so much that he dies.
You're still missing the point. He didn't say or publish anything offensive about Thai king while in Thailand. His "crime" was committed at a different time, long ago, and entirely outside the borders of Thailand, nor did it involve citizens of Thailand. Any claims of jurisdiction in such a case are pure bullshit. For that matter, how was he supposed to know back then that something he did was against the law somewhere else in the world? Are you sure that you've never committed a crime in some country you'v
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to head to Bumrungrad for medical treatment, then you should not be stupid about the implications of what you say. There should be some level of statute of limitations, but I would vote for a backstory here.
On a side note, RIP Charlie, of Scuba Junction, son of Sang Tip, the king of Koh Tao. 1997ish to today.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Translating a book shouldn't ban you from a country forever. Posting a comment on slashdot shouldn't sentence you to death.
Re: (Score:2)
No offense, but if you happen to publish some nice leaks from US that make it look bad, and then are dumb enough to step on US soil, you won't even get a trial.
You'll just vanish, and maybe a few years later you'll be found nicely brainwashed in Egypt, or where ever it is that USA outsources torture nowadays after Mubarak's flashy exit. If you're lucky, you'll just get shot and no one will ever find the body. It's not like we don't have precedent on these things you know.
Different countries have different t
Re: (Score:3)
That argument might hold more weight if the US behaved as if it's laws stopped at it's borders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current Thai king isn't like say european kings, good or bad kings they come and go with a bit of scandal and that is all. In Thailand it's more like:
Deity
|
King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People
Rest of world:
Deity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
King
|
People
I really hope that country doesn't go to hell because the people there are very nice, very friendly. A lot of people to fool money out of tourists, but very little violence, robberies and other shit you get in many poor countries. And they try to keep foreigners out of their own problems, even whe
Re: (Score:2)
We'd all be a lot better off if we take an axe to that first layer.
Re: (Score:3)
The accused was born and grew up in Thailand so yeah, he did know what he was doing. And he didn't just link to a book, he also translated an article that violated the law.
Agree with the law or not but it's their law and once you are in their country they can enforce it any way they want. He should have known better than to go back. Just like Julian Assange knows better than to go to the U.S.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
America has one of these. It let's the president claim _anyone_ including a citizen is an enemy combatant and whisk them away to gitmo without representation or a trial or any other rights granted to a citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Thailand, you insensitive clod!
Thanks to you I'm going to jail too.
I have this important message (Score:3, Insightful)
The king of Thailand is a dirty bastard who fucked a chicken. On multiple occasions. In the ass.
Re: (Score:3)
So it's like a steady thing? (Score:3)
So his majesty is like... going steady with this... chicken? I confess I have a hard time believing the old man would do this. Now if we're talking about the crown prince...
Re: (Score:3)
The King of Thailand absolutely loves découpage
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh, kinky...
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, not everybody who posts here bothers to have an account. The hating on AC thing is retarded.
Easy enough to sign with plain text. I'm off to Thailand in 3 weeks, and like other dodgy countries I've visited this year (Egypt, Pakistan, USA, China, Israel Afghanistan), I'm careful about what I say, even on the internet. Twitter is rolling over to the UK over super injunctions and even just normal defamation. At least with something as comical as mentioning Ryan Giggs you know it would be laughed out of a British court, but it's worrying non-the-less. I'm not going to take that risk with a Thai court,
._. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why you research the laws of the place you are visiting before you make the actual visit.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Absolutely. That's why I avoid the U.S.
Note to self: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Note to self: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Aha! Somalia! Absolutely no censorship, if only because there's no real government to enforce it. And they apparently have pretty good comms, compared to most of that continent. I'll just pack some self-defense gear (is it possible to buy a Mk 19 on the civilian market?), and telecommute to work. Hell, the way outsourcing is going...
jurisdiction? (Score:2)
I take it places like that assume their laws apply globally?
Wonder what kind of an argument that would make in a real court there, bringing up a scenario where someone from Thailand had an affair while in Thailand and then flew to somewhere in the middle east where that was a capital offense, and got arrested at risk of execution?
But then it's a "secret trial" which usually translates to a "mock trial". I'd expect those trials have a 99.999% conviction rate. I wonder why they bother with them? it's not l
Re:jurisdiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
"places like that"?
Like the US? India? UK? All countries currently trying to extract (or recently did) people for committing a crime that didn't break any local laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. This is a good and relevant story that needs more attention. When people in the US are routinely indignant, offended, upset or even outraged by this sort of behavior of other governments, we then need to point to our own US government which has done similar and even worse things quite recently.
There is a lot of "people don't want to believe we are bad" going on here which shows us more of people being blinded to the facts by belief. Hell, I still want to believe that the US is "the good guys."
Re: (Score:2)
There is a lot of "people don't want to believe we are bad" going on here which shows us more of people being blinded to the facts by belief.
I finished reading this [bestrussianbuy.com] (a text, not the audio book) just yesterday. It's quite on topic.
Spoiler alert or not, the story is pretty sad. A common guy from the modern world magically, against his wish, ends up being a "Dark Lord" in a magical land. However he is a "Dark Lord" in name only - he is not doing anything bad at all, and he is maintaining his kingdom as we
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, can you cite any examples?
Who is the US trying to extradite for someone committing a crime outside US borders that was legal where the act was performed?
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
He was on US soil when he distributed the information. And the DCMA does say it is illegal to circumvent copyright protection for any reason. While I disagree with the law, it is a law. So he broke the law of a country while currently in that country.
He was arrested, but released.
That in no way is an example of the United States seeking extradition for someone who never broke a law on US soil.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. As much bitter hatred as you may harbor for the US, there's simply no comparison between shit like this, and the charges against Roman Polanski, or whoever you happen to be referring to. There are such things as just and unjust laws. It is when unjust laws are applied that people get upset.
Re: (Score:2)
Which was of course an injustice. But give the US some credit; he was released, and the company he worked for was acquitted of any wrongdoing.
Re: (Score:2)
Has the United States filed a single charge against Assange? Oh wait, they've haven't.
And the difference between these two situations is that one person translated a book. The other encouraged people to steal and leak military secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
I can declare war on the United States too, observe:
"I, mobby_6kl, declare war on the United States of America, for seriously pissing me off on several occasions, effective immediately".
I'm also responsible for planning and financing 911, sinking of the Titanic, assassination of JFK, the Lockerbie bombing, WWI, WWII, the Cuban missile crisis, and the black plague. Also the Zodiac murders.
So what now, are you going to send helicopters with a bunch of goons to violate the airspace of the country I live in, an
Thai Citizenship (Score:4, Funny)
It seems this guy was a Thai immigrant who earned US Citizenship.
However, he might still hold Thai Citizenship, and in that event, the guy will have no US Protections
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on whether he entered Thailand with his US or Thai passport. If he goes in with his US passport, he's afford all the protections that any other US citizen can and should expect from Thailand (which could be none at all--it depends on the country's laws and treaties). If he uses his Thai passport (assuming he still has it), he's SOL.
Re: (Score:3)
Not so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Nationality_Rule [wikipedia.org]
Born in Thailand (Score:2)
This man was born in Thailand, and was treated as Thai citizen. Why on Earth would this idiot expect that also having a US passport would automatically exempt him from Thai laws (no matter how stupid and repressive they are) that other Thai citizens are subjected, when we was on Thai soil?
Consider the case of Iranian Canadian Hossein_Derakhshan who was thrown in jail because he visited Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Derakhshan [wikipedia.org]
At least in
Re: (Score:2)
"Human rights" is currently a code word for "puppet government loyal to US". As long as this is the case, I suggest keeping your human rights initiatives WITHIN your own country.
Re: (Score:2)
Pressure needs to be applied globally to force *ALL* countries to support human rights, privacy, freedom of speech + movement, etc.!
Encourage? Yes. Lead by example? Yes. Assist with revolution? Yes. Force to change? No. It is up to the people of a sovereign country to decide what they want their country to be. It is not the place of another country to impose their views and morality on another country. That is merely war by another means.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would any one not expect the laws of the country they're in to apply to them?
You travel, you look for a summary of the local laws and customs before you go; or you take your chance at either offending people that would otherwise help you, or getting thrown in jail or beheaded.
You get caught smuggling banned substances into Australia? Jail. Most anywhere in South-East Asia? Death. If you're unwilling to Google, call a travel hotline, or ask your government, you deserve everything you get.
Screw anyone who dismissed privacy. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Enemy Combatant/Lone Wolf (Score:3)
If the US can do it so can everyone else.
Oh Yeah, USA, Bastion of freedom of speech (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because as we know, Mr. Assange was charged with crimes carrying a life sentence. Oh, wait, he wasn't charged with anything. A bunch of right-wing fascists called for his murder, but they do that to anyone who looks at them wrong.
Plus ça change... (Score:2)
Read Pepys' Diary for the 17th August 1666 [pepysdiary.com], where he quotes a friend describing the King of Siam out hunting, and the European visitors not knowing they should fall on their faces as he passed..."Their druggerman did desire them to fall down, for otherwise he should suffer for their contempt of the King." At the end of the hunt, the dragoman told the King's emissary how much the foreigners liked it, which was quite untrue; but no matter, said the dragoman, "for our King do not l
Monarchy is an abomination. (Score:2)
"A hereditary monarch, observed Thomas Paine, is as absurd a proposition as a hereditary doctor or mathematician."
The most common use of such figureheads is to put the sheen of legitimacy on of those who take power in their names; there are times when this is the figurehead themselves and then there are those times when the figurehead is merely a puppet or even a religious symbol. In all cases that I'm aware of it's merely an excuse for man to dominate his fellow man... when no real reason to do so exists.
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate your thoughtful comment and at one time I believed the same of constitutional monarchies a la the U.K. But I would submit that even in this form monarchy is more vestigial part of governance than a necessary one.
For many years in the United States we were able to criticize the President while maintaining our patriotic fervor by standing true to the enlightenment era ideals that were the justification for our becoming a nation. We could look to our Declaration of Independence, which set out th
hark, what's that i hear? (Score:2)
How about a car analogy? (Score:2)
Is the king allowed to use self-depricating humor? If not, would a show on NPR centered on discussions about cars be illegal in Thailand if hosted by the king?
Fuck the monarchy (Score:2)
I fart in king Bhumibol's general direction. His mother was a binturong and his father smelt of durians.
Also, DUPE!
Where is the ladyboy commenter? (Score:3)
How can we have a story on Thailand and the guy who puts the term 'ladyboy' in every comment hasn't posted?
Priorities (Score:3)
In UK you can go to Jail for insultn a Footballer (Score:3)
Blog about a certain UK Footballer had an affair with a certain Model and you can go to Jail..
Still Think you live in a "Free Country" ?
Re:dumb fuck (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Is anyone else absolutely sick of sensationalized headlines?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except it looks like he made the post 4 years ago while in the United States. Just making a critical statement about a country then getting arrested for it years down the road while visiting isn't a very good precedent. I'm sure since this guy is a US citizen, the State Department will work something out though.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that is what the statute of limitations is for.
Re: (Score:3)
You can be sure if Julian Assange visited the US now he'd be arrested and charged with breaking US laws(or at least pissing off powerful members of the US government which is basically the same thing) despite being in a different country at the time and not being a US citizen.
because ultimately "patriots" tend to believe that since their own country is the best it's laws are the best and since it's laws are the best they should apply to everyone, everywhere, always and it's only a matter of if you can get h
Re: (Score:3)
since their own country is the best it's laws are the best and since it's laws are the best they should apply to everyone, everywhere, always and it's only a matter of if you can get hold of people to punish them
However, I find that these sorts of people pick and choose which of their laws actually 'count' when it comes to themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is not really a fad started by someone. Anyway, personally I always try to do so whatever possible, but know in the real world that it is not always possible.
Re: (Score:2)
And that there are many reasons why. Some of the problems can be easily fixed of course (for example the move to PR 2.0 fix a lot of the problems relating to companies), some not so easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, disclaimers stating this is not the official opinion of the company dates back to the Usenet days.
Re:AFP (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. The rest of us know it stands for Agence France Presse.
Re: (Score:3)
He obeyed local laws. What he failed to do was to obey the local laws of a country he wasn't in at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
If as they say he had Thai citizenship it doesn't matter, then Thailand can pass extraterritorial laws over him. That is for example how child sex tourism laws works, you can be tried and convicted in your home country even if you complied with local law of the country you were visiting. Now you may disagree with this particular law, but the principle that countries can pass laws over their own citizens that apply outside their own borders is well established.
Re: (Score:2)
He wasn't abroad, he was at home. He posted that while in the U.S., the country in which he resides and is a citizen.
Re:Obey local laws (Score:4, Interesting)
Since he chose to remain a citizen of Thailand, all the laws of Thailand still applies to him, regardless of where he resides. That's the burden of dual citizenship. If you chose to swear allegiance to two countries, then you must abide by the laws of both.
Re: (Score:2)
... or like making a PDF decryption system while living outside the US, and then get arrested for it when visiting the US?
Or what would happen to Julian Assange if he ever set foot on US soil? Pretty much the same thing as this guy, I bet -- a quick arrest, and a certainty that any trial would be far from fair. Assange didn't insult Bumbledore, but American generals and politicians, but the indignation about being exposed and resulting power abuse would be the same.
Once we in the US stop applying our laws
Re: (Score:2)
What is your grounds for your assertion? That if you piss off the US government, you'll disappear and won't get a fair trail?
Ahmadinejad has openly called for the death of all Jews, and has several times over again pissed off the US government. Ships from Iran have also broken international law, and tried provoking the US. And still, Ahmadinejad was free to step foot on US soil, speak at Columbia, and then travel home safely.
Re: (Score:2)
Threatening the president of the United States, such as saying "I'm going to kick your ass, President" counts as a class D felony under US Code.
Considering that 9% of those who reached that office were assassinated while in power, I think this is not a totally injudicious law.
Insulting the POTUS, however, is not a felony, feel free to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
You can insult the president all you like(in practice, even in situations where private citizens or celebrities might reach for the libel suit, presidents don't seem to bother), you just can't threaten to kill, injure, or kidnap him. Even then, because of the first amendment concerns, the secret service typically ignor
Re: (Score:2)
You can insult the president all you like(in practice, even in situations where private citizens or celebrities might reach for the libel suit, presidents don't seem to bother)
As a matter of fact, public officials are specifically exempted from protection against libel and slander. If they weren't, the American political scene would look very, very different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LEFT THE US FOR THAILAND. I think that's a bit more of a news story, that the US health care system is so bad that he has to fly to Thailand to get treated.
That's not unusual at all. Plenty of people who immigrated to US, go to their countries of origin for medical treatment. Unless it's something urgent, or a treatment that is only available in US, it's almost always cheaper with the same level of quality.
Re:This Just In: Not All Countries Have Are Free (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
He was getting treated for impotence with the customary "dried tiger balls necklace" and ground rhinoceros horn.
Re: (Score:2)
In US terms, it is equivalent to insulting the Flag and the Constitution.
Note that while those things are protected today, there are plenty of politicians in office in America today who think it should still be made a crime to burn the US flag. All they really have to do is manage to get it classified as "obscene" and all those First Amendment protections will dissolve right away. Freedom is a r
Re: (Score:3)
Later, he traveled to Thailand for a medial procedure (wtf can he get done in Thailand that he can't get done in the US, maybe a brain transplant?).
Medical treatments are quite often more advanced outside the US. The reason is that here in the US, the medical system is driven by insurance companies, who will not allow new methods to be used until they have been proven reliable to a degree that mitigates any monetary risk for malpractice lawsuits. In other words, they wait and see how it goes in the rest of the world.
Take Lasik surgery as an example. The Soviet Union was doing laser vision correction on a regular basis in the 1980s, and most of the w
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever you've been smoking, it's GOT to be illegal ...