Thailand’s long arm of the law is long indeed. The kindgom claims jurisdiction over speech and acts of all world citizens - conducted within their own countries or not, despite claimed legitimacy based on the need to protect revered institutions and national security, cuts to the very heart of national sovereignty vs. national right of universal prosecution against those who are domestically viewed as in violation of national laws. Confusion rightfully set in as to what then is domestic, what is global? Does Thailand have global jurisdiction and in a sense, global sovereignty over speech and acts it does not approve of, whether online or in any other media?

If its ability to make the claim rests solely on its current ability to detain, interrogate, arrest, sentence and imprison anyone in the world once they step on Thai soil, in a sense the answer to the question is, “Yes.” However, in the greater scheme of things, Thailand – despite its traditional reluctance to be accountable for wrongdoing – is answerable to international law for its conduct on the one hand, and failure of conduct on the other.

Because of inculcated preconceptions on what is good for the country and what is not – many of which are sheer fabrication and lies, and fanciful delusions – and forcible retention of these preconceptions in all levels of the Thai sociopolitical infrastructure, Thailand has been permitted to overstep its legitimacy and enforce its value systems on individuals, agencies, and even the foreign policy of major powers. No meaningful challenge to Thailand’s spurious international sovereignty claims have been made to date.

Anthony Chai’s case, and to a different extent that of Joe Gordon, is in one sense such a challenge. It gets the fact of Thailand’s intentional reaching into the corridors of American freedom, and that of its neighbor Canada, to identify originators of opinion different from its own and to set up circumstances where the originator can be identified, apprehended and punished. All of this over and above such things as the Constitution of the United States and other applicable laws that not only permit but encourage meaningful criticism of important institutions, individuals, concepts, acts, policies and speech.

The 2008 liberal terrorism law known as Rachel’s Law, and the subsequent 2010 Speech Act signed into law by President Obama were designed to protect American persons from enforcement of foreign defamation/libel suits. Yet, beyond the protection offered is perhaps a more fundamental concept that needs to be emphasized and protected through national policies and international law – that of making it clear who runs a domestic government and who overseas the civil and criminal law of the nation. In Thailand’s instance does it hold a mandate over Americans in regard to speech and media publication? If so, is this not the same principle as it also having a mandate over Americans in general, whether concerning traffic laws, gambling, prostitution, entertainment, local governance, etc.?

While Thailand claims jurisdiction over media produced and made available from servers in the United States and indeed, all over the world, the claim must be openly challenged – throught criminal and civil plaints and the courts - and made to appear as what it is – illegitimate foreign censorship of ideas that are important for the general public to be aware of. When Thailand is permitted to practice extraordinary jurisdiction in investigating, interrogating, forcing admissions and refusing to provide copies of such admissions, when Thailand then with impunity later arrests and prosecutes those “offenders,” surely it violates international law. Unfortunately most of our respective foreign missions have their priorities mired in commercial, financial and political interests that generally exclude human rights other than in a lip-service-type of annual report that does not lay the cards on the table.

Thailand’s current practice of extending archaic and harsh criminal defamation laws beyond its territory to extend to all corners of earth is frightening and intimidating. Our respective diplomatic missions owe us the decency to get this issue into the open and resolving it in a fair manner. As to what that is…well, Thailand does not welcome foreign interference in its domestic affairs. Is it unreasonable to first ask Thailand, and then if necessary force it, to respect foreigners’ affairs and to drop ancient attitudes that interfere with logic, undermine decency, and insult intelligence?