<p>Given the tremendous negative image and loss of reputation Thailand has engendered over the last five or six years arising from vigorous prosecution of lese majest&eacute; cases and cases under the Computer&nbsp; Crime Act, it seems behooving to the state and government to at least clean up the lese majest&eacute; act so as to resemble, in international public opinion and in conformance with international agreements Thailand has already signed, a more civilized process.</p>

<p>Thailand&rsquo;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?</p>

<p>A little clarification is requested from the techies and legal eagles out there familiar with not just the contemporary legal issues of online content, but familiar with what it really is.</p>

<p>Hate speech used to be a compound noun meaning, according to Wikipedia, &ldquo;Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.</p>

<p>The multitude of criminal defamation and lese majest&eacute; cases that has arisen in Thailand over the last few years, insofar as such cases apply to accused American persons, possibly represent clear and present danger to American persons who are by law and convention protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the Untied States. Whether the 2010 Speech Act does or can add further protection and recourse to counter initiatives against states and persons seen as infringing on First Amendment rights remains an unanswered question.</p>

<p>On 24 March 2011, Frank G Anderson phoned the office of the prosecutor at Rachadaphisek to inquire re. status of a criminal defamation case filed against him by Pol Col Wattanasak Mungkijkarndee, a close associate of UK national Akbar Khan who had earlier filed an identical allegation with police. </p>

<p>On 16 December 2010, Royal Thai Police Lt. Samaporn of the Phaholyothin police station called Frank G Anderson to set up a date for Anderson to appear at the station to be accompanied to the prosecutor's office. The visit is necessitated by Thai pol. Col. Wattanasak, friend of UK national Akbar khan who also filed criminal defamation charges against Anderson, who claims to have been insulted by remarks Anderson posted on his website www.thekoratpost.com</p>

<p>On 29 November 2010, a representative of Frank G Anderson appeared as scheduled at Rachadaphisek Criminal Court, Prosecutor&rsquo;s office Section 7, to listen to progress being made in a criminal defamation case filed against Anderson by UK national Akbar Khan, formerly a member of the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand.</p>

<p>(23 March) - Reporters Without Borders welcomes the complaint that online journalist Frank G. Anderson filed criminal charges on 20 March against two men who have accused him of defaming them in online articles about the l&egrave;se majest&eacute; charges they have had brought against many Thai citizens. As far as we know, this is the first time that a journalist has countersued in response to l&egrave;se majest&eacute;-linked charges.</p>

<p>Frank G Anderson, an American expat in Nakhon Ratchasima and the editor of the Korat Post, has been sued for what he wrote on his website in Dec 2008 about Pol Lt Col Watthanasak's legal actions against people who he deemed guilty of the crime of l&egrave;se majest&eacute;.</p>