Paris Match

French magazine Paris Match has agreed to pay Gisèle Pelicot €40,000 in damages for invasion of privacy. Pelicot sued the magazine after it published paparazzi photographs of her in its 17th April issue (no. 3963). The settlement was confirmed on the eve of the court case, which was due to begin yesterday, and Pelicot will donate the money to charity.

Pelicot’s former husband was convicted on multiple charges last year, after systematically drugging her and allowing other men to rape her, in a case that shocked the country. Considering the trauma she went through, splashing her photo on Paris Match’s front page was clearly insensitive.

Famously, almost thirty years ago, Paris Match published an unauthorised photograph of former French president François Mitterrand on his deathbed (in its 18th January 1996 issue, no. 2434). The magazine was also censured after it printed CCTV images of a 2016 Bastille Day attack in Nice.

Privacy is generally respected by the French media, with the exception of celebrity magazines such as Paris Match, Closer, and Voici. Prince William and Kate Middleton won damages from Closer after it printed topless photos of Middleton in 2012. George and Amal Clooney sued Voici in 2017. Valerie Trierweiler sued Closer in both 2012 and 2014. Also in 2014, Julie Gayer sued Closer, and Aurelie Filippetti won damages from the magazine.

Justin Baldoni v. The New York Times

As expected, actor and director Justin Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times has been dismissed, after judge Lewis Liman concluded that the NYT’s coverage of Blake Lively’s allegations of sexual harassment against him was not biased. The judge wrote: “the Times reviewed the available evidence and reported, perhaps in a dramatized manner, what it believed to have happened. The Times had no obvious motive to favor Lively’s version of events.”

Baldoni had been seeking $250 million in libel damages from the NYT, after it published details of Lively’s complaints against him. But it reported Lively’s claims accurately, based on court documents, so Baldoni’s lawsuit was bound to fail: whether her allegations were true or not, it’s not libellous to report them. (Baldoni filed his legal action sixty years after a 1964 Supreme Court decision required proof of ‘actual malice’ in libel lawsuits against public figures, in a case that also involved the NYT.)

Justin Baldoni v. The New York Times

A high-profile celebrity lawsuit was dismissed yesterday after Blake Lively withdrew her claims of emotional distress against Justin Baldoni, her co-star in the film It Ends with Us. Lively had filed a suit against Baldoni, who also directed the film, on 20th December last year, and the document was immediately leaked to the The New York Times, which published a lengthy article about the case on its website the following day.

The article, headlined “Alleged Effort To Strike Back At Star Actress”, appeared in the NYT’s print edition on 23rd December. It included extracts from text messages sent between publicists Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan, suggesting that they were attempting to smear Lively and protect Baldoni’s reputation. One message, sent by Nathan, said: “You know we can bury anyone”. (This was used as the article’s online headline.) The article included a disclaimer that “messages have been edited for length”, and Baldoni sued the newspaper on New Year’s Eve arguing that the messages had been “stripped of necessary context and deliberately spliced to mislead”.

Lively’s claims against Baldoni, which included extensive allegations of sexual harassment, were criticised on social media, in the same way that Amber Heard’s reputation was trashed online after her allegations against Johnny Depp. Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against the NYT, seeking $250 million in damages, is unlikely to proceed to trial: on 4th March, judge Lewis Liman noted that the newspaper had demonstrated “substantial grounds for dismissal”, and that “its motion to dismiss is likely to succeed on the merits.”

SpotlightSpy in the IRA

A jury at the High Court in Dublin has awarded Gerry Adams €100,000 in damages after a month-long libel trial. Adams had sued the BBC over its documentary Spy in the IRA, in which an anonymous source — identified only by the first name Martin — accused Adams of authorising the IRA’s killing of Denis Donaldson in 2006.

In the programme, reporter Jennifer O’Leary said: “Martin believes that the shooting of Denis Donaldson was sanctioned by the man at the top of the republican movement, Gerry Adams.” When O’Leary asked Martin, “Who are you specifically referring to?”, he answered: “Gerry Adams. He gives the final say.” The programme followed this reply with a disclaimer stating that Adams insisted he “had no knowledge of, and no involvement whatsoever, in Denis Donaldson’s killing.”

Spy in the IRA, an episode in the investigative series Spotlight, was broadcast on 20th September 2016 on BBC1 in Northern Ireland, and repeated on BBC2 in Northern Ireland the following day. During the libel trial, O’Leary testified that she had corroborated Martin’s claim with five other sources — this suggests responsible, well-informed journalism, not bias. When he gave evidence at the trial, Adams denied under oath ever having been a member of the IRA, though his status as a former senior IRA leader is common knowledge among journalists and historians. (Adams has never filed libel charges against anyone accusing him of being an IRA member, and his denial in court could constitute perjury.)

It’s conceivable that some members of the jury were from generations who came of age after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, and have no personal recollection of the era known as ‘the Troubles’, during which Adams was certainly not regarded as a peacemaker. Also, it’s highly likely that Adams benefited from his decision to bring the case in the Republic of Ireland rather than Northern Ireland, to ensure a more sympathetic jury.

Another alleged former IRA member has also launched a libel suit in relation to a different unsolved murder. Marian Price is suing the makers of the TV series Say Nothing, a dramatisation of the IRA’s 1972 abduction and killing of Jean McConville. Although noone has been convicted of McConville’s murder, the drama shows her being shot by Price.

The shooting takes place in Say Nothing’s final episode, titled The People in the Dirt, directed by Michael Lennox. The episode ends with a written disclaimer stating that Price “denies any involvement in the murder of Jean McConville.” The series was released on the Hulu and Disney+ streaming services on 14th November last year.

“Publishers are not liable for honest mistakes...”

A jury has found that The New York Times did not defame Sarah Palin when it published an editorial on 14th June 2017. Palin had sued the newspaper for libel over a sentence in the editorial falsely implying that her campaign had encouraged the 2011 shooting of fellow politician Gabby Giffords: “Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

The newspaper had swiftly apologised for the editorial — “We got an important fact wrong, incorrectly linking political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Giffords” — and inserted a clarification into the online version of the article the day after its original publication: “no connection to the shooting was ever established.” The initial libel case ended on 15th February 2022, when a jury concluded that the editorial was not defamatory.

Palin appealed against that verdict, and she was granted a retrial on 28th August last year. Yesterday, the week-long retrial ended with a different jury reaching the same conclusion, that the newspaper did not intentionally defame Palin. After yesterday’s verdict, New York Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said: “The decision reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes.”

Last Week Tonight

Dr Brian Morley, former director of US private healthcare contractor AmeriHealth Caritas, has filed a $75,000 defamation lawsuit against John Oliver, host of the HBO comedy show Last Week Tonight. In a segment about Medicaid broadcast on 14th April last year, Oliver quoted Morley’s justification for reducing personal care support for a disabled man in Iowa who needed diapers: “I would allow him to be a little dirty for a couple of days.”

Morley’s lawsuit, filed on 28th March at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues that the quote was taken out of context. However, in the segment, Oliver preemptively addressed this point: “when I first heard that, I thought that has to be taken out of context. There is no way a doctor, a licenced physician, would testify in a hearing that he thinks it’s okay if people have shit on them for days. So, we got the full hearing, and I’m not going to play it for you, I’m just going to tell you: he said it, he meant it, and it made me want to punch a hole in the wall.”

Oliver then responded to Morley’s quote directly: “I guess I’d say fuck that doctor with a rusty canoe, I hope he gets tetanus of the balls. And if he has a problem with my language there, I’d say I’m allowed to be dirty. People are allowed to be a little dirty sometimes, apparently that’s doctor’s fucking orders.”

The show was previously sued for libel by Bob Murray, CEO of coal company Murray Energy, in relation to a segment broadcast on 18th June 2017. That lawsuit, filed on 10th October 2017, stated: “The statements that the plaintiffs alleged were defamatory included statements indicating that Mr. Murray had no evidence to support his assertion that an earthquake caused a mine collapse that killed nine people; a statement that Mr. Murray and Murray Energy “appear to be on the same side as black lung” and that their position on a coal dust regulation was the equivalent of rooting for bees to kill a child”.

Murray also argued that Oliver’s description of him as “a geriatric Dr Evil” was defamatory. The case was dismissed on 21st February 2018.

Alexander Wang

Fashion brand Alexander Wang released an image on social media today showing a man and woman, both skimpily dressed, with a puppy. Such imagery is common in fashion advertising, though in this campaign the models are shown being saluted by uniformed officers, making an incongruous contrast with their clothing.

The Critics

Yesterday, a female news anchor was questioned by police on charges of defamation and violation of the Computer Crime Act, following a legal complaint by a lawyer representing former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Her home was searched by more than a dozen police officers, though she has not yet been arrested.

The online news organisation The Critics published a video on 3rd January reporting on an opinion poll in which Thaksin had been voted the world’s worst leader. (The video is still online, on the Thai Move Institute’s YouTube channel.) The anchor told police that she was not the journalist who wrote the story, and had merely been reading from a script.

The news report (which is essentially clickbait) refers to a survey on the website The Top Tens. Thaksin is indeed currently listed there as the worst leader in the history of the world, with Adolf Hitler in second place, though the voting has been manipulated by Thai netizens. (Thaksin’s entry has more than 6,000 vitriolic comments, from people who apparently believe that he was worse than genocidal dictators such as Hitler.)

There are equally hyperbolic comparisons between Thaksin and Hitler in two documentaries by Ing K. In the fourth episode of her Bangkok Joyride (บางกอกจอยไรด์) series, a protester describes Thaksin as “worse than Hitler”. This echoes a quote from Ing’s Citizen Juling (พลเมืองจูหลิง): “We talk of Hitler... But villagers, all citizens nowadays fear PM Thaksin 10 times more.” (These examples are discussed in Thai Cinema Uncensored.)

During Thaksin’s premiership, he was notorious for his use of lawsuits to intimidate his critics. Pimpaka Towira’s documentary The Truth Be Told (ความจริงพูดได้), for example, examined the charges filed by Thaksin’s Shin Corp. against media campaigner Supinya Klangnarong after she was interviewed by the Thai Post (ไทยโพสต์) newspaper on 16th July 2003. (The Thai Post was also named in the writ. This case is also covered in Thai Cinema Uncensored.)

Supinya had alleged that Shin Corp. benefitted from the policies of Thaksin’s government, and therefore that his ownership of the company represented a conflict of interest. Her book about the lawsuit, พูดความจริง (‘speak the truth’), was published in 2007, after the case was dismissed.

“The biggest scandal in broadcasting history...”

Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against CBS on 31st October last year, accusing the TV network of misleading voters in the runup to the US presidential election. The lawsuit highlighted a discrepancy between two versions of an interview with former vice president Kamala Harris, and it sought an extraordinary $10 billion in damages.

Harris was interviewed by CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker, and clips from the interview were aired on Face the Nation on 5th October 2024. A longer version of the interview was broadcast on 60 Minutes on the following day. Harris was asked about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the lawsuit notes that “Kamala replies to Whitaker with her typical word salad” in the Face the Nation clip, while she “appears to reply to Whitaker with a completely different, more succinct answer” on 60 Minutes.

The Face the Nation clip shows Harris answering the question by saying: “Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.” In the 60 Minutes segment, her answer is: “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”

The lawsuit argued that the 60 Minutes interview was edited to make Harris appear more coherent. With his characteristic hyperbole, at a rally on 23rd October 2024 Trump said: “I think it’s the biggest scandal in broadcasting history.” Today, CBS released a full transcript of the interview — something that Trump’s lawsuit had called for — which reveals that the Face the Nation clip was the first half of her answer to the question, and the 60 Minutes version was the second half of her answer to the same question.

It’s common practice for TV networks to edit extended interviews for reasons of timing, using different clips and soundbites for various platforms or shows. Nevertheless, The New York Times reported on 30th January that Paramount, CBS’s parent company, was negotiating an out-of-court settlement with Trump. Similarly, ABC News settled a Trump defamation lawsuit in December last year, despite having a strong legal case.

Trump was successfully sued for libel by E. Jean Carroll. However, Trump’s own libel suits — filed previously against Bill Maher, Timothy L. O’Brien, Michael Wolff, Bob Woodward, The New York Times, and CNN — have all been unsuccessful.

“All-you-can-eat buffet of wild lies...”

This week, two disgraced rap stars have filed defamation lawsuits after being accused of abusive behaviour. Chris Brown sued Warner Bros. on 21st January, and Sean Combs sued Nexstar Media a day later. The separate lawsuits were filed almost simultaneously, and coincidentally the TV programmes they target were also broadcast within days of each other.

The documentary Chris Brown: A History of Violence was first shown on the US cable TV channel Investigation Discovery (owned by Warner Bros.) on 27th October 2024. Brown is seeking $500 million in damages.

In a 31st October 2024 interview on the NewsMax cable TV show Banfield, Courtney Burgess claimed to have seen video evidence of abuse by Combs. (The interview is still online on the Newsmax YouTube channel.) Combs is suing Burgess and the owners of Newsmax, Nexstar; his lawsuit calls the interview an “all-you-can-eat buffet of wild lies”.

“The term ‘black market’ in the story was in error...”

A US Navy veteran has won a defamation lawsuit against CNN. Zachary Young sued the network in 2022, and a jury found in his favour yesterday, awarding him $5 million in damages.

Young was hired by large corporations to help evacuate their employees from Afghanistan amid the chaos following the American military withdrawal from the country. CNN’s Alexander Marquardt investigated claims of evacuation payments in a report broadcast on The Lead on 11th November 2021.

A chyron in the TV report stated that Afghan individuals trying to leave the country “FACE BLACK MARKETS, EXORBITANT FEES”, and Young was the only person named in connection with the allegations. Young denied seeking payment from individuals, and argued that CNN falsely accused him of illegally exploiting those seeking to escape the country.

Once Young filed his lawsuit, CNN broadcast an apology on 25th March 2022: “the use of the term ‘black market’ in the story was in error... We didn’t mean to suggest that Mr Young participated in the black market.”

Peril by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, and The Fight of His Life by Chris Whipple, both discuss Joe Biden’s decision to pull US troops out of Afghanistan. The Last Politician by Franklin Foer covers the logistics of the Afghan evacuation itself.

“ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump...”

ABC News has agreed to pay Donald Trump $15 million in an out-of-court settlement, after he sued the organisation for defamation earlier this year. Trump filed a lawsuit against ABC News and one of its anchors, George Stephanopoulos, when Stephanopoulos asked Republican politician Nancy Mace on air why she had endorsed Trump as a presidential candidate despite Trump having been “found liable for rape.”

Stephanopoulos interviewed Mace on This Week, in a segment broadcast on 10th March. He began the interview with a reference to a civil prosecution in which Trump was found guilty of sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll: “You’ve endorsed Donald Trump for president. Donald Trump has been found liable for rape by a jury. Donald Trump has been found liable for defaming the victim of that rape. It’s been affirmed by a judge.”

Mace, who is herself a rape victim, stated that she found the premise of the interview “disgusting.” Stephanopoulos again asked her to justify her endorsement of Trump: “I’m asking a question about why you endorsed someone who’s been found liable for rape.” Mace accused Stephanopoulos of victim-shaming her, and Stephanopoulos attempted to clarify: “I’m questioning your political choices, because you’re supporting someone who’s been found liable for rape.”

Stephanopoulos then pressed Mace again to answer his initial question: “why are you supporting someone who’s been found liable for rape?” She replied that the question was offensive, to which Stephanopoulos responded: “You don’t find it offensive that Donald Trump has been found liable for rape?”

Trump’s libel claim hinged on the fact that he was convicted of sexually assaulting Carroll, rather than raping her. His lawsuit quoted Stephanopoulos on previous broadcasts referring to sexual assault, in an attempt to prove that Stephanopoulos was aware of the distinction and had used the word ‘rape’ in the combative Mace interview either recklessly or maliciously.

Trump also sued Carroll for the same reason, after she accused him of rape despite the sexual assault conviction. That lawsuit was dismissed, however, as the judge in the sexual assault case issued a written clarification: “that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed... the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

The previous references by Stephanopoulos to sexual assault were all made before 19th July 2023, when the clarification was published. His comments in the Mace interview, however, were made afterwards, so it could reasonably be argued that he was using the term ‘rape’ “as many people commonly understand the word”, as per the judge’s clarification. Nevertheless, ABC settled the case yesterday and issued a cursory statement: “ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace”.

Journal of the Siam Society

Thai Cinema Uncensored is reviewed in the new issue of the Journal of the Siam Society (pp. 149–152). In his review, written in French, Bruno Marchal describes the book as “une plongée éclairante dans l’univers cinématographique thaïlandais” (‘an enlightening dive into the Thai cinematic universe’).

JSS (vol. 112, no. 2) was published this month. Thai Cinema Uncensored has also been reviewed by the International Examiner and Bangkok Post newspapers, the journal Sojourn, the magazines Art Review and The Big Chilli, and the 101 World website.

Sarit Thanarat

Sarit Thanarat, military prime minister during the Cold War, died in December 1963. After his death, the floodgates opened, and exposés of his love life were rushed into print. His lovenest was a private residence nicknamed the ‘pink palace’ (วิมานสีชมพู), and this was the title of a Sarit biography published in 1964, which included a dossier of photographs of Sarit’s alleged lovers. Several erotic novels of the period, including แม่ม่ายผ้าขะม้าแดง (‘red-headed widow’), were also thinly-veiled portrayals of Sarit’s mistresses.

Almost fifty years later, the phrase ‘pink palace’ was censored by Channel 3 when it broadcast the lakorn คุณชายพุฒิภัทร (‘khun Chai Puttipat’) on 5th May 2013. In the third episode, a former military general played by Montree Jenuksorn (who slightly resembles Sarit) discussed his ‘pink palace’, though the sound was muted, presumably to avoid any possibility of a libel suit from Sarit’s descendents. (The novel on which the drama was based refers to Sarit more obliquely.)

Potential defamation also prevented director Banjong Kosallawat from making a planned Sarit biopic in 2002, which was to have been titled จอมพล (‘marshal’). Sarit did feature briefly in the horror movie Zee Oui (ซี-อุย), ordering the swift execution of the murderous title character for political expediency. And Sarit’s statue looms ominously over the characters in Song of the City, Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s segment of the portmanteau film Ten Years Thailand.

After Sarit led a coup in 1957, he was portrayed as a hero by pliant newspaper cartoonists. One example of such propaganda showed Sarit cradling a rescued child in his arms, returning the boy (who represents the Thai people) to his grateful mother. In contrast, a July 1958 cartoon in the liberal ประชาชน (‘people’) newspaper depicted Sarit as a monkey wrapping his tail possessively around Democracy Monument. Sixty years later, in the wake of the 2014 coup, Sarit satire was too sensitive, and the Guerrilla Boys self-censored their mural Junta Connection (วิ่งผลัดเผด็จการ), which originally depicted Sarit passing his (literal) baton of dictatorship to Prayut Chan-o-cha.

Art and Culture (ศิลปวัฒนธรรม) magazine analysed cartoonists’ caricatures of Sarit (vol. 43, no. 1), and the journal Same Sky (ฟ้าเดียวกัน) examined the lurid books published shortly after his death (vol. 20, no. 2). Thai Cinema Uncensored discusses the portrayal of Sarit in Thai films.

Bangkok Breaking: Heaven and Hell

Kongkiat Khomsiri’s Netflix series Bangkok Breaking (มหานครเมืองลวง) — a drama about rivalries among the EMS ‘body snatchers’ who transport accident victims to hospital — was released in 2021. Earlier this year, he adapted the series into a film, Bangkok Breaking: Heaven and Hell (ฝ่านรกเมืองเทวดา), which is also streaming on Netflix.

The film’s prologue is probably its most effective sequence. A slum neighbourhood has been purchased by the corrupt head of an EMS foundation, who has plans to redevelop it into luxury accommodation. The residents protest against their eviction, and are brutally beaten by riot police with batons. A TV reporter at the scene tells her audience: “The city is in chaos. It’s like a battlefield here.”

The scene — filmed on an impressive outdoor set without GCI — escalates as protesters, and even monks who have joined the demonstration, are shot dead by police snipers. A news bulletin reports that “the police fired real bullets at the protesters.” The violence is bloody, and a reminder that Kongkiat also directed the intense thriller Slice (เฉือน).

The protest that opens Heaven and Hell echoes the real-life demonstrations against the military government that took place in Bangkok a few years ago, particularly the violent clashes at Viphavadi Rangsit Road throughout August 2021. In fact, the film even features a protest sign reading “เผด็จการ” (‘dictator’), and one character has “Fuck Government” written on his chest.

If Kongkiat’s film had received a theatrical release, it would potentially have been censored for its depiction of police killing protesters with live bullets. Film censorship was controlled by the police department from 1972 — following a decree by Thanom Kittikachorn’s junta — until the Film and Video Act of 2008. (Thai Cinema Uncensored discusses the severe restrictions imposed on films portraying the police.)

2475Dawn of Revolution

When the animation 2475 Dawn of Revolution (๒๔๗๕ รุ่งอรุณแห่งการปฏิวัติ) was released earlier this year, Prachatai reported that the film’s production company, Nakraphiwat, was paid almost ฿4 million by the army for other projects between 2020 and 2022. Yesterday, Prachatai revealed that it had received a defamation lawsuit from Nakraphiwat, alleging that Prachatai’s online article falsely implied that 2475 had been funded by the military.

The film’s credits include a long list of individual donors, some of whom gave as little as ฿100 each, though the bulk of the budget was provided anonymously. 2475 (directed by Wivat Jirotgul) tells the story of the 1932 coup from a royalist-nationalist perspective, though its makers are clearly sensitive to the suggestion that the film is an example of military propaganda.

The lawsuit was filed on 11th October, and there will be a preliminary hearing at the Criminal Court in Bangkok on 9th December. Prachatai’s report — headlined “พบเจ้าของแอนิเมชัน ‘2475 Dawn of Revolution’ รับโครงการทำสื่อแบบวิธีเฉพาะเจาะจง ‘กองทัพบก’ 11 สัญญา” (‘the maker of 2475 Dawn of Revolution took on 11 media contracts from the army’) — which was published on 15th March, is still online.

The 100 Best Movies of All Time

The 100 Best Movies of All Time, a magazine published by A360 Media earlier this year, lists 100 classic films, though only six are foreign-language titles. The list is very mainstream, which is hardly surprising as A360 is a rebranding of American Media, the publisher of the National Enquirer and other supermarket tabloids. The Godfather is at the top of the list.

Lazada

Today the Criminal Court in Bangkok dismissed lèse-majesté charges in relation to online videos promoting the shopping website Lazada and Nara skincare. Lazada had posted a video on 5th May 2022 featuring Thidaporn Chaokhuvieng in a wheelchair, which led to allegations that it was mocking Princess Chulabhorn and disabled people in general. Another TikTok campaign showed images of Thidaporn alongside Kittikoon Thammakitirad, who was dressed similarly to Queen Sirikit.

The video campaign was surprisingly audacious for a mainstream, market-leading company like Lazada, as lèse-majesté is rigorously enforced and the references to Chulabhorn and Sirikit were unambiguous. Two days later, Srisuwan Janya filed lèse-majesté charges against Thidaporn and Kittikoon, amongst others, and they were arrested on 16th June 2022.

The Criminal Court’s decision today was as surprising as the initial Lazada campaign. Previously, lèse-majesté has been broadly interpreted, though today’s judgement followed the precise letter of the law (article 112 of the criminal code). Article 112 specifies that only defamation or insults directed at the King, Queen, heir to the throne, or regent are illegal, and the court today made clear that it would only prosecute lèse-majesté cases related to those named individuals.

Therefore, as Chulabhorn is not the heir to the throne, the case against Thidaporn was dismissed, perhaps setting a precedent that criticism of some royals is not a crime. The court also ruled that the imitation of Queen Sirikit was not disrespectful, and therefore dismissed the charges against Kittikoon. Again, this was unexpected, as it seems to permit the impersonation of a senior royal, even for commercial purposes.

Boys Love Media in Thailand:Celebrity, Fans, and Transnational Asian Queer Popular Culture

BL (‘boys’ love’) stories — tales of romance between young men, aimed at a largely female audience — originated as a genre of Japanese manga, though for the past decade Thailand has produced many of its own BL drama series, some of which have become popular throughout Asia. In fact, in Boys Love Media in Thailand: Celebrity, Fans, and Transnational Asian Queer Popular Culture, the first book on Thai BL culture, Thomas Baudinette argues that Thailand’s BL industry has now superseded Japan’s: “the center of queer cultural production within the Asia-Pacific has shifted from Japan — long considered the most influential producer of queer media in Asia — to Thailand.”

Thailand’s first BL drama series, Love Sick (รักวุ่น วัยรุ่นแสบ), was broadcast on Channel 9 in 2014. Baudinette acknowledges the significance of Love Sick, and the subsequent “massive global success” of the GMM25 series 2gether (เพราะเราคู่กัน) in 2020, though he also notes the influence of the film Love of Siam (รักแห่งสยาม), directed by Chookiat Sakveerakul, which introduced BL conventions into mainstream Thai cinema. Love of Siam was released in 2007, and Queer Bangkok: 21st Century Markets, Media, and Rights — edited by Peter A. Jackson, the leading scholar in the field — argues that it was in this precise period, in the immediate aftermath of the 2006 coup, that Thai culture experienced an “early twenty-first-century queer boom”.

Central Park Five

Donald Trump is being sued for libel by the men known as the Central Park Five, whose convictions for rape and attempted murder were overturned in 2002. Their joint defamation lawsuit, filed yesterday, seeks at least $75,000 in damages.

The five men, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown, and Korey Wise, were accused of attacking Trisha Meili in New York’s Central Park on 19th April 1989. They made videotaped confessions, though they later pleaded not guilty. Their confessions were later deemed to have been coerced by the NYPD.

Speaking during a debate with fellow presidential candidate Kamala Harris on 10th September, in a live broadcast on ABC News, Trump incorrectly stated that the five men “pled guilty.” He also falsely claimed that they “killed a person ultimately”.

Trump was successfully sued for libel last year by E. Jean Carroll. However, Trump’s own libel suits — filed against Bill Maher, Timothy L. O’Brien, Michael Wolff, Bob Woodward, The New York Times, ABC, and CNN — have all been unsuccessful.