Jatuporn Sae Ung participates in the demonstration on Silom Road, Bangkok, on October 29, 2020. (Photo: Varuth Hirunyatheb)
The Appeal Court has maintained the two-year prison sentence given to a female activist convicted of impersonating HM the Queen during a 2020 protest. The court denied a suspension of the prison term and upheld a 1,000 baht fine.
The Appeal Court’s decision was revealed at the Bangkok South Criminal Court on Monday.
The defendant, Jatuporn Sae Ung, 25, had donned attire resembling that of the Queen during a demonstration advocating for royal institution reform in the Silom area of Bangkok in October 2020.
The court disclosed that the defendant wore a traditional Thai-style dress and engaged with protesters who referred to her as the Queen and chanted “Long live.” The defendant conceded to imitating the Queen in her demeanor.
Initially, Jatuporn received a three-year sentence from the court of first instance and a 1,500 baht fine. Due to her cooperation during the investigation, the court reduced the prison term to two years and the fine to 1,000 baht.
The Appeal Court upheld this judgment.
Jatuporn, a member of the Buri Ram Plod Ak (Free Buri Ram) group, was accused of violating Section 112 of the Criminal Code, known as the lese majeste law, by dressing up to mimic and satirize Her Majesty the Queen during a mock fashion show organized by the anti-government Ratsadon group on Silom Road on October 29, 2020.
Good! People should respect the monarchy. This is what happens when you don’t.
Seriously? The punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Satire should not land you in prison for 2 years!
Freedom of speech has its limits, especially when it comes to the monarchy. Thailand has strict laws for a reason.
Limits maybe, but two years in prison? That’s excessive and draconian. Democracy needs free speech, even if it offends some people.
The laws are clear, and she broke them. If you don’t like it, lobby for change, but until then, respect the rules.
What a shame! Imprisoning someone for expressing their opinion in a creative way? Ridiculous.
It’s not just opinion. She was mocking the Queen. There is a big difference.
Mocking or not, satire is a part of a free society. The punishment here is simply a tool to silence dissent.
Satire disrespecting our royal traditions deserves punishment. Don’t forget, the monarchy is deeply respected here.
The lese majeste laws are outdated and suppress freedom. Sentencing Jatuporn to prison only damages Thailand’s image globally.
Can we talk about the bigger issue? People are getting imprisoned for their opinions. Where does it end?
Exactly! At what point does a government overreach? People in power have to face criticism, it’s part of governance.
For sure! If we silence this kind of dissent, pretty soon we will have no dissent at all.
It’s not just about criticism. It’s about respecting national heritage and values.
I think this case highlights the conflict between tradition and modernity in Thailand.
Wait, why is this even illegal? Dressing up like a public figure isn’t a crime in most countries.
Because Thailand isn’t like most countries. The monarchy is sacred here, and the laws reflect that.
Sacred or not, using law to suppress different opinions is never justified.
Impersonation laws are a joke. This is pure political persecution.
Deserves the sentence if you ask me. People need to understand the consequences of their actions.
Are you okay with living in a society where wearing a funny costume can get you jail time?
Absolutely, if that costume mocks something as important as the monarchy.
You must be kidding! We need more freedom, not less! It’s a slippery slope to tyranny.
The decision underscores the deep-rooted respect and sensitivity towards the monarchy in Thai society.
Clearly, Thailand’s democracy has significant flaws if satire can lead to imprisonment.
Agreed. There needs to be a middle ground. Respect tradition but allow for freedom of expression.
I believe this serves as a warning to other activists. The government won’t tolerate any form of satirical rebellion.
That’s exactly the problem. A free society should tolerate diverse opinions, even those that challenge the status quo.
Satirical rebellion might be a tool for some societies, but it’s not always acceptable in every cultural context.
Why are we even debating this? The laws are very clear.
How can anyone defend a ruling like this? It’s about human rights at the core.
Human rights or not, national laws must be respected.