Which is more sacred: freedom of speech or a national symbol?

There are things considered sacred to a nation. Damaging these sacred things is criminalized by the law.

Singer and pro-democracy activist Chaiamorn “Ammy” Kaewwiboonpan of The Bottom Blues faces several charges for his protest activities.

The most controversial of which is Section 112, the lese majeste law, which carries three to 15 years of imprisonment per count.

Last night, the police arrested Ammy, alledging that on 28 February, he and three other suspects set fire to the royal family’s pictures in front of the Khlong Prem Central Prison.

In Thailand, the monarchy is considered sacred, and portraits and statues of the king are sacred symbols.

Burning a national sacred symbol is a controversial and divisive issue in many nations. Other examples of sacred symbols include the national flag and the national anthem.

In the US, flag burning is taboo but is protected by the first amendment as symbolic freedom of speech.

In Austria, on the other hand, flag discretion faces a fine and/or a prison sentence of up to six months.

In France, “outrageous behavior” during the national anthem at an organized event can get you a fine and/or a prison term of up to six months.

What do you believe is more sacred: freedom of speech or national symbols?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.