Deaw 12

Popular comedian Udom Taephanich reported to police in Kanchanaburi yesterday after a defamation suit was filed against him by Preecha Kraikruan. Preecha hit the headlines in 2017 after falsely claiming that he had won the lottery, and Udom joked about this in his twelfth stand-up comedy show, filmed in 2018.

The show — Deaw 12 (เดี่ยว 12) — was released on DVD and is streaming on Netflix. Preecha apparently only recently realised that he was the butt of Udom’s jokes, hence his libel lawsuit filed seven years after the show was recorded. In a satirical song (part of the encore, which is not included in the YouTube video of the show), Udom rapped:

“Preecha claimed the lottery was his...
It’s easier to tell lies
Than admit the truth”.

This is the third legal case against Udom. Last year, he faced lèse-majesté charges after a routine about the ‘sufficiency economy’ in his Netflix special Super Soft Power (ซูเปอร์ซอฟต์พาวเวอร์). (In that show, he didn’t challenge the notion of sufficiency economy itself; instead, he criticised the hypocrisy of influencers who falsely claim to adhere to sufficiency economy principles.)

In 2022, he was accused of endangering national security following his mildly satirical riff about military leaders Prayut Chan-o-cha and Prawit Wongsuwan. (Comparing them to unqualified pilots, he suggested that they should resign: “both of you, the pilot and copilot, please eject yourselves from the plane.”)

Midnight Talk

The second annual Phimailongweek (พิมายฬองวีค) experimental arts festival is now under way at Phimai, in Korat province. The festival includes a series of late-night film screenings and panel discussions at various locations around the ancient town, and the highlight so far has been มรดกของการเซนเซอร์ ผลกระทบ จากความขัดแย้ง และเสรีภาพในการสร้างภาพยนตร์ (‘the legacy of censorship and the impact of conflict on freedom for filmmaking’), a Midnight Talk discussion at Victory Gate on 2nd August with directors Tanwarin Sukkhapisit and Ing K., both of whom have made films that were previously banned in Thailand.

Tanwarin’s Insects in the Backyard (อินเซคอินเดอะแบ็คยาร์ด) was banned in 2010, and Shakespeare Must Die (เชคสเปียร์ต้องตาย) was banned two years later, and both directors fought long and ultimately successful legal campaigns against the censors. I interviewed Tanwarin and Ing for Thai Cinema Uncensored, and the book discusses the censorship of their films in more detail.

The Midnight Talk discussion focused on the impact of the 2008 Film and Video Act and the two directors’ reactions to their films being censored. Tanwarin described how the film industry fought for the introduction of the new regulation (“ซึ่งเราก็ต่อสู้กันมาอย่างยาวนานนะกว่าจะได้ พ.ร.บ. ภาพยนตร์ปี”), and said that the decision to ban her film had made her cry (“ซึ่งตอนนั้นรีแอคก็คือก็เสียใจก็ร้องไห้นะฮะ”). In contrast, Ing said that when an Administrative Court judge dismissed her film and rejected her appeal, she was absolutely enraged (“อาจจะใกล้เป็นผู้ก่อการร้ายมากที่สุดในชีวิตนะ”).

Interestingly, Tanwarin explained that she had specifically conceived Insects in the Backyard to be the first film to be rated ‘20’, the highest classification in the rating system. Her intention was to take advantage of the adult rating by making an explicit film, though she hadn’t expected it to be banned outright (“พอเราเป็นคนทําเนี่ยเราก็วางแผนชัดเจนนะว่าหนังเราจะต้องได้เป็นหนังไทยเรื่องแรกที่ได้เรตติ้ง ‘20’... แต่เราก็ไม่นึกว่ามันจะเลยเถิดจนถึง: อืม ห้ามฉายโดนแบนนะครับ”).

Tanwarin also recalled how, when the ban was announced, she was criticised online for making what many considered a ‘sissy’ film. The bitter irony, she said, was that people were opposed to the film because they didn’t understand transsexuality, which the film would have given them a better understanding of (“เป็นเพราะความไม่เข้าใจ ซึ่งมันก็ตรงกับสิ่งที่เราต้องการนําเสนออยู่ในหนัง”).

Ultimately, Insects in the Backyard was granted a reprieve by the Administrative Court in 2015. (It went on general release in 2017.) The court ruled that a three-second hardcore clip must be cut out, a result that Tanwarin described as both a defeat and a victory (“เราแพ้แต่เราชนะ”) — technically, she lost her appeal for an uncut release, though she saw it as winning the right to show her film, which was no longer branded as immoral.

Ing’s battle with the censors took even longer than Tanwarin’s: the ban on Shakespeare Must Die was finally lifted by the Supreme Court last year, and its theatrical release came a few months later. (It has since been screened at Burapha University and Chiang Mai University.) She explained that freedom of expression is essential for artists, and should not be suppressed (“ไม่ควรมีใครมาปิดกั้นความคิดเราไม่ให้เราสามารถพูดในสิ่งที่เราอยากพูดได้”).

Ing also argued that the defamation law is too strict, as the descendants of military leaders have used it to block films about Thailand’s political history. She cited two aborted projects — Euthana Mukdasanit’s biopic of Phibun Songkhram (2482); and จอมพล (‘marshal’), Banjong Kosallawat’s drama about a fictional character resembling Sarit Thanarat — both of which were abandoned following legal threats.

The Midnight Talk event was the latest of numerous panel discussions and seminars on the subject of Thai film censorship. จาก YouTube ถึงแสงศตวรรษ การเซ็นเซอร์สื่อในยุครัฐบาล คมช (‘media censorship from YouTube to Syndromes and a Century’) and From Censorship to Rating System (จากเซ็นเซอร์สู่เรตติ้ง) were both held in 2007. Ing and Tanwarin took part in Art, Politics, and Censorship in 2012. These were followed by Freedom on Film (สิทธิหนังไทย) in 2013, อย่าจองเวรจองกรรม ซึ่งกันและกันเลย (‘let’s not hold grudges against each other’) in 2015, Freedom Thai Film (กู้อิสรภาพหนังไทย) in 2018, and Tearing Down the Wall (ทลายกำแพง) in 2023.

Shakespeare Must Die was shown after the Midnight Talk discussion. Then, in the early hours of 3rd August, it was followed by two political documentaries: Nontawat Numbenchapol’s Boundary (ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง) and Uruphong Raksasad’s Paradox Democracy, part of the festival’s Phimailongdoo (พิมายฬองดูววว) programme of overnight screenings.

Shakespeare Must Die

Shakespeare Must Die is a Thai adaptation of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, with Pisarn Pattanapeeradej in the lead role. The play is presented in two parallel versions: a production in period costume, and a contemporary political interpretation. The period version is faithful to Shakespeare’s original, though it also breaks the fourth wall, with cutaways to the audience and an interval outside the theatre (featuring a cameo by the director).

In the contemporary sequences, Macbeth is reimagined as Mekhdeth, a prime minister facing a crisis. Street protesters shout “ok pbai!” (‘get out!’), and the protests are infiltrated by assassins listed in the credits as ‘men in black’. Ing has downplayed any direct link to Thai politics, though “Thaksin ok pbai!” was the People’s Alliance for Democracy’s rallying cry against Thaksin Shinawatra, and ‘men in black’ were blamed for instigating violence in 2010. Another satirical line in the script — “Dear Leader brings happy-ocracy!” — predicts Prayut Chan-o-cha’s propaganda song Returning Happiness to the Thai Kingdom (คืนความสุขให้ประเทศไทย).

The parallels between Mekhdeth and Thaksin highlight the politically-motivated nature of the ban imposed on the film. Ironically, the project was initially funded by the Ministry of Culture, during Abhisit Vejjajiva’s premiership: it received a grant from the ไทยเข้มแข็ง (‘strong Thailand’) stimulus package. The Abhisit government was only too happy to greenlight a script criticising Thaksin, though by the time the film was finished, Thaksin’s sister Yingluck was in power, and her administration was somewhat less disposed to this anti-Thaksin satire, hence the ban.

Although the film was made more than a decade ago, its message is arguably more timely than ever, as Thaksin’s influence over Thai politics continues. He returned to Thailand in 2023, and his Pheu Thai Party is now leading a coalition with the political wing of the military junta.

The film’s climax, a recreation of the 6th October 1976 massacre, is its most controversial sequence. A photograph by Neal Ulevich, taken during the massacre, shows a vigilante preparing to hit a corpse with a chair, and Shakespeare Must Die restages the incident. A hanging body (symbolising Shakespeare himself) is repeatedly hit with a chair, though rather than dwelling on the violence, Ing cuts to reaction shots of the crowd, which (as in 1976) resembles a baying mob.

Ing didn’t mince her words in her Thai Cinema Uncensored interview, describing the censors as “a bunch of trembling morons with the power of life and death over our films.” Thai Cinema Uncensored also includes an insider’s account from a member of the appeals committee, who said he was obliged by his department head to vote against releasing the film: “I had to vote no, because it was an instruction from my director. But if I could have voted freely, I would have voted yes.”

Boundary

Boundary documents the 2008 conflict between Thailand and Cambodia when the disputed Preah Vihear Temple was exploited for nationalist political gain. The issue was so sensitive that the director couldn’t even reveal his identity while filming at the temple. As he told me in his Thai Cinema Uncensored interview: “I could not tell anyone in Cambodia that I’m Thai, because it would be hard to shoot. I had to tell everybody I’m Chinese-American... My name was Thomas in Cambodia.”

The festival screening is especially timely, as another border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia is currently taking place. At a time when the Cambodian government is inflaming tensions, and nationalist groups in Thailand are exploiting the political crisis, Boundary represents a plea for de-escalation on both sides, and a reminder of the dangers of history repeating itself.

Boundary is composed largely of silent, still sequences depicting the serenity of rural life, as a counterpoint to the fierce border dispute surrounding the temple. Nontawat begins by interviewing Aod, a young soldier, in his home village. Idyllic sequences of novice monks bathing and Aod’s father fishing are contrasted with Aod describing his military conscription and the army’s crackdown against red-shirt protesters in 2010.

After footage of the Thai military firing at their Cambodian counterparts near Preah Vihear, we see damage to houses and a school close to the temple, caused by bombs and gunfire from Cambodian troops. Finally, at the end of the film, Nontawat’s camera explores the temple itself, the ruined Khmer compound that has been the subject of such bloodshed and ultra-nationalism.

Boundary was previously shown at Lido Connect and Warehouse 30 in Bangkok in 2019. Its most recent screenings were at Chiang Mai University, the Thai Film Archive in Salaya, and Thammasat University in Bangkok. It has been subject to censorship twice: it was cut before its theatrical release in 2013, and a screening in Chonburi was prohibited by the military in 2015.

Paradox Democracy

Paradox Democracy documents the recent student protest movement, and features clips from rally speeches by Arnon Nampa and other protest leaders, intercut with extracts from The Revolutionist (คือผู้อภิวัฒน์), a play about Pridi Banomyong staged by the Crescent Moon theatre group in 2020. The film’s working title was Paradox October, and it includes footage shot at the 6th October 1976 commemorative exhibition at Thammasat University in 2020. It was previously shown at The 28th Thai Short Film and Video Festival (เทศกาลภาพยนตร์สั้น ครั้งที่ 28), and at Chiang Mai University.

Phimailongweek 2Midnight Monsoon

The second annual Phimailongweek (พิมายฬองวีค) experimental arts festival will take place at Phimai, in Korat province, from 1st to 15th August. The theme of this year’s event is Midnight Monsoon (ภาคมรสุมฝัน), and it includes a programme of overnight film screenings at various locations around the ancient town, titled Phimailongdoo: Midnight Screening (พิมายฬองดูววว: ภาพยนตร์เที่ยงคืน).

Undoubtedly the highlight of the festival will be on 2nd August at Victory Gate: screenings of previously censored films, a provocative recent documentary, and a discussion about film censorship. This session will begin with three short films by Tanwarin Sukkhapisit, including I’m Fine (สบายดีค่ะ), for which she sat in a cage next to Democracy Monument in a commentary on political freedom.

Midnight Talk

Tanwarin will then take part in มรดกของการเซนเซอร์ ผลกระทบ จากความขัดแย้ง และเสรีภาพในการสร้างภาพยนตร์ (‘the legacy of censorship and the impact of conflict on freedom for filmmaking’), a Midnight Talk discussion with fellow director Ing K. Nontawat Numbenchapol was originally scheduled to appear, though he is unable to attend; Tanwarin, Ing, and Nontawat have all made films that were previously banned in Thailand, and I interviewed all three directors for Thai Cinema Uncensored.

Ing’s Shakespeare Must Die (เชคสเปียร์ต้องตาย) will be shown after the discussion. After midnight, in the early hours of 3rd August, it will be followed by two political documentaries: Nontawat’s Boundary (ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง) and Uruphong Raksasad’s Paradox Democracy.

Shakespeare Must Die

Shakespeare Must Die was banned by the Ministry of Culture in 2012, and the ban was upheld by the Administrative Court in 2017. Ing’s battle with the censors, documented in her film Censor Must Die (เซ็นเซอร์ต้องตาย), went all the way to the Supreme Court, which finally lifted the ban last year. After its belated theatrical release, it has since been screened at Burapha University and Chiang Mai University.

Shakespeare Must Die is a Thai adaptation of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, with Pisarn Pattanapeeradej in the lead role. The play is presented in two parallel versions: a production in period costume, and a contemporary political interpretation. The period version is faithful to Shakespeare’s original, though it also breaks the fourth wall, with cutaways to the audience and an interval outside the theatre (featuring a cameo by the director).

In the contemporary sequences, Macbeth is reimagined as Mekhdeth, a prime minister facing a crisis. Street protesters shout “ok pbai!” (‘get out!’), and the protests are infiltrated by assassins listed in the credits as ‘men in black’. Ing has downplayed any direct link to Thai politics, though “Thaksin ok pbai!” was the People’s Alliance for Democracy’s rallying cry against Thaksin Shinawatra, and ‘men in black’ were blamed for instigating violence in 2010. Another satirical line in the script — “Dear Leader brings happy-ocracy!” — predicts Prayut Chan-o-cha’s propaganda song Returning Happiness to the Thai Kingdom (คืนความสุขให้ประเทศไทย).

The parallels between Mekhdeth and Thaksin highlight the politically-motivated nature of the ban imposed on the film. Ironically, the project was initially funded by the Ministry of Culture, during Abhisit Vejjajiva’s premiership: it received a grant from the ไทยเข้มแข็ง (‘strong Thailand’) stimulus package. The Abhisit government was only too happy to greenlight a script criticising Thaksin, though by the time the film was finished, Thaksin’s sister Yingluck was in power, and her administration was somewhat less disposed to this anti-Thaksin satire, hence the ban.

Although the film was made more than a decade ago, its message is arguably more timely than ever, as Thaksin’s influence over Thai politics continues. He returned to Thailand in 2023, and his Pheu Thai Party is now leading a coalition with the political wing of the military junta.

The film’s climax, a recreation of the 6th October 1976 massacre, is its most controversial sequence. A photograph by Neal Ulevich, taken during the massacre, shows a vigilante preparing to hit a corpse with a chair, and Shakespeare Must Die restages the incident. A hanging body (symbolising Shakespeare himself) is repeatedly hit with a chair, though rather than dwelling on the violence, Ing cuts to reaction shots of the crowd, which (as in 1976) resembles a baying mob.

Ing didn’t mince her words in her Thai Cinema Uncensored interview, describing the censors as “a bunch of trembling morons with the power of life and death over our films.” Thai Cinema Uncensored also includes an insider’s account from a member of the appeals committee, who said he was obliged by his department head to vote against releasing the film: “I had to vote no, because it was an instruction from my director. But if I could have voted freely, I would have voted yes.”

Boundary

Boundary documents the 2008 conflict between Thailand and Cambodia when the disputed Preah Vihear Temple was exploited for nationalist political gain. The issue was so sensitive that the director couldn’t even reveal his identity while filming at the temple. As he told me in his Thai Cinema Uncensored interview: “I could not tell anyone in Cambodia that I’m Thai, because it would be hard to shoot. I had to tell everybody I’m Chinese-American... My name was Thomas in Cambodia.”

The festival screening is especially timely, as another border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia is currently taking place. At a time when the Cambodian government is inflaming tensions, and nationalist groups in Thailand are exploiting the political crisis, Boundary represents a plea for de-escalation on both sides, and a reminder of the dangers of history repeating itself.

Boundary is composed largely of silent, still sequences depicting the serenity of rural life, as a counterpoint to the fierce border dispute surrounding the temple. Nontawat begins by interviewing Aod, a young soldier, in his home village. Idyllic sequences of novice monks bathing and Aod’s father fishing are contrasted with Aod describing his military conscription and the army’s crackdown against red-shirt protesters in 2010.

After footage of the Thai military firing at their Cambodian counterparts near Preah Vihear, we see damage to houses and a school close to the temple, caused by bombs and gunfire from Cambodian troops. Finally, at the end of the film, Nontawat’s camera explores the temple itself, the ruined Khmer compound that has been the subject of such bloodshed and ultra-nationalism.

Boundary was previously shown at Lido Connect and Warehouse 30 in Bangkok in 2019. Its most recent screenings were at Chiang Mai University, the Thai Film Archive in Salaya, and Thammasat University in Bangkok. It has been subject to censorship twice: it was cut before its theatrical release in 2013, and a screening in Chonburi was prohibited by the military in 2015.

Paradox Democracy

Paradox Democracy documents the recent student protest movement, and features clips from rally speeches by Arnon Nampa and other protest leaders, intercut with extracts from The Revolutionist (คือผู้อภิวัฒน์), a play about Pridi Banomyong staged by the Crescent Moon theatre group in 2020. The film’s working title was Paradox October, and it includes footage shot at the 6th October 1976 commemorative exhibition at Thammasat University in 2020. It was previously shown at The 28th Thai Short Film and Video Festival (เทศกาลภาพยนตร์สั้น ครั้งที่ 28), and at Chiang Mai University.

When My Father Was a Communist

Vichart Somkaew’s new documentary When My Father Was a Communist is another highlight of the festival, screening on 8th August at Phimai Wittaya School. Vichart interviewed his father, Sawang, and other former members of the Communist Party of Thailand, and the film is a valuable social history. The veterans explain their decisions to join the CPT, and describe their experiences in the forests of Phatthalung.

When My Father Was a Communist is also a record of the state’s violent suppression of Communist insurgents, hundreds (potentially thousands) of whom were burned in oil drums in 1972. These so-called ‘red barrel’ deaths were most prevalent in Phatthalung, and have never been officially investigated. (The names of the victims are listed before the film’s end credits.)

There have been other documentaries about the red barrels, but When My Father Was a Communist stands out for Vichart’s close connections to the subject. This is a deeply personal project, as he was born in Phatthalung, and he is documenting the memories of his elderly father.

The film notes that the repressive atmosphere of the 1970s has not disappeared. One speaker says that the political system has barely changed since the military dictatorship after the 1976 coup. Another makes a direct comparison between the suppression of political opponents then and now: “dissolving political parties, slapping people with Article 112 charges... It’s like arresting them and throwing them in red barrels, but they do it in a different way now.”

When My Father Was a Communist was first shown at the Us coffee shop in Phatthalung on 10th July. It was also screened at Vongchavalitkul University in Korat on 23rd July, A.E.Y. Space in Songkla on 26th July, and Lorem Ipsum in Hat Yai on 27th July.

Coup d’état

On 1st August, a selection of short films by local filmmakers will be shown at Victory Gate. These will include Natthapol Kitwarasai’s Coup d’état, a dialogue-free, black-and-white film in which a soldier rummages through an old man’s meagre possessions. The man watches impassively, apparently oblivious to the trespassing soldier, and spends his time sleeping and swimming, which symbolise freedom for the director. Although the drama is allegorical, the film opens with photographs of the military leaders who instigated Thailand’s many coups. Coup d’état was previously shown in the online Short Film Marathon 26 (หนังสั้นมาราธอน 26).

The Body Craves Impact as Love Bursts

Wattanapume Laisuwanchai’s The Body Craves Impact as Love Bursts (ร่างกายอยากปะทะ เพราะรักมันปะทุ) will also be screened at Victory Gate, on 14th August. The video features images of a man and woman tantalisingly close and facing each other, yet separated. As the director explained in his artist’s statement, the installation was made in solidarity with the rapper Elevenfinger, who is serving a prison sentence for possession of ping-pong bombs used in anti-government protests: “I have visited him and witnessed the despair not only affecting him and his partner but also their families and relatives. This situation mirrors the plight of other political prisoners”.

The video ends dramatically with flashing images and footage of fireworks, filmed at Thalugaz protests in 2021. It was first shown as an installation at the Procession of Dystopia exhibition last year. It has also been screened at The 7th Bangkok Experimental Film Festival (เทศกาลหนังทดลองกรุงเทพฯ ครั้งที่ 7), Can’t Stop Won’t Stop, and Cinemine/d.

No Exorcism Film

Another recent short film, Komtouch Napattaloong’s No Exorcism Film, will be shown on 8th August at the Local.Gen cafe. In this experimenal film, a robotic voiceover narrates a dream that includes a short silent video clip of Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul in 2020 reading a manifesto calling for reform of the monarchy. No Exorcism Film was previously shown at BEFF7, The 28th Thai Short Film and Video Festival (เทศกาลภาพยนตร์สั้น ครั้งที่ 28), Wildtype 2024, and in the online Short Film Marathon 28 (หนังสั้นมาราธอน 28). It will also be screened next month in Udon Thani.

Donald Trump:“I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else…”

Donald Trump has filed a defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, after the newspaper reported that he had sent child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein a salacious letter on Epstein’s fiftieth birthday. Trump denies writing the letter, and is seeking an extraordinary $20 billion in damages. In a front-page story published (in late editions) on 18th July, The Wall Street Journal revealed the existence of an album compiled in 2003 by Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell — who is also a child sex offender — containing letters and cards from Epstein’s friends, including Trump.

In his letter to Epstein, Trump wrote: “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.” The text is enclosed within a drawing of the outline of a nude woman, and Trump signed the letter in the position where the woman’s pubic hair would be. A thick marker pen, Trump’s preferred type, was used for the drawing and signature.

Trump, like Prince Andrew, was a close associate of Epstein’s who attempted to distance himself once Epstein’s crimes were revealed. He is currently trying to deflect attention away from Epstein, though this lawsuit will have the opposite effect. The WSJ article — written by Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo, and headlined “Trump’s Bawdy Letter to Epstein Was in 50th Birthday Album” — includes denials by Trump, and quotes him as saying: “I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else”.

Safdar and Palazzolo are named in Trump’s lawsuit, as is media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the proprietor of the WSJ. Trump posted on Truth Social on 18th July: “I told Rupert Murdoch it was a Scam, that he shouldn’t print this Fake Story. But now he has, and I’m going to sue his ass off, and that of his third rate newspaper.” Trump is seeking $10 billion in damages for defamation per se, and a further $10 billion for defamation per quod (that is, implicit defamation).

Murdoch has a chequered history with Trump, as does the Journal. In an editorial at the beginning of the year, the newspaper called Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada “The Dumbest Trade War in History”. Rather than backing down since the lawsuit was issued, the Journal today printed a potentially even more damaging revelation: that Trump was told by his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, in May “that his name was in the Epstein files”.

ABC News also agreed to a settlement, after Trump sued them for libel last year. In US defamation cases involving public figures, proof of ‘actual malice’ (deliberate dishonesty) is required. By quoting Trump’s denial, and by describing the letter as “bearing Trump’s name” rather than directly stating that Trump wrote it, the Journal’s report demonstrates due diligence rather than malice. The obvious authenticity of the album containing the letter is also a strong indication that the Journal was not guilty of deception.

But there is also another potentially fatal flaw in Trump’s case: the lawsuit was filed at the United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida, and Florida law states that a defamation suit can only be filed five or more days after giving notice to the defendant (i.e., the Journal). Trump claims that he spoke to the newspaper on 15th July, which was only three days before he filed his lawsuit. This alone would be sufficient grounds for a judge to dismiss the case.

Trump’s lawyers are presumably aware of this five-day requirement, and of the fact that a defamation trial would expose embarrassing details of Trump’s past friendship with Epstein. Therefore, it’s entirely possible that this is merely a performative or vexatious lawsuit, and that Trump has no intention of proceeding to trial.

Trump has sued numerous other media figures and news organisations, including Bill Maher, Timothy L. O’Brien, Bob Woodward, and CNN. But these lawsuits were all filed either while Trump was out of office, or before he entered politics. Therefore, his lawsuit against the WSJ is the first time that a sitting American president has ever sued a media organisation.

Gavin Newsom: “See you in court, buddy...”

Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, is suing Fox News host Jesse Watters for defamation, after Watters accused him of lying about a phone call with President Donald Trump. Newsom is seeking $787 million in damages, the same amount that Fox paid to settle the Dominion Voting System defamation case in 2023.

Newsom’s lawsuit, filed on 27th June, accuses Fox News of “disregarding basic journalistic ethics in favor of malicious propaganda”. In a statement, Fox rejected what it described as Newsom’s “transparent publicity stunt”.

On 10th June, Trump claimed to have spoken to Newsom by phone “a day ago”, though Newsom denied this. On his Primetime show that evening, Watters said: “Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?” A chyron on screen read: “GAVIN LIED ABOUT TRUMP’S CALL”.

On 17th July, Watters made an on-air apology to Newsom: “He didn’t deceive anybody on purpose, so I’m sorry. He wasn’t lying.” In reply, Newsom issued a statement saying simply: “See you in court, buddy.”

Kneecap

A criminal investigation into Kneecap’s performance at this year’s Glastonbury Festival has been dropped. Avon and Somerset Police announced yesterday that there was “insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for any offence”.

During their Glastonbury set, Móglaí Bap called for fans to “start a riot” outside court when his fellow band member Mo Chara’s trial on terrorism charges begins. But a few minutes later, after realising that his comments could be construed as an incitement to violence, he explained that he wasn’t literally asking people to riot.

The investigation into another Glastonbury performance, by Bob Vylan, is continuing. Bobby Vylan, the group’s front man, led the crowd in a chant of “death, death to the IDF”, a reference to the Israel Defense Forces.

Donald Trump v. Bob Woodward

Donald Trump’s lawsuit against Bob Woodward and the publisher Simon and Schuster was dismissed today. Trump had claimed that Woodward’s audiobook The Trump Tapes — featuring Woodward’s recordings of his interviews with Trump — was released without prior authorisation.

Trump’s lawsuit, seeking $50 million in damages, argued that the publication of the tapes violated his copyright. Judge Paul Gardephe of the Southern District of New York ruled that Trump could not be considered a co-author of the audiobook, and that the publication of the interviews constituted fair use under copyright law.

Donald Trump v. CBS:“The settlement does not include a statement of apology...”

Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, has reached an out-of-court settlement with Donald Trump, and will pay $16 million to a charity of his choice. The settlement was agreed yesterday, and Paramount noted that it did not include an admission of liability: “The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret.” Trump sued CBS in 2024 — shortly before he won that year’s US presidential election — following an interview with former vice president Kamala Harris on the flagship 60 Minutes programme.

Trump had been seeking $20 billion in damages. The amount was completely unrealistic, but the entire case was equally dubious: his complaint was simply that CBS showed different portions of one of Harris’s answers in two different broadcasts. 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, yet Paramount has decided not to fight the case in court. It’s likely that the company wanted to avoid any rancour while the Trump administration is assessing its proposed merger with Skydance.

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.” CBS released a full transcript of the interview — something that Trump’s lawsuit had called for — which revealed 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.

Paramount’s settlement is another example of an American media company avoiding antagonising Trump in his second term. Similarly, ABC News settled a Trump defamation lawsuit in December last year, despite having a strong legal case.

LeMan

Six members of staff working for the satirical Turkish magazine LeMan were detained by police in Istanbul yesterday, after a cartoon led to protests outside their offices. They are accused of violating article 216 of Turkey’s penal code, which covers insults against religion. Images of the cartoon were shared on social media, and a riot broke out; police fired rubber bullets and tear gas at around 300 demonstrators.

LeMan’s current issue (no. 1699), published on 26th July, includes a cartoon showing two men — one Muslim, the other Jewish — with angel’s wings. The men appear to represent civilian casualties on both sides of the Israel–Gaza war, and greet each other as bombs rain down around them. The Muslim character introduces himself as Muhammed, and the Jewish figure says his name is Musa. These are the Arabic versions of Mohammed and Moses — the most revered prophets in Islam and Judaism, respectively — though they are also common Arabic given names.

Islam forbids visual depictions of its prophets, though LeMan’s editor Tuncay Akgün told the AFP news agency: “This cartoon is not a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed... the name of a Muslim who was killed in the bombardments of Israel is fictionalised as Mohammed. More than 200 million people in the Islamic world are named Mohammed.”

Censorship in Turkey

LeMan was previously censored in 2016, when an issue was banned due to its cover illustration. In 2022, a Turkish singer was also charged with insulting religion, as was a Penguen cartoonist in 2011. Two cartoonists were charged with defamation after caricaturing former president Abdullah Gül in 2008.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has a long history of filing criminal charges against cartoonists and journalists, most recently in 2022. He has filed defamation charges against the newspaper Cumhuriyet (in 2004 and 2014), and the magazines Penguen (in 2014) and Nokta (in 2015). In 2006, he sued the artist Michael Dickinson over the collages Good Boy and Best in Show. In 2020, he filed charges against the French magazine Charlie Hebdo.

In 2016, Erdoğan sued a German comedian who recited a poem mocking him. The poem was read out in solidarity in the German parliament, and The Spectator launched an anti-Erdoğan poetry competition that was won by Boris Johnson. Ironically, Erdoğan himself was imprisoned in 1999 for reciting a poem: in a 1997 speech, he had quoted lines from a poem by Ziya Gökalp — “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the believers our soldiers” — and was sentenced to ten months in jail as a result.

Mohammed Cartoons

A Danish newspaper caused worldwide controversy in 2005 when it published a dozen caricatures of Mohammed. In response, many liberal newspapers and magazines in other countries printed their own Mohammed cartoons in solidarity. (The twelve Danish cartoons were reprinted by Charlie Hebdo in 2020, and Cherian George’s book Red Lines covers the Mohammed cartoon debate in considerable detail.)

Mohammed cartoons have been censored in Bangladesh, India, and Palestine. In France, a dozen staff at Charlie Hebdo were killed by terrorists in 2015, and the magazine’s offices were firebombed in 2011, after it published a series of offensive Mohammed cartoons, beginning in 2006. Barely a week after the 2015 terrorist attack, Charlie Hebdo published yet another front-page Mohammed cartoon.

Glastonbury Festival 2025

In the UK, Avon and Somerset Police are investigating the punk duo Bob Vylan after their performance at the Glastonbury Festival yesterday. Bobby Vylan, the group’s front man, led the crowd in a chant of “death, death to the IDF”, a reference to the Israel Defense Forces. The police issued a statement on social media: “Video evidence will be assessed by officers to determine whether any offences may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation.”

Police are also examining video of the Irish rap group Kneecap’s performance at Glastonbury on the same day. On stage, Móglaí Bap called for fans to “start a riot” outside court when his fellow band member Mo Chara’s trial on terrorism charges begins. (A few minutes later, after realising that his comments could be construed as an incitement to violence, he explained that he wasn’t literally asking people to riot.)

It’s about Time:Performing between the Past and Tomorrow in Chulayarnnon Siriphol’s I a Pixel, We the People

Chulayarnnon Siriphol’s exhibition I a Pixel, We the People (ข้าพเจ้าคือพิกเซล, พวกเราคือประชาชน) will close later this month, and the artist took part in a Q&A session with Sam I-shan at BangkokCityCity Gallery yesterday. The event was titled It’s about Time: Performing between the Past and Tomorrow in Chulayarnnon Siriphol’s I a Pixel, We the People, named after an essay on Chulayarnnon’s work published by the gallery.

Chulayarnnon spoke about the two phases of his artistic career. His early short films were more personal, whereas his work became more overtly political following the Ratchaprasong crackdown in 2010: “it quite changed my life when the Thailand political crisis came, about 2010”. This aligns him with the “Post-Ratchaprasong art” movement identified by the journal Read (อ่าน; vol. 3, no. 2), and he made a similar comment in an interview for Thai Cinema Uncensored, explaining when he “turned to be interested in the political situation.”

In the Q&A, Chulayarnnon also discussed the consequences of the political climate for artists: “self-censorship is still existing: for me, sometimes I did that.” He contrasted the student protests of 2020 and 2021 — when Thai artists were more blunt in their political satire — with the current atmosphere: “for now, we need thought-provoking [art], but no need to be hardcore”. He also highlighted the threats that “hardcore” artists face: “I don’t want to be in jail, but I respect them.”

Sam I-shan’s essay booklet is twenty-four pages long, and has been published in a limited edition of twenty-four copies (each with a unique cover photos), reflecting the twenty-four-hour duration of Chulayarnnon’s video installation. The author identifies subtle political metaphors in the exhibition: she notes that the day-long running time “might parallel the cyclical nature of Thai politics,” and she argues that the piles of clothes in the gallery space “stand for all people disenfranchised by... Thailand’s political system, with some of these bodies literally absent, having been imprisoned, exiled, disappeared or killed.”

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.)

“Salacious and defamatory accusations...”

Music producer Russell Simmons has filed a defamation lawsuit against HBO and the makers of the documentary On the Record, which features interviews with women who have accused him of sexual assault. He is seeking $20 million in damages.

On the Record (directed by Kirby Dick and Amy Zieling) premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on 25th January 2020, and was released on the HBO Max streaming platform later that year (on 27th May). The lawsuit describes the documentary as “a film that tremendously disparaged and damaged Mr. Simmons with salacious and defamatory accusations”.

Simmons is one of three disgraced figures from the music industry currently suing filmmakers who have exposed accusations of sexual misconduct, and all three men stand very little chance of winning their libel cases. Chris Brown filed a libel lawsuit in January, as did Sean Combs. Combs, better known as Diddy and Puff Daddy, has since filed another libel lawsuit: he is seeking $100 million in damages over allegations of sexual assault in the documentary Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy, which was released on NBC’s Peacock streaming service on 14th January.

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.

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.

“This is a carnival of distraction...”

Mo Chara, a member of the Irish rap group Kneecap, has been charged with a terrorism offence, and will appear at Westminster Magistrates Court in London on 18th June. The charge relates to a concert in London on 21st November last year, at the O2 Forum Kentish Town during the band’s final show on their Fine Art Tour, when Chara appeared on stage draped in the Hezbollah flag. Hezbollah is classified as a terrorist group under UK law, and yesterday the Metropolitan Police charged Chara with displaying the flag “in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a supporter of a proscribed organisation”.

Kneecap published a collective written statement via their Instagram account today, saying: “We deny this ‘offence’ and will vehemently defend ourselves.” The band also accused the Met of political bias: “This is political policing. This is a carnival of distraction.” Their new single The Recap begins with a clip of a newsreader announcing that “counter-terrorism police will investigate the rap trio Kneecap”.

El Dueño del Palenque (‘the owner of the arena’)

A Mexican band is under investigation for allegedly glamourising the leader of a drug cartel during a concert at the Telmex auditorium in Zapopan on 29th March. As an introduction to their song El Dueño del Palenque (‘the owner of the arena’), photographs of Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, leader of the Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación, were projected on a video screen behind the band.

The song is an example of the narcocorrido (‘drug ballad’) genre. Live performance of narcocorrido songs is prohibited in several Mexican states, though the government has not imposed a national ban. The band appeared at the Fiscalía General del Estado de Jalisco — the office of the Jalisco attorney general — on 17th April, and are being investigated for potential violation of article 142 of the state’s penal code.

“The most controversial band in the UK...”

London’s Metropolitan Police are investigating the Irish rap group Kneecap after the band appeared to incite violence and endorse terrorist groups at two of their London concerts. Yesterday, The Guardian described Kneecap as “the most controversial band in the UK”.

On 29th November 2023, during a gig at the Electric Ballroom, band member Mo Chara told the crowd: “The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.” (Chara has not been identified by name in other reports about the controversy.) On 21st November 2024, at the O2 Forum Kentish Town during the band’s final show on their Fine Art Tour, Chara said: “Up Hamas! Up Hezbollah!” (Chara was draped in the Hezbollah flag at the time.)

The Met issued a statement on 1st May after videos of the two concerts were shared online: “Both videos were referred to the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit for assessment by specialist officers, who have determined there are grounds for further investigation into potential offences linked to both videos. The investigation is now being carried out by officers from the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command and inquiries remain ongoing at this time.”

“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.”