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.”)

100 Most Influential Movies Beyond Times

To mark its 100th issue, Indonesian film magazine Cinemags compiled a list titled 100 Most Influential Movies Beyond Times [sic] in November 2007. The list is heavily weighted towards American titles, with films from other countries relegated to ‘outside Hollywood’ sidebars. (In the UK, Total Film magazine published a similar list, The 67 Most Influential Films Ever Made, in 2009.)

The 100 most influential movies, according to Cinemags:

100. Harry Potter 1–8
99. Reservoir Dogs
98. Before Sunset / Before Sunrise
97. Born on the 4th of July
96. JFK
95. The Aviator
94. The Sixth Sense
93. Farenheit 9/11
92. United 93
91. The Graduate
90. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
89. Requiem for a Dream
88. Almost Famous
87. Million Dollar Baby
86. Braveheart
85. Kramer vs. Kramer
84. Chinatown
83. A Beautiful Mind
82. Amadeus
81. Good Will Hunting
80. Adaptation
79. Rain Man
78. Midnight Cowboy
77. Mulholland Drive
76. Ordinary People
75. 21 Grams
74. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
73. Dog Day Afternoon
72. The Lion King
71. Lost in Translation
70. Rear Window
69. Breakfast at Tiffany’s
68. Crash
67. Pretty Woman
66. The Thin Red Line
65. Mystic River
64. The Green Mile
63. Once Upon a Time in America
62. The Wizard of Oz
61. Full Metal Jacket
60. Finding Nemo
59. Gladiator
58. American History X
57. Kill Bill 1
56. Little Miss Sunshine
55. Vertigo
54. Fight Club
53. The Pianist
52. Dead Poets Society
51. Traffic
50. The Shining
49. American Beauty
48. On the Waterfront
47. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
46. Scarface
45. Blade Runner
44. Titanic
43. Ben-Hur
42. The Silence of the Lambs
41. The Last Emperor
40. Forrest Gump
39. The Shawshank Redemption
38. Saving Private Ryan
37. The Deer Hunter
36. Rocky
35. A Clockwork Orange
34. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
33. Casablanca
32. Gandhi
31. Léon
30. King Kong
29. Platoon
28. The Sound of Music
27. Dances with Wolves
26. Gosford Park
25. GoodFellas
24. Apocalypse Now
23. Indiana Jones 1–3
22. Rebel Without a Cause
21. To Kill a Mockingbird
20. It’s A Wonderful Life
19. Invasion of the Body Snatchers
18. The Lord of the Rings 1–3
17. Tootsie
16. Jaws
15. Double Indemnity
14. Aliens
13. Taxi Driver
12. Pulp Fiction
11. ET
10. Schindler’s List
9. The Matrix 1–3
8. In the Heat of the Night
7. Psycho
6. 2001
5. Raging Bull
4. Lawrence of Arabia
3. Star Wars
2. Gone with the Wind
1. The Godfather 1–2

Given that it’s a list of the most influential films — rather than the greatest films — it has some surprising entries: Finding Nemo is included, for example, though Toy Story isn’t. But Toy Story, being the first computer-animated film, is surely more influential than the later Finding Nemo?

There are more than 100 films on the list, as Harry Potter, The Lord of The Rings, The Matrix, Indiana Jones, and The Godfather are counted alongside their sequels as single entries. Also, note that Scarface is the Brian de Palma remake, Ben-Hur is the William Wyler remake, Crash is the Paul Haggis film, and Titanic is the James Cameron version.

These are the films in the Cinemags supplemental ‘outside Hollywood’ list:

• Seven Samurai
  
• My Girl
  
• Bad Education
  
• Life Is Beautiful
  
• City of God
  
• The Brotherhood of War
  
• Oldboy
  
• Downfall
  
• Battle Royale
  
• Cinema Paradiso
  
• Infernal Affairs
  
• Carandiru
  
• Malena
  
• In the Mood for Love
  
• Spirited Away
  
• Run Lola Run
  
• Trainspotting
  
• Goodbye, Lenin!
  
• 2046
  
• Amélie
  
• Hero
  
• A Fish Called Wanda
  
• Y tu mamá también
  
• The Ring
  
• Das Boot
  

Note that My Girl is the 2003 Thai film (แฟนฉัน), not the 1991 Hollywood movie.

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.”

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.

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.

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. Today, he filed a revised claim, seeking $20 billion.

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.

“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.