Talk:Lèse-majesté

message: why is thailand so special? every country, every belief has its limits and tries to protect its values, even if they are utmost uncommon and dubious. only the so-called 'majesties' are different: praesidents, constitutions, parties (the party is always right), dieties (god, virgin maria, allah, prophet muhammad (see rushdie & carricatures). in modern western times the majesties are called: freedom & democracy (more spongy concepts). the thai king is most revered and even loved by 95% of its people since more than 60 years. that's outstanding & unique. --Scyriacus (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thailand

message: I've noted that Sulak Sivaraksa only allegedly committed lese-majesty.  He was aquitted in court.Patiwat 10:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sulak Sivaraksa found not guilty of lese-majesty 

message: I would have thought that even just in English lèse majesté is a lot more common than lese majesty: I've never even seen lese majesty before, and I'm pretty well-read. - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google supports your belief, with almost 200,000 hits for lèse majesté and only 33,000 for lese majesty. I'd be ok with renaming the article as long as lese majesty still redirects to it.--Alabamaboy 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Name hasn't been changed yet.Underalms (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article 

message: The Thailand sections needs to be improved. Preferbly try to mention events in chronological order. If this doesn't work, at least mention dates whenever possible. For example, the way it's currently written I assumed "Lech Tomacz Kisielwicz" was a recent case, after the 2005 speech, but it's actually 1995 Nil Einne 13:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thailand 

message: There are laws protecting Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Imam Khomeini against slander in Iran. Is this  considered Lèse majesté?--NewtoThis8 14:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! 115.84.95.219 (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali Khamenei 

message: Few countries still prosecute lèse majesté. One exception is Thailand, where social activists like Sulak Sivaraksa were charged with the crime in the 1980s and '90s because they allegedly criticized the King,[2] although the King in his 2005 birthday speech said he would not take lèse majesté charges seriously "any more".
I see that "anymore" should not be existed, because the King never for once said that he backs lese majesty, he even opposed the charge from the very beginning of his reign, so "anymore" would just mean that the King has always been a keen supporter of lese majesty until a year ago, if no objections are raised then I would delete it. (Papongza 12:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any objection ? 

message: Can anyone tell me if there are still lese-majesty laws in the UK. I know people are not prosecuted anymore for it, but does it still exist in the UK law books?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.217.115 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest you worry more about the libel-laws. They sting just the same.(83.108.30.141 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Contempt of the sovereign suggests it's a different thing Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lese-majesty laws 

message: I've edited the phrase about the indicent in the Netherlands where a man was supposedly fined €400 for calling Queen Beatrix a whore, because it's not completely accurate. The 44-year old man was sentenced for not only lèse majesté, but also for insulting the police officer he was making the whore-comment to (he called him/her a 'kankerlijer', which literraly is an insulting way to indicate someone who has cancer) and also for violating an official order from the mayor of Amsterdam, which stated he could not enter the city center for a period of 24 hours.
So i added 'amongst other things' in that phrase. For all who speak Dutch, you can verify this at: http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/resultpage.aspx?snelzoeken=true&searchtype=kenmerken&vrije_tekst=koningin+hoer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.99.210 (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lèse Majesté in the Netherlands 

message: At the bottom of the article it says "Malaysia has hanged 3 members of Al-Ma'unah group for found guilty for waging war against the King".  Unless it was a war of insults, this does not seem like prosecution under lèse majesté (not to mention the grammar errors). 129.170.66.218 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed I've removed it. (As the article on the group says, they stole a bunch of guns from a military compound so their crimes were clearly way beyond simply violating the digninity of the monarch, it's more of a terminology thing in that the king is used as a subtitute for the country/governmment/people Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malaysia 

message: "Very few countries" today. This seems surprising to me. When I lived in Cote d@Ivoire a decade ago journalists were imprisoned for referring to president Bedie as a dwarf (Nabo) and I was told at the time that the law against "lack of respect for a reigning president" were common to most of the developing world, certainly all Francophone Africa. I cannot believe much has changed since. --BozMo talk 14:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Contempt of the Sovereign is an offence under the common law of England and Wales, but today has fallen into disuse, and most give respect to the Sovereign out of common courtesy because the British are total weenies.[10]
I assume this is vandalism? 93.96.24.229 (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It could be a Polish hooligan who would oppiniate that even Gazza is a hippie.(83.108.30.141 (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The article says that it is illegal in Poland to insult foreign (emphasis added) heads of state, but then mentions a man being arrested for an insult to the President of Poland. I assume that means it is also illegal to insult the Polish head of state? If so, the article should state that explicitly. It should also say if this is true for Germany and Switzerland, which are mentioned in the same section. Tad Lincoln (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland 

message: I don't see any discussion of this move or reason for it. No articles link to the new title directly. The lead says that even in English it's "lese majesty".  If there's no compelling reason I'll move it back.   Will Beback  talk   08:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. It's called lèse-majesté in English. I think very few English speakers would recognize the term “injured majesty.” — mlc talk 21:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Might be worth mentioning the literal English translation is "injured majesty".  74.104.188.4 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move: Lèse majesté -> Injured majesty

message: It is also expected that Joe, age 55, will continue to be red-linked, which the American Embassy warns may affect tourism – or maybe not. Joe Gordon, as he has been know since becoming an American citizen and formerly a Thai subject by the name of Lerpong Wichaikhammat, would not think it a joking matter, but one of adverse racial discrimination on the part of all parties involved — including Wikipedia, where the consensus of opinion is that neither his situation, nor the "Corby Effect" wherein  racial discrimination works to someone's benefit, are notable. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a joking matter 

message: Most of the comments have to do with Lèse Majesté in Thailand, which should be spund off into its own article, along with most of Bhumibol Adulyadej#Lèse Majesté, which has little to do with the king  beyond his argument against it, and his granting of pardons. That an independent article would then need a lot of updating is hinted at by the question, Is a lese majeste crackdown around the corner?--Pawyilee (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lèse Majesté in Thailand 

message: Why does the Thailand heading say  when the majority of the cases in the past years have not been about the king at all, but mainly about censorship in Thailand? If no one can give a good reason, I will change it. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thailand: NPOV 

message: I propose to draft a new article under the title Lèse majesté in Thailand, bringing together material from the Thailand sub-section of this article and the Lèse majesté section of the article Bhumibol Adulyadej. The length of both sections justifies — in my view — a separate article. Moreover, it would be helpful and reader-friendly to cover the topic in one article, instead of treating it in two different places. Third, the lèse majesté law was already in force before King Bhumibol ascended the throne and will (probably) still be in force after his death. Of course, with his more than 60 years of reign, this law is effectively tied to his person, but I would still deem it more correct to have a separate article, which could also relieve the Bhumibol article's length (127k) and the regional imbalance of this article here, whose Thailand sub-section is longer than all other countries' sub-sections together. --RJFF (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: --RJFF (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: I wonder if the author might contact the authors of the several articles addressing the topic of "treason".  Depending on the year (say, pre 1715), sovereigns were in some position to make up their own minds about the maliciousness of "lèse majesté", whereby it would be considered treason.  Though uncommon, it would be a useful capture of the word in a context more familiar than in the reverse; thus, while pondering all the offenses to a king that might be considered treasonous, I was unable to come up with "lèse majesté" until it returned from its hiding place, whereas all sorts of combinations relating belittling, mocking, etc., tied to "treason" always simply referred to the main articles and the laws citing four types of treason, none of which was "lèse majesté".  It is, for example, with lèse majesté that King George VI darkly charges Mr. Longue at one point in "The King's Speech".
173.54.35.118 (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treason Article 

message: "Future republics that emerged as great powers generally still classified as a crime any offence against the highest representatives of the state, and any actions that offend modern totalitarian dictators are still very likely to result in prosecution."
Strange wording -- it sounds like a nebulous vast generalization, yet the author seems to have a specific accusation in mind. The tone  is a bit polemical or highschool essayish. The word totalitarian is a too strong, most dictators aren't totalitarian but they will punish insults against themselves anyway. 84.227.245.179 (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd wording 

message: "Insult".  Could you give some graphic details in the intro, make a 2nd paragraph: what do you mean insulting.  Your mom wears army boots?  insulting someone to their face verbally, through letters, emails?   Newspapers?  Thrown daggers?  Public embarassment?  Putting up a banner somewhere that somehow pisses off the President?  Putting on the President's clothes?  Invading the King's home, fondling his wife, kidnapping his children?  Or just insulting someone, not the king or president, but someone who's like a congressman, does that insult the state enough?  The article goes over punishments but not the "crimes" themselves.  OsamaBinLogin (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Kind of Insult? 

message: In the section on Denmark the word "regent" seems to be used as though it meant the same thing as "monarch", which it does not. A regent (from the Latin for "ruling person") is "a person appointed to administer a state because the monarch is a minor, is absent or is incapacitated", and hence can never be a monarch. I hope this doesn't mean the article was wholly or partly written by someone who is not a native speaker of English (especially important if the topic is a legal one, as in this case).  Elsewhere in the article "regent" appears to be used correctly.213.127.210.95 (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of the term "regent" 

message: This French word, which is meaningless in English, appears in the section on Morocco. The correct English term is "charge sheet". More evidence (see my previous comment on "regent") that this article was wholly or partly written by a non-native speaker of English.213.127.210.95 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Procès-verbal" 

message: * From , from Latin laesa maiestatis, injury to the Majesty.
This is a confusing frustrating article! It starts with a foreign word-phrase and says nothing about what language it is, the history of the usage etc. Although this is not a dictionary, in this case it is too weird to leave out the relevant basics. It is good to have the Wiktionary link at the bottom, but far from good enough. If there is not going to be adequate info in the article, that link should be prominent, right up at the top of the article.
I suspect that the entire article is unintentionally implicitly misleading. It uses the article title term throughout the article, discussing various countries, in vaguely historical ways. But the content seems mostly about the general concept, not about the actual wording that was or is used in all of these widely varying contexts. Again, leaving the reader totally unclear about where and when this or any particular specific terms were/are actually used.-71.174.185.30 (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology - word usage history 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lèse-majesté. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106113409/http://www.pcb.ub.es/idp/docs/marroc/code_presse.pdf to http://www.pcb.ub.es/idp/docs/marroc/code_presse.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707213249/http://www.barcelonareporter.com/index.php?%2Fnews%2Fcomments%2Fbarcelona_fans_plead_for_jailed_supporter_caught_offside_by_king%2F to http://www.barcelonareporter.com/index.php?%2Fnews%2Fcomments%2Fbarcelona_fans_plead_for_jailed_supporter_caught_offside_by_king%2F
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The current introduction:
:"Lèse-majesté ([..]) is the crime of violating majesty, an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state."
uses the term "majesty" in an ususual way that is perhaps borrowed from monarchist language, requiring the two words "violating majesty" to be put in quotes and attributed to a source. It also references the idea of "dignity" but this is not well-defined, though perhaps it has some legal basis in defamation law, but then the term "insult" is absent, and "slander" and "libel" are unmentioned, perhaps because the idea of lese-majeste predates slander and libel, in which case it is not a crime but a former crime. Placing the idea of lese-majeste in the context of certain kinds of law, such as "in monarchist governments" seems proper. -Inowen (nlfte) 00:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violating magesty (noun) 

message: I noted that someone had made "Crimen Laesae Majestatis" a redirect page to this page. This leads to the wrong result if one intends to link to an explanation of the meaning and use of the concept in the context of the law of treason in early modern Europe (for instance the Dutch Republic), especially where there was no "majesty" who could be diminished, but where the concept was used in cases of high treason. A better link would be to the article Law of majestas. I am not competent to change the redirect page (I simply made sure to get the correct linkage in the cases that interest me), but maybe someone else could do this?--Ereunetes (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong redirect to this page 

message: Why isn't the Hermit Nation listed here? They're the most infamous country for sentencing countless people, both foreign and national, to life in prison, forced labor, torture, beatings, death, and much more. Lmharding (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 09:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about lèse-majesté, not cruel punishments generally. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea 

message: The map (purportedly as of September 2022) does not seem to correspond with the text of the article...Africans and South American countries seem to have such laws according to the text of this article, but it's not reflected on the map. Park3r (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map accuracy

message: I'm confused by the placement of the United Kingdom in the "Former Laws" category. From the relevant entry, it seems to me that the law is a current one by definition. Even if unenforced, it could theoretically be used at any time without any action by parliament, the only barrier for the prosecution being public opinion and optics. 
Moreover, it seems that this particular entry is more relevant now than before, with the ascension of King Charles III, who has been markedly less popular than the late Queen Elizabeth II. Such divisiveness could feasibly inspire this criminal charge's exhumation and reapplication to monarchy-abolitionists, if the Royal Family begins to feel rhetorically threatened. 
My point, in short, is that the other "Former Laws" entries are ones that are repealed or expired at the time of writing this topic, which makes the UK ostensibly the odd one out, having an active statute. Is there a reason for this placement that qualifies it as "former" besides the fact that it hasn't been exercised in modern times? JacobP2003 (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: I'm confused. This article is both about actions against royalty, and actions against heads of state and governments. These are different things. Russia cannot have Lese Majeste unless it is against the previous monarchy. Insulting the president doesn't count. Secretlondon (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lese Majeste in republics?