Thailand Censors 'Inappropriate' Websites

In addition to putting a curfew on an online game (Ragnarok) and Internet cafes, Thailand also starts to censor 'inappropriate' sites. More details can be found here and here. Since the rise of the current administration two years ago, freedom of the press in Thailand has been more and more restricted. Big media, newspapers, telecom companies are now owned by the administration's cronies. It makes me wonder when the government will censor any opposition on the web using this 'inappropriate contents' pretext.

Comments

Related /. story

[$exyNerdie]

Related /. story

Some people are going to applaude censorship

[Smartcowboy]

No longer than yesterday I had a discussion with a girl who said she wants censorship in movies and television.

Her main argument was about the "bad taste" of some movies and tv shows.

Who is good enough to decide what's good taste and what's bad taste for everyone?
Who is good enough to decide what's appropriate and what's inappropriate for everyone?

A mindless computer program?

Some censorship comity that don't knows me/you and thinks it can decide what I/you can look at?

Censorship = Abuse

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[lightspawn]

Who is good enough to decide what's good taste and what's bad taste for everyone?
Who is good enough to decide what's appropriate and what's inappropriate for everyone?

Fine companies with products such as these:

* BESS
* Cyber Patrol
* WebSENSE
* Net Nanny
* SmartFilter
* X-Stop
* I-Gear
* CYBERsitter

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[BigBir3d]

"I believe in freedom of speech as long as I am not offended by what you say" - direct quote of my old literature professor (Univ. AZ 1993).

Censorship is a hard word to throw around. What is the difference between child porn and regular porn? Age is just a arbitrary number, 18 by no means implies rational intelligent thought (nor does 21 for that matter).

NYC is now completely non-smoking in all public places. Why? Public health is bull sh*&. Go somewhere else if you think it is unhealthy. You swim in a clean pool / river / lake instead of a polluted one for the same reason.

18 to vote. 18 to join the military. 21 to buy or consume alcohol legally in the USA. Old analogy, I know. But it still works.

Wal-Mart won't sell DVD's or CD's that it deems inappropriate. Walk into any store, and it is obvious that their policy is rather inconsistent.

How are the governments (regardless of USA or Thailand or China etc etc) choices going to be any different. Will it be something that is under public oversight. Whose jurisdiction is it exactly?

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[cheezus]

NYC is now completely non-smoking in all public places. Why? Public health is bull sh*&. Go somewhere else if you think it is unhealthy. You swim in a clean pool / river / lake instead of a polluted one for the same reason.

Public health is bullsh*&? (btw, "bullsh*&"? please tell me that was an intended censorship joke) Best I can tell, most of the public is pretty concerned with their health. By your logic we shouldn't have laws banning spaying machine gun fire in public - Go somewhere else if you think the bullets are dangerous

18 to vote. 18 to join the military. 21 to buy or consume alcohol legally in the USA. Old analogy, I know. But it still works.

Actually, that's up to the states, but a drinking age &lt 21 means no federal highway money. When the drinking age was 18, the 18 year old HS seniors would pass alcohol on to the 15 year old freshmen. Now the 21 year old college students pass alcohol on to the 18 year old college freshmen. It's not like it's hard to get beer when you're 18. But yes, the law is stupid. One answer would be to raise the age for voting, military, legal contracts, etc to 21... but I have better idea:

Make the drinking age 21 or High School graduation. Helps the problem of younger kids drinking, and gives the dropouts a reason to reconsider.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[BigBir3d]

Public health is bullsh*&? (btw, "bullsh*&"? please tell me that was an intended censorship joke) Best I can tell, most of the public is pretty concerned with their health. By your logic we shouldn't have laws banning spaying machine gun fire in public - Go somewhere else if you think the bullets are dangerous.

Machine guns are illegal too...

Most of the general public is NOT concerned about their health (looka the obesity numbers, or smoking numbers, of US citizens).

My ire is due to the fact that cigs are legal to make, sell, use, and tax. But now it is illegal to use them in public in NYC (and CA too IIRC). If they are so bad, why are they still legal? Give me a good reason, other than taxes.

Drinking age is a a stupid law. When I was 12 I had access to beer and hard liquor. Guess what? I tried it. Tried smoking too. Who cares? Am I worse off because of it? No.

Federal highway money is a nice way of saying "extortion in this case is good." Same goes for the 75mph speed limit stuff (Anything over 65 or 70... not sure which, causes loss of percentage of fed hwy funds).

Most of this would not be a problem, if people stopped being friends to their kids, and actaully being parents. But I digress.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[Ieshan]

Make the drinking age 21 or High School graduation. Helps the problem of younger kids drinking, and gives the dropouts a reason to reconsider.

What would the liquor store signs read?

Please have your ID or Highschool Equivalency Certificate ready before purchasing!

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[cheezus]

What would the liquor store signs read?

Please have your ID or Highschool Equivalency Certificate ready before purchasing!

My plan entails the kids going to the dmv and getting an endorsement on their DL saying they are legal for alcohol consumption

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[cheezus]

okay, machine guns are illegal. replace machine guns with semi automatic weapons, or even handguns, or rifles... my point remains the same. smoke does real damage to people, and the cost of health care is distributed to everyone. (higher insurance premiums, workers comp clains, medicare, etc)

why aren't cigs illegal? well, if you think drug policy is good thing, they *should* be illegal, but fat chance the southern tobacco growing states and the tobacco lobby are going to let that happen. if you think drug policy is bad thing, people should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies, and thus cigs (and booze, and pot, etc) should be legal.... however, when you smoke in a public place you are harming others. There are plenty of things you can do legally in the privacy of your own home that aren't legal to do in public.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[BigBir3d]

I think we are both in agreeance (from opposite sides of the fence) that the American legal system, and its laws, are in shambles. Not much of it makes sense, and most of it contradicts something else.

Not much can change though until the Supreme Court is no longer a lifetime appointment.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[cheezus]

um, so what sides of the fence are we on?

as far as the court, how long of an appointment should it be? I mean, if the executive branch can fill in the court when elected that pretty much destroys the whole idea of checks and balances.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[BigBir3d]

I am on the "big government sucks" side...

Every other judge in the country (AFAIK) has a term. Some are elected by the public, other by their peers. There is nothing in place to hold the Supreme Court Justices in check. They can do whatever, whenever, for as long as they shall live. They have more power than anyone else in the country; due to the fact that they can outlast any of their detractors. All they end up doing is voting party lines 90% of the time anyhow. Since when does politics govern law (in theory)? Law is supposed to be about something other than religious doctrine and party platforms.

The executive branch should not be involved (as they are currently) in determining whom the Justices are. The SC is overseeing that exec branch is doing a proper job, but they are put in place by the exec branch...

*sigh*

I hate this country sometimes...

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[cheezus]

I agree totally that the judges, in many regards, put politics ahead of the law. Term limits would be a good idea, but how? a set number of years? one goes every presidental term? I think the idea the founding fathers had (not that i'd presume to speak for them) was to have a branch of government that would be more conservative (in the tradional sense... administrations and congresses come and go relatively rapidly, but the court is more steady). As a result, a short term swing in either ideological direction doesn't overwhelm the entire government.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[BigBir3d]

I think the terms should be limited to something like 7 years. This way you can not have anyone there for 2 full presidential terms.

There are currently 9 members (1 Chief and 8 Associate Justices).

I guess it is more practical to have terms of 9 years (1 new SCJ per year). Make the Chief Justice position open only to current SCJ's with 5 years of bench time or more, no more than 7 years.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[usotsuki]

It used to be possible for me to help teachers at my high school bypass Bess.

Believe it or not, when I forgot to remove the bypass from a library computer I was then banned forever from their computers.

*sigh*

-uso.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[JeanPaulBob]

Machine guns are illegal too...

No, they aren't. You just have to pay a $200 registration fee/tax stamp. See the 1934 National Firearms Act.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[Quila]

ne answer would be to raise the age for voting, military, legal contracts, etc to 21.

We just lowered it to 18 a while ago.

Make the drinking age 21 or High School graduation.

How about using Germany as a model: 18 for everything, although kids of 16 can still buy beer and wine IIRC. This way they know how to drink and handle their alcohol, and it isn't special anymore by the time they get their driver's license at 18.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[Quila]

my point remains the same. smoke does real damage to people,

For second-hand smoke, it appears the jury is still out. A recent study in the British Journal of Medicine on American Cancer Society data shows almost no increase in smoking-related problems for non-smoking spouses living with smokers for the last 30+ years.

The study was done by two British scientists funded by tobacco industry interests; however, this isn't your standard biased American Tobacco Institute study. It actually got published in a prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal.

and the cost of health care is distributed to everyone

First, smokers generally pay higher premiums.

Second, do you drink alcohol, eat trans-fats, eat red meat, play football, ski or have a non-ergonomic setup at that computer you're on? Do you not exercise regularly? Do you do anything that is detrimental to your health, or omit that which you should be doing to promote your health?

If so, you are raising my insurance premiums so I demand that your habits be banned.

Living in a free country means accepting other peoples' habits so that yours, too, can be accepted.

however, when you smoke in a public place you are harming others.

This can be extended to SUVs, too. The danger to my in my tiny 1,600lb car is just too much, so I want them banned. (not)

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[Matrix272]

Make the drinking age 21 or High School graduation.

I have a better idea. How about making the drinking age 12? That way they can go out and get drunk when they're very young and get it "out of their system" (that's a figure of speech). Then when they learn to drive, "Big Brother" will know which ones to watch, since they'll already be known alcoholics. Crazy idea, I know, but just crazy enough to work.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[Matrix272]

I think we are both in agreeance...

I'm sorry... this is just a pet peeve of mine. "Agreeance", while being an obsolete word, isn't a word in common usage, and thus shouldn't be used. We have invented a "replaceanced" word called "Agreement". Please, please use it... It's a good word.

As far as the content of your post, I agree... the American Legal System is a wreck and needs to be seriously rethought from the beginning. Then again, so does the American government.

Not much can change though until the Supreme Court is no longer a lifetime appointment.

In one way I agree. The Supreme Court might be better if it was a 30-year appointment. It makes sense, since the average lifespan in the Founding Fathers' time was 60 or so... they probably never expected people to live to be 95. On the other hand, the Supreme Court is NOT supposed to represent the people. They're simply supposed to examine the laws and previous court cases, as written and decided, and determine if they are Constitutional or not. Limiting them to a term length similar to President or Senators would effectively make the Supreme Court as corrupt an institution as the Senate or the House. (Explanation: If the Supreme Court has to answer to their constituents every X number of years, they'll base their decisions not on the law, but rather on their constituents opinions, which is exactly the opposite of the purpose of the Supreme Court to begin with.)

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[Matrix272]

I think the terms should be limited to something like 7 years. This way you can not have anyone there for 2 full presidential terms.

But that's defeating the purpose of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to be there for a long time, relatively speaking. Their opinions on how the law should be interpretted aren't supposed to be dictated by popular opinion. Most of the time, popular opinion would remember something that happened 8 or 9 years ago (remember Gulf War I? see, I'm right). If a SCJ rules against something that the public thinks is wrong, even if the SCJ ruled in accordance with established laws, even the Constitution, the public outlash could remove him/her from their seat, even though they did their job exactly as they were supposed to.

You do bring up valid points. Judges do have a tendency to vote on party lines, which has the appearance of being politically based. I see the problem as being that the judges aren't doing their jobs as they should, and instead, entering their personal feelings or opinions in their rulings. I won't take any examples, but pick any "contraversial" rulings, and you'll certainly find at least one judge entering in their decision one opinion or another, when all they should be saying is "Yes, that's in accordance with the Constitution" or "No, that's not what I think the Founding Fathers meant". Instead, we have judges citing "precidents" like diversity and individual privacy, neither of which appear anywhere in any documents describing how this nation should operate.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, because this isn't something most people think about, and certainly don't know much about. The issue does need to be addressed, but I'm not sure that term limits is the answer.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[buffer-overflowed]

There's no jury out, there is a small correlation between second hand smoke (or passive smoking) and an increase in some problems. However the data sets used in these studies are so small they aren't statistically relevant. IE: There is NO accepted proof that second hand smoke does anything (not even asthma attacks). Zip zero, nada. Won't find anything in a respected medical journal because the RR isn't high enough. Passive smoking bans are not to protect non-smokers but encourage smokers to quit and stigmatize them. One flawed EPA study is the basis for almost all passive smoking bans.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[BigBir3d]

I understand what you are getting at.

My basic fear is; this country is going straight into the shitter. People are willing to give up their basic civil liberties with just the mention of the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" or whatnot. They think that it only affects those that are being villainized by the government. They fail to see that everyone is being clustered into one group; possible suspect. Some non scientific (read online) polls I have seen show 70% or more approval of diminished civil liberties. "Give me liberty or give me death" means nothing now. We haven't had to fight anything locally (in the USA) for 3 or 4 decades now. I find it amazing that with the growing number of "minorities" in this country, people are putting up with this. One day, people are going to wake up and realize that there are more black (African-American or whatever is p.c.) and hispanic people than there are white people. Eventually our elected officials are going to mirror this. I fail to see how any self respecting black man can stand to see what is happening today in this country. If you are Arab looking, you are on a list. You will be pointed out by someone. You will be scrutinized where ever you go. This country supposedly is about that _not_ being the case. Now it is okay again. MLK Jr must be rolling over in his grave.

But I digress...

The political system of the USA can not stand much longer only representing 2 points of view. Countries the size of Texas (France for one) have 7 or even more major political parties. We have 2. That is not right (what party is for someone who is pro-choice and also pro gun?). And what it really comes down to is, he/she with the most money wins. Regardless of the endeavor. There have been a few glowing failures (Perot) to this, but not often.

And overseeing all of this is the same stodgy old Supreme Court full of dinosaurs from a bygone era. The Chief Justice has been on the court for ever (1968 or something). Clarence Thomas turned out to be a waste (rarelt speaks up about anything). I could go on.

This country we live in is dynamic, and most of the rulers are as well. At the top, we are being "represented" by something that does not resemble the current situation. That is depressing.

And I really think most people today are stuck in the same old rut that screwed over people throughout history; complacency and the status quo.

*sigh*

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[Quila]

There's no jury out,

Actually, with science, there's always a jury out.

However the data sets used in these studies are so small they aren't statistically relevant.

The dataset in the BMJ article began with over 118,000 people 30+ years ago, including 35,000 nonsmokers living with smokers. This huge, long-term dataset resulted in, you guessed it, a very tiny correlation, but not the 20-30% usually quoted.

One flawed EPA study is the basis for almost all passive smoking bans.

Got a link?

Here's mine.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[Matrix272]

My basic fear is; this country is going straight into the shitter. ... MLK Jr must be rolling over in his grave.

I absolutely couldn't agree with you more. I think the biggest "concern" that the "minorities" have is what they like to call "diversity", which is gradually turning into the source for a good number of problems, including the dumbing down of our nation's children, discrimination against "non-minorities", etc. At some point, the general public will realize this is what's happening... which is why you and I are here. :-) It's nice to be needed...

The political system of the USA can not stand much longer only representing 2 points of view. Countries the size of Texas (France for one) have 7 or even more major political parties.

While I agree, I must ask you this: Are we judging our country by the standards set by other countries? I think it should be the other way around. Other countries should judge their greatness by our standard. However, I do agree that 2 political parties simply isn't enough.

what party is for someone who is pro-choice and also pro gun?

The party I've chosen is both pro-choice and pro-gun... the Libertarian party. Essentially, I believe the government screws up almost anything it touches, and thus should be as small as possible, affecting as few people, their choices, and their wallots, as possible.

At the top, we are being "represented" by something that does not resemble the current situation.

If by that statement you're referring to the Supreme Court, I have to agree, but disagree with changing it. The Supreme Court is supposed to represent long-term values, so the popular trends don't get made into permanent law if they contradict the Constitution. That's why they have life-time appointments. If they started voting for whatever the public wants, or thinks they want, the Supreme Court would become just as corrupt as the rest of the government already is. The only difference is that since they're lifetime appointments, it takes longer for them to become corrupt... even though some people (I won't mention any names) are trying to do so anyway.

And I really think most people today are stuck in the same old rut that screwed over people throughout history; complacency and the status quo.

Definitely. There are things being done in our collective names that would have most people want to move to another country. The only way things are going to change, in my very humble opinion, is to start at the beginning... education. We need to get rid of the teacher's unions and get teachers in there that WANT to teach, not that look at it as a job. Then get rid of all these stupid politically correct tests that only prove that the children aren't learning anything. Over time, our children will actually know what year our country was founded, or what country we had to fight to earn out independence (ironic how we fought for dependence from England, yet now are dependent on our own government, eh?). Once our children start to become more intelligent than our adults, and not the other way around, we can have some hope in the future.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[buffer-overflowed]

Here's another /.ers take on it. It's down a ways, but it's there.

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[BigBir3d]

While I agree, I must ask you this: Are we judging our country by the standards set by other countries? I think it should be the other way around. Other countries should judge their greatness by our standard. However, I do agree that 2 political parties simply isn't enough.

What is so great right our country right now that we should be the bellweather of what is considered great? Nothing that I can see. America was not better in the past because it was America, it was better because of its ideals, and its actions. That is no longer the case. We have been reduced to rich bullies that play the role of police officer for the world.

The party I've chosen is both pro-choice and pro-gun... the Libertarian party.

As a registered Libertarian, can you vote in the most important elections? No. I am of course referring to local elections that affect school district budgets and other important matters.

If by that statement you're referring to the Supreme Court, I have to agree, but disagree with changing it. The Supreme Court is supposed to represent long-term values, so the popular trends don't get made into permanent law if they contradict the Constitution. That's why they have life-time appointments. If they started voting for whatever the public wants, or thinks they want, the Supreme Court would become just as corrupt as the rest of the government already is. The only difference is that since they're lifetime appointments, it takes longer for them to become corrupt... even though some people (I won't mention any names) are trying to do so anyway.

If you want to pick nits... most of the Amendments of the last 100 years have been due to popular public opinion. Just ask any woman or minority. These Amendments went straight against the original intent of the founding documents of this country. Women can't vote, blacks don't count as a person (only 3/5), abortion as usage of modern science, etc etc.

As to the time required for corruption; a split second. The first time a Justice dissents, and it is all over.

Education is a problem, but for a different reason I think. Up until 30 years ago, teaching was a highly respectable endeavor. Now it has been reduced to "those that can't, teach." Until teachers are treated as most honorable shapers of the future (which is what they are), the effort put into the system will continue to scale down. This effort is not just from the teachers, but the students as well. For a nice example of what I am referring to, go to Japan.

I also think that _all unions_ should be dismantled. What has the UAW done other than artificially increase the cost of American cars, with the obvious side effects. Teachers lose a good 10-15% of their wages so they can do the collective bargaining, to get a 5% pay increase. Hrmm... makes sense?

Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship

[Matrix272]

What is so great right our country right now that we should be the bellweather of what is considered great?

Our country is great simply because we're better than any other country. The example you gave, France, is definitely not a great example of how a country can operate. They have much higher unemployment, a higher national debt, lower average wages, lower average intelligence, and no power or authority to change anything in the course of history. The same things apply to most of the other countries in the world at the moment.

We have been reduced to rich bullies that play the role of police officer for the world.

Just to be clear, are you advocating a hands-off approach to foreign relations? That's a perfectly acceptable point of view, and one that I happen to agree with, but I can see how many, many people wouldn't. They see it as the duty and responsibility of the United States to patrol the world, looking for bad guys. What other reason did we go into Iraq, or Somalia, or any other wars in the past 50 years? What other reason might we go into Liberia, other than to fix the problems that others have created? I tend to think we have enough problems at home to deal with before running off to fight wars for the UN. In my opinion, if the UN never does anything for us, we should never do anything for them (and what have they EVER done for us?).

If you want to pick nits... most of the Amendments of the last 100 years have been due to popular public opinion. Just ask any woman or minority. These Amendments went straight against the original intent of the founding documents of this country. Women can't vote, blacks don't count as a person (only 3/5), abortion as usage of modern science, etc etc.

Amendments are one thing... the Supreme Court is something else. I see what you're saying though. Most of the amendments that have been passed are only because of the protests and "persuasion" of Congress. As an argument I was having with someone else just a few days ago, "how can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional". The answer, which he never saw, was that it was brought about by Un-Constitutional, and illegal methods, and should never have been voted for in the first place. I'm not a racist or a sexist, but many of the amendments are just plain stupid (I think of the Income Tax as one). It directly contradicted the established Constitution, and was voted for because people were only thinking about their own personal agendas, not for the good of the country. I think the Supreme Court should have stopped that amendment as soon as it was proposed. After all, "Amendment" does NOT mean "Revision"...

The first time a Justice dissents, and it is all over.

I can understand certain ways of dissention, but the arguments used for many of them today are not based on the Constitution. They're based on political or personal agendas, and that's where it goes wrong. Fortunately, there are still enough SCJ's to rule in favor of the Constitution most of the time.

Education is a problem, but for a different reason I think. Up until 30 years ago, teaching was a highly respectable endeavor. Now it has been reduced to "those that can't, teach." Until teachers are treated as most honorable shapers of the future (which is what they are), the effort put into the system will continue to scale down. This effort is not just from the teachers, but the students as well. For a nice example of what I am referring to, go to Japan.

I think teaching will become a respectable position when the teaching is done by those who want to do it, enjoy it, and are good at it. Teaching should be considered Civil Service, not a job. If I told people that I volunteered my time to teach, they'd be impressed. If I told them I taught for a living, they wouldn't. I'm not saying teachers should be volunteers... I think they should receive a salary, but that shouldn't be the primary reason they're a teacher. While we're at it, get rid of tenured profes

Don't worry:

[Elwood P Dowd]

You can still have sex with twelve year old boys in Thailand. You just can't read about it on the internet.

Re:Don't worry:

[lordfoul]

Just because you have sex with 12 year old boys doesn't mean it's legal.

Re:Don't worry:

[Matrix272]

I think he was pointing out the irony of how preteen sex is legal in Thailand, you just can't read about it. I could be wrong, but from the movies I've seen ("Me love you long time for 5 dollars!"), it's probably true.

Re:Keep Slashdot online in Thailand!

[usotsuki]

"Wa thai thai o do yo thai o thai" ?

-uso.
Damn, I listen to Missy Elliott way too much.

Re:This happened last month in Iran...

[phorm]

a)We didn't know
b)If it's important to you, post a link to something that gives us more info. Linkless stories don't usually get posted
c)Pro-American regimes are what we're fighting against in many cases (or the degredation of Americanistic countries).
d)We can't post everything everytime
e)I think I've just fed a troll...

That being said. I'm a Canadian... the above mark my respect for the intent of the American forefathers. Since when is Thailand pro-American? Heck, even Canada isn't really that pro-American anymore (bush is a moron ring a bell?)
Heck, even America isn't that pro-Amearican anymore... as civil liberties are starting to mean jack sh*t nowadays

Re:This happened last month in Iran...

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't feed a troll, just a whiner.

I'm sick of the news media ignoring Iran just because the government and their goons won't let any Western media take pictures. There were protests around the world and all the media report about Iran today is those unfortunate twins!

Here's the information on the satellite uplink jamming. The jammed TV stations include NITV and Azadi TV.

For information on today's protests in which 100,000 came out in Tehran, there is information from the BBC and the Jerusalem Post.

First-hand accounts of today's events have been posted on sympathetic websites like Iran va Jahan and SMCCDI.

Information on Internet censorship can be found here (parrotting the Iranian government line that it was all about sex) and more objective articles here and here.

c)Pro-American regimes are what we're fighting against in many cases (or the degredation of Americanistic countries).

A noble fight. But please don't lose sight of the rest of humanity's wish for even a smidgen of the developed world's freedom.

Last I heard....

[tuber]

Last I heard they still haven't banned 'blowjob bars'. Hmmm, maybe they'll only crack down once they make 'blowjob cybercafes'. God forbid somebody visit an inappropriate website whilst irrumating a 16 year old girl.