Slashdot Mirror
Thailand Bans YouTube
An anonymous reader writes "The new government of Thailand that forced its way into power last year has banned the website YouTube after a 44 second clip was found of someone spray painting on a picture of Thailand's king. When Google refused to remove the 'offending' clip the website was redirected to a different page. This comes days after a Swiss man was jailed 10 years for spray painting on pictures of the king while drunk, and is the same government that earlier this year slammed open source software for being useless and buggy."
They put half of that outrage into their domestic problems with child prostitution and pornography creation/distribution. Why, Thailand might make real progress on an issue that actually has a moral component to it.
That really isn't related to this story, is it? It's just there to agitate the average /.'er into blindly raging against Thailand.
In my day, we called that kind of stuff flamebait.
You know, like how Apple sucks and everyone who owns a Mac is a faggot.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
WHO CARES?
Ok so it's censorship and we should all care as we are "free." However, that wasn't really my point. This is hardly news. What do you expect from countries like this. For a place like Thailand banning YouTube is hardly their worst crime. Let's take an example from a week ago that was in the news. Main Jailed for 10 Years for Insulting King -- ok and we care about them blocking YouTube? I think there's a tons of worse things they do. Blocking YouTube is probably making them more productive if anything. Not saying it's not wrong or outrageous.. but in comparison to other things that go on there.. it most certainly is.
I realize that female circumcision is much different than banning YouTube, but I don't consider people "trolls" if they disagree with the Thai government's decision to try to control the public arena, just as I wouldn't consider people "trolls" if they criticized the current U.S. administration for practices they found offensive.
Try a stunt like that and you'll be lucky if the police gets you before the enraged mob does.
Any people that would beat or kill you for insulting someone are not enlightened, cultural superiors. They simple zealous lunatics.
The real test would be their reaction to some Danish cartoons.
Here in the US, it's hard for most of us to relate to why the Thai government would take this step. Their king is universally beloved by the people. Here in the West, we're used to the skewering of our political leaders and celebreties in print and on TV, but in Thailand you'd be better off insulting a man's wife than the king or queen! Just because we've arrived at the point where we respect no one and find few things worth fighting for doesn't mean that everyone else has to follow our lead.
Should a governmental body have the right to censor material that a large majority of its population finds offensive? Should Germany be allowed to block Nazi hate sites? Should China be allowed to block porn sites? Should any country be able to block material that depicts or encourages actions illegal in that country?
I lived in Thailand for a year and though I have never seen or met the king, I helped teach English at a school he funded and have been on the palace grounds where he lived many times. I can attest that the pride and admiration they have for the king runs deep and this action by the government is the equivalent of punching the guy who called your sister a slut. It may be that the whole episode is forgotten in a few days or it may create a lifelong grudge, but action to defend honor must be taken. And if you don't think defending honor is worth punching someone in the face, you're not going to understand this move by the Thai government.
Morality doesn't change with government. You know precious little about history if you think that.
And yes, we hold those things to be self-evident. That doesn't mean others have to as well, does it? Is there a place for diversity in your world of freedom and pursuit of happiness? Or can I only be free and pursue my happiness as long as I follow your code of ethics?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
So you allow the sexual mutilation of male infants because of a minor increase in risk of infection, which can be prevented by good hygenic practice. Circumcision itself isn't a risk free procedure and can cause medical problems, upto and including death, so arguing for medical merits is grasping at strawmen at best. If someone wants to circumcise themselves for any reasons, they can decide to do so by themselves when they are 18. Doing an irreversible medical procedure to an infant, when there is nothing wrong with him/her, is child abuse, simple as that. Legal infant male circumcision is nothing more than hypocrisy of the western societies.
As for smegma. It looks like you havn't looked it up very well. Smegma itself is hygenic. It is the accumulation of smegma by not washing it away at regular intervals that can cause problems. If males aren't learning how to wash their penises correctly, something is seriously wrong with their eduction, and replacing it with a medical procedure is bullshit.
Finally, you claim that uncircumcised penises look goofy? If anything it is circumcised penises that have an unnatural look. Besides, arguing for a medical procedure based on the looks of an organ that is mostly hidden is laughable.