Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Thailand Bans YouTube

Posted by Zonk on from the getting-to-be-popular dept.

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."

11 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Now if only... by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Now if only... by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thailand isn't "medieval" when it comes to morality - it is thai. Why do you think it is proper to judge a foreign country in terms of our history? They have a different morale, yeah. Now lets hear your objective definition of what makes "better" morales.

      According to Thai standards, that dress is considerably worse than that superbowl nipple flash you americans got. And if you read the page you linked to, you'd have seen that the punishment wasn't a hundred million bucks, but reading to blind children for a few days. For me, I consider that a lot more enlightened than a few millions because the chiiiildren will be soooo damaged by seing a picture of something they sucked on a few years ago.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:Now if only... by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thailand isn't "medieval" when it comes to morality - it is thai.

      Whatever you want to call it, "Ass-Backwards" looks the same in any culture.

    3. Re:Now if only... by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Any moral system that condones 10 years of prison for spray-painting a picture of a person is B-R-O-K-E-N.

      Probably.

      Then again, the US legal system condones punishments for modifying your own hardware in defiance of the DMCA that exceed what you'd get for assault or auto theft. That same system recently had the potential to lock some guy in prison for 55 years for the crime of 'computer intrusion' -- making it a crime on par with murder.

      More telling perhaps, a big chunk of the US is constantly trying to pass legislation to make burning a particular piece of cloth illegal. Is that any less absurd than a law against spray-painting a picture?

      I'm not saying I think the Thai law is sensible, but you don't have to go to Thailand to see "ass-backwards".

    4. Re:Now if only... by curecollector · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Alright, this is a day when I wish I had some mod points kicking around. Insightful + 1.

      If there's one thing that always drive me up a wall, it's all of this relativism when it comes to matters of culture. At least in America. For some strange reason, it's become taboo to flat out say, "in my eyes, this culture is fucking insane".

      I mean, think about it: there are parts of the world where they believe that the grain that America gives them is giving them AIDS. There are parts of the world where people believe that raping a virgin (babies included) can cure AIDS. There are parts of the world where they execute/impose life sentences on drug dealers (of those who they believe to be drug dealers), yet child prostitution runs rampant, in a semi-open manner. The list goes on. I'll be honest, as far as I'm concerned, it's all fucking backwards.

      (PS - I'm not saying America is above reproach, either. Not for a second. Hell, the rest of the world has no problem pointing out what they perceive to be our flaws. Why is it that we can never point out theirs?)

    5. Re:Now if only... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Insightful
      > Why do you think it is proper to judge a foreign country in terms of our history?

      Because that's the nature of making a judgement. If my neighbour thinks it's fine to have sex with children and I don't I'll judge them by my standards. You don't give up making ethical judgements about someone simply because they have different standards. Similarly it seems entirely reasonable to me for people of one culture to critique the ethics of another. And it seems entirely reasonable for people of a culture to use convenient landmarks in their own history to express those critiques.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  2. Breaking News.. by madsheep · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Respect and Freedom? by BDPrime · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is a good question. Should I respect a culture with a different morality than my own? Should I respect cultures that, for example, circumcise women as a regular practice and have been doing it for "a thousand years?" I tend to think this is a case-by-case basis.

    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.

  4. Re:Respect and Freedom? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. It's Like Calling Your Sister a Slut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Respect and Freedom? by Wildclaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.