Slashdot Mirror
Thailand Sues YouTube
eldavojohn writes "Thailand is hitting YouTube with charges of lese majeste (up to 15 years in prison) regarding the recent videos on YouTube showing the king next to feet, something extremely offensive in Thailand. 'Since the first clip, more new videos mocking the king have appeared on YouTube, including pictures of the monarch that had been digitally altered to make him resemble a monkey. Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais, is the world's longest-reigning monarch, and one of the few who is still protected by tough laws that prohibit any insult against the royal family.'"
...including pictures of the monarch that had been digitally altered to make him resemble a monkeyPerhaps instead they should photo-shop him into the pictures of the child prostitutes for which his country is infamous (not X-rated would get the most press, just standing among the lineups, and next to the AIDS ridden ones who are dying would be appropriate). Maybe his loving subjects might reconsider selling their daughters into a life of misery.
posted AC as I am a coward, more reading on the king and Thailand
Can suck my toe..
Now, sue me. Just try it. In *my* country i can say this, so go away.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If he's universally adored, then why are people making fun of him on the Internet?
Or is he universally adored in Thailand because it's illegal not to?
(Damn, I wish I could have people thrown in prison for making fun of me on the Internet. Wow.)
I've upped my standards, so up yours.
LeoPetr, almost universally revered by Thai Slashdotters, makes an incisive and witty comment on the situation.
My other body is also not wearing any.
Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais, is the world's longest-reigning monarch, and one of the few who is still protected by tough laws that prohibit any insult against the royal family.'
Hrm...
How about ditching the "lese majeste", and trying some "laissez faire"?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
While there may be laws in Thailand against such pictures, there are none in most of the rest of the world. King or not, you cannot regulate the entire network. Perhaps by law, YouTube must remove such offending pictures in their Thailand based servers, but if anyone, I mean ANYONE thinks they can regulate the entire Internet... they are in for a surprise.
In fact, since this story has come out in the open now, you are sure to see even more pictures of the king in all sorts of not-so-pleasant-for-him ways.
I guess they have to try until they learn....
Queue the viral news stories with funny pictures of the king in 3... 2... 1..
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Come on? First you tease with this long summary to several good Youtube clips and then you omit all the links?
...doesn't sound very bright. Or, more likely, they're perfectly bright and it's me that's stupid. Given that they have no grounds on which to sue anyone and that they're no doubt perfectly aware of that, what's the plan?
I would assume that it's a move to appease an outraged populace, except that the populace don't appear to be too outraged and the government's going to look rather foolish and impotent when they fail to accomplish anything.
If he was universally adored then such laws would be unnecessary.
Take that you abstract embodiment of an American corporational contract owned by another abstract entity also with no definite personification! It's off to the pokey!
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
And here I was thinking that Asia was a bastion of civil rights and freedom. You learn something new every day!
Next month, a "random" YouTube user will be selected for a 15-year vacation in beautiful Thailand!
Why do I get the image of a server sitting in the pokey in Thailand?
No seriously...
Do people think Google officials should be sent to Thailand on extradition the way Australia sent alleged copyright criminals to the United States? Is this the same situation, or is it fundamentally different?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Get the fuck over it. Seriously.
He is a KING. A KING. He should be able to deal with (oh horror) FEET!. I am aware of the cultural implications (I am friends with a few people from Thailand), but I expect people to be able to get over jackasses giving them the finger. I expect more of a guy who is a king.
The laws are lame. Tough shit Thailand.
Smell my Feet?
/Offtopic, yes, but the first thing that came to mind
AccountKiller
Well, if Australians can be charged with breaking the DMCA then Americans should be able to be charged with breaking lese majeste.
one of the few who is still protected by tough laws that prohibit any insult against the royal family.'" Seems sort of a frivolous thing to protect with a law. "Don't say bad things about me, or I'll throw you in jail!" Seriously...
"Oh, no, there's a video of me that doesn't harm me in any way whatsoever, and gives pleasure to thousands! This must be STOPPED! Someone get my underage prostitutes to hire some lawyers to sue those people in a foreign country who's opinions I care nothing for!"
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
*ADVICE*
Next time you want real Thai food, go to the corner emigre's restaurant instead, yes I know it's so much fun to fill up the party plane and jet on over, but seriously, you'll get to enjoy your freedom...
*FUN FACT*
Did you know that the word Thai means "Freedom"?
God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
This is just like when Turkey blocked YouTube after complaints that some videos insulted Ataturk. It took two whole days before they had to back down. Since Thailand is under military rule right now, I give the country an additional day bonus for despotism and believe that they'll keep YouTube annoyed for three days.
Social liberal, fiscal conservative, always sarcastic.
How can a website go to jail?
I was stationed in Thailand from August 1973 to August 1974 when I was in the Air Force. The Thais are the friendliest people you would ever hope to meet.
.45 caliber pistol at me because I didn't want to drink any Thai whiskey, and was told that this was a grave insult. I apologized and drank the whiskey, and we all had a great time.
Mars couldn't have been a stranger place than Thailand. I can't stress enough the difference between there and the west. Everything is different; even the color of the dirt is different. All of their customs are different. Flipping the bird means nothing, but don't point your foot at anyone!
Just don't piss them off. I once had a fellow point a
The king's picture is on their money. Once I dropped a dollar, an American dollar, fortunately, and they were a bit shaken when I stepped on it to keep it from blowing away. If it had been a bhat (a currency in both coin and paper that was worth a nickle at the time) I'd have gotten a severe beating and maybe been killed.
I once saw a kickboxing match between Thail boxers and Chinese Gung-Fu fighters. The Gung-Fu guys wound up going to the hospital.
They're short, but don't fuck with the Thais. They're likely to extradite all you gonzos now that precidence is set and put your young asses in a Thai jail.
A friend of mine wound up in a Thai jail. If you don't have friends or family bring you food, you starve! Boy, are you kids in deep doodoo!
-mcgrew
Because those people are minority Thais or aren't Thais? In TFA they're talking about a Swiss man.
The complete quote was "almost universally adored by Thais"
Submitted title: "Thailand *sues* YouTube"
Actual article title: "Thailand *to sue* YouTube over king clips"
First line in article: "We are *considering* taking legal action against the website," said Vissanu Meeyo, a spokesman for the information ministry."
Teeensy bit of difference, there.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
Maybe there is a relationship between this universal adoration and the tough laws that prevent Thais from expressing opinions to the contrary.
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
The great thing about having a foot fetish is that, unlike with other traditionally revered body parts, women will lay their toes and soles bare at all times in all places. In the West, anyway. In summer, it's like being surrounded by bewbs wherever you go.
I've been pondering this since Sony launched that trojan, something that a kid was arrested for: How you do imprison a corporation?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
when you attempt to censor something, anything, you just give whatever it is free advertising
i'm glad the thais love their king. but if they are secure in their love for their king, the existence of these videos won't mean anything to them. by freaking out at the existence of these videos, they only demonstrate insecurity on their part, and they cheapen and devalue their love for their king
same when deeply religious people freak out at some sort of sacriledge. with dignity and ignoring the sacriledge, they show the depth of their love, by turning into ravenous dogs, they only denigrate their faith, such as with devout muslims and pictures of muhammad, or devout catholics and depicitions of the virgin mary
if your faith or love is storng, idiots and childish pranks don't move you. if it does move you, it only shows your love or faith is cheap and shallow and insecure
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
GWBush was depicted as a monkey and that never hurt his ratings.... oh, wait, nevermind
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
well there is increasing precedent for this... Gary McKinnon broke a law in his country and yet faces extradition to another he has was not in - might be applicable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon
1 44241
And its not just the UK, Australia has got in on the act... http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/07/0
People already get grabbed for doing things which are not considered serious crimes (lets not forget saying the king is a monkey might be slander in the US) to countries where they will face manifestly severe punishments... This just seems like an extension of this new world order.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
15 years in Thai slammer looking after the convicted servers.....bummer
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Touché!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
help fight illiteracy on the internet!
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This is the worst thing to do. Despite the kingdom being a constitutional monarchy,
King Bhumibol is a great person. I met him in the 1969 timeframe, my father was a
military advisor. His Majesty is both humble and knowledgeable. He was born in the
U.S.. He loves his people, as do the entire family.
IF anyone needed to have a constitutional monarch, you would be hard pressed to find
a better one !!!!! These are quality people. ignore the military, they take turns
running the country.
UNWIRED NEWS 9 April 2007:
After attempting to block them, DIIG administrators finally relented to a user revolt and are now allowing links to videos of the King of Tieland next to feet, "legal consequences be damned." The videos were first posted to YouTuub but after a threat of legal action by the Tie government they spread around the world. Earlier this morning, a Google search showed approximately 790135794162121871174506300771 hits for the phrase "Tieland king feet."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
And here I thought Slashdotter's were a bunch of love, peace, and compassion liberal types.
The bottom of the foot in Thailand is just as offensive as a Mohamed Cartoon is to Muslims,
or a Statue of Jesus made of feces is to Christians.
The laws against doing this to the King, are enforced.
The cops in Thailand don't have to come looking for you either,
The people will turn you in, for stepping on a Coin with the Kings image on it.
Frankly, if the persons doing this become known, they should expect assassination.
Doing this is stupid, and it is obviously being done by a non-Thai.
What happened to respecting other peoples cultures and religious beliefs anyway?
I lived in Thailand for 2 years, knew many Thais, had a Thai gf etc, and I have to say that from what I could see they really do love him - or act very convincingly that they do. One of the greatest faux pas I made there was making a slightly joking comment about him .. the look of horror on their faces was memorable, and I sure didn't do that again.
You can say that they only "love" him because they've been constantly indoctrinated from childhood to do so, and you'd probably be right, but the result as I saw it is pretty much the same. Even in a bar full of drunk partygoers at 3 in the morning on Sukhumvit Rd (a high-foreigner area) - a good way to make everyone within earshot hate you, and possibly physically attack you, is to badmouth the king in any way, shape or form.
Good? Bad? I don't know, but from my experience, whether it's programmed or not, yup - they pretty much universally adore him.
before there's too many idiots reguritating their nonsensical rhetoric concerning Thailand.
I'm a resident of Thailand, let's get that out of the way right now.
Firstly, all those who insist that the lese majeste laws are there because the majority of Thais would suddenly rise up and start doing what those without respect for anything would do are seriously disillusioned. And/or they've never traveled to Thailand. There's a deep reverence for the King here which arises from all that he has done. The fact that he has mostly remained out of politics has been a bonus, but the attention that he pays to his people weighs significantly in his favour. And the link that another poster put in that suggest that he had a personal dislike for Thaskin, and that is what forced him out of the country is laughable. As anyone who follows the politics knows, the situation had been brewing for quite some time. The fact that Thaskin was guilty of doing exactly what people hate Bush Inc for is conveniently either glossed over or omitted.
And to the inevitable "What do you expect from a country of pedophiles?" comments: There's absolutely nothing of the sort in your country?
I've seen alot of people say "Hahaha 15 years, like that could put anyone in prison, there's no one there to PUT in prison" Maybe not, but just because there is a maximum sentence of 15 years, doesn't mean they put everyone they charge with this crime in prison for 15 years. Its a maximum penalty people! You are all acting so dim, what's going to happen is something along the lines of: they will charge youtube in their absence, come to the conclusion they are guilty and then just either completely block youtube, or require them to block offending clips. You know, sometimes I get the idea /. is somewhat intelligent, but thankfully comments like those bring me back down to earth with a thud.
A few people post an insult, they show it to their friends, they all get a laugh. You find this horribly offensive, what do you do?
A) While the number aware of the offending material is still few, you can choose to just let it go.
Or...
B) You sue one of the largest Internet entities around, assuring that your embarrassment will achieve far reaching exposure previously impossible. People who don't even know where your country is (i.e. Americans ) will mock you and, if you're real lucky, late night TV hosts will broadcast the images so that even those who don't know YouTube from BoobTube can share in your mortification.
You choose B? Really? Good luck with that.
Damn I work at google and traveling there was the only way I could get sex.
The king is so adored by Thais that it would be heartbreaking for them to see any insult to their king, hence the law.
Ok so what would be a parallel to Western people? Almost everyone likes to see clean highway exchanges, hence laws against graffiti. Would you say "why do we need anti-graffiti laws since almost everyone prefers clean concrete structures?" Well obviously, because a minority can ruin it for everybody, and this is even though graffiti don't even harm the functionality of the structure.
In both cases (king and graffiti) the respective law is just there to protect people from seeing unpleasant things.
And you should all get that. other parts of the world do not have to live by thai traditions, or any other tradition in any other country.
unfortunately i dont care for your king, for example, and i side with youtube on that matter.
Read radical news here
I want to see the monkey king near feet.
BTW., if I had a law that could be used to throw anyone, who doesn't adore me into jail, I also would be universally adored.
You can't handle the truth.
They could have ignored it, but now its going to be a matter of days before makes a photo mosiac of the king of Thialand made up entirely of pictures of feet.
Seriously though, do you thing the folks at Google thought they'd get sued almost daily for you tube? I wonder who has to serve the 15 years?
I figured there would be a couple lawsuits, but this is getting a little bizarre. Google will be paying out the nose for years for these lawsuits, there is no way this is worth it.
I do not think that anyone in a Western Style democracy will be handed over to the Thai authorities to be prosecuted for this type of thought crime, because it goes against numerous public policies, such as freedom of speech. Egad, the USA was founded on the concept of being able to criticize and make fun of royalty.
I am surprised that the usual smart people on slashdot can't get their heads around the concept that "physical presence" in a country is only one of many ways to subject yourselves to that countries laws. Doing business with a country's citizens, through the mail or over the telephone, or over the internet is enough of a contact. And even if there are extensive contacts, there are very strong overriding public policies which would prohibit such an extradition.
That being said, If I was a YouTube executive or employee, I wouldn't travel to Thailand, because then they could arrest you physically there, and there would be very little that your government could do about your prosecution.
Thailand is a corrupt shit hole where criminals and sexual deviants go to enjoy themselves. Somehow I don't think the US is going to take those charges seriously. Lets go post insults about his feet on Digg.
.. with a couple thousand people who tell him in videos on YouTube and elsewhere what they think of this pathetic law and the pathetic person he obviously is. And, while they are at it, about the anachronistic, pathetic idea of having some untouchable asshole as "king" anyways.
I can appreciate the need to respect other cultures. I wouldn't want someone's stinky feet anywhere near my face, but I don't find it necessarily offensive. However, people need to realize that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily doesn't hold the same beliefs as they do. This should be especially clear when someone is on the internet.
Some group of people may be offended by feet, porkchops, pentagrams or santa claus but they can't possibly expect other people to share these feelings. So to lash out against the rest of the world because a person is incapable of taking something in stride, or at least jumping to another website to me just demonstrates poor coping skills.
If the majority of the world found something offensive and problematic, then I could see justification for having something banned. And actually, if they want to ban this stuff within their own country, well, they're free to do so. But to sue YouTube is ridiculous. And I don't want to find one day that my own freedoms are being limited in an attempt to avoid offending some minority group.
Without question, everyone deserves to be treated fairly. However that equality means that inevitably someone is going to be offended from time to time. It's either this or we start banning anything and everything to ensure no one is offended.
Oh the poor poor sensative king. Someone please ship a crate of kleenex with a get well soon card.
for offending common sense
did you forget to take your meds?
I can't see why any country in the world can't extradite people for local crimes.
Hopefully one of these cases will make it obvious the downside of extraditing like this.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Horray for cultural colonialism! Just because some far-off country has customs different to our own, let's throw hypothetical eggs at them because something clashes with our culture and world-view!
I'm sure there's a lot wrong with the culture of those wishing to impose 'freedom' or whatver the buzzword is this decade. I know full well there's a lot wrong with my own country's culture. But I'm sure most people can think of a lot of reasons why those from other cultures should try and impose their customs by force. Then again, I'd welcome a bit more Thai traditional good manners over here.
So what if they have different values to us? If we're going to be relativist about everything, we should look at ourselves too...
So enough of the oppresive regieme comments. Monopolies, net neutrality, bush administration anyone? It's the same everywhere.
-1 not first post
other things that do not want pics/renders/comics created of them? Ala, Buddah, Balzamon? Lews Therin, Paris Hilton?
Somebody please deface everything we should not and get it over with. By the end of the week you will have thousands of feet/king pics,flash games,movies,pr0n.. .
Kill your TV
The king realizes this. Read the article. It's some bureaucrat making this noise. Not the king.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
You people are laughing now, but wait until Tony Jaa breaks into the Googleplex and double knee drops the youtube servers!
Way to go, King. Threaten to sue YouTube for silly pictures making fun of you. I - and 500,000 other nerds who know how to use photoshop - would have never known that the King of Thailand was insulted by a foot or cared about youtube before reading this story. I'm glad you informed us by this action -- that will surely put a stop to the ridicule!
You don't frighten us, Thai pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Bhumibol King, you and all your silly Thai ce-e-e-e-e-ensors. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt! I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a gibbon and your father smelt of langsats! Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Here is Freedom of speech in the USA.
I guess that's just what happens here when we criticize our leaders.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Or you could put in the barest fucking minimum effort and read the article.
King is also "untouchable" down here and he's not exactly loved by all ;-)
it is ALWAYS others who make the fuss in these matters. unfortunately, these others generally happen to be the ones who run the country.
Read radical news here
How do you put YouTube in jail?
Do you put the server in a cell? And if you do, can it have an internet connection?
My twitter
Thailand, meet freedom. Freedom meet, Thailand...
____ plex
>The king realizes this. Read the article. It's some bureaucrat making this noise. Not the king.
... king [is] almost universally adored by Thais"
Bureaucrat hasn't been warned by king to STFU or go to prison for 15 years *himself.* King could end this with a single word. Why hasn't he?
The article states "Thailand's
How would they know, if even minor dissent is punished with prison?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
yeah. China, India and now Thailand. do you really think Google is going to stand against any government? Infact they would be stupid if they do. Having said that, I would really love to see Viacom ripping some money off Google. It'll be poetic justice for the atrocities Google is committing on Copyright/IP.
If the United States can extradite someone for breaking US law in a foreign country, then why shouldn't Thailand have the right to enforce its laws worldwide?
Polls of 10 year old Thai prostitutes were unable to confirm the state of their opinions because they were busy being raped by sex tourists who were pouring money into the King's economy.
Life needs more saving throws.
Since YouTube is located in the United States, and there is no way that anybody here in the U.S. would consider insulting a leader to be illegal (we treasure that ability), is it possible for YouTube to say "Go fu-k yourselves!" and ignore the Thais?
Does YouTube even have to honor such a bastardly frivolous suit? Sine they are based in the U.S., the content is in the U.S., and The serving is done from the U.S., how on Earth could they be held liable for breaking a law in a foreign country, when said actions are Constitutionally protected free speech inside the United States?
It's the exact same thing as if someone were to call the king a monkey (and after this egocentric display of arrogance, he IS a monkey), and then be jailed in Thailand for breaking their laws while inside a country where no laws were broken.
YouTube should simply say "So sue me!", followed by a loud "Neener neener!"
The King Is A Fink.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Kinda how Kim Jong Il is almost universally adored by North Koreans? Watch this clip for some chilling insight into the control that totalitarian regimes can have over their people.
Bear in mind before you poo-poo developing countries (though I agree with your sentiments re 1st amendment) that the first amendment was enacted in 1791, and in 1798 the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, severely restricting everything mentioned in the first amendment as far as free speech goes. This restrictive approach continued right up til the Brandenberg case, or at least Cohen. All the WW1 insubordination prosecutions of civilians (Schenck, Debs, Frohwerk), all the red scare cases (Gitlow, Whitney) were blows to free speech, with pro-speech Justices dissenting (or writing dodgy concurrences). The point is free speech as we now understand it is, like it or not, the creation of judges. But of course free speech is A Good Thing To Have (as pooh would say), and I don't care whether it's Congress or the SC gives it to me (well, you guys, cos I'm in the States but I'm not a citizen. Legal.) Have a read of the Schenck case (wiki it, Schenck v US) and imagine youtube working under that system. (btw, I Am Not A Lawyer.)
We have seen these so called "kings" rule and overrule in many under-developed countries.
using a combination of sentiments and stringent rules with no freedom for people to express openly.
To cut the long story short, i would love to call him a "monkey"
I was in Thailand a few years ago and when I heard about this whole "don't insult the king", being a lover of freedom of speech, I was nearly bursting at the seams trying to contain myself. It didn't help matters that my travel companions and I ended up at the Viennese Opera Ball (which is held on the Kings b-day in his honor) at the Oriental Hotel sitting 20 yards from the queen and princess of Thailand. All I wanted to do was insult the king. Not because I have anything against the guy, it just pisses me off that they try to silence insults. My travel companions exerted much energy keeping me quiet. One of them got really sick from the water and almost vomited on the princess passing her in a hallway of the hotel.
While there I heard a story of a guy those threw a 1000 Baht note on the ground and stomped on it, which resulted in several Thai bar patrons beating the ever loving shit out of him. I don't get it. I'd be pissed as hell living in a country where freedom of speech is curtailed like that.
Note: You'd think the princess of Thailand would be a hottie... no no, she is a VERY LARGE WOMAN (went to Cornell though, so she speaks decent English)
Founder, Americans Allied Against Alliteration
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/05/07/0144241.shtml
Any different?
Maybe his loving subjects might reconsider selling their daughters into a life of misery.
Hunger will drive people to do terrible things. Unless you can address the cause, the symptom will remain.
Given that the original Americans moved here at least in part to escape the tyrannies of royalty, I can't imagine that American companies can be expected to give a flying shit what a king thinks. Thailand doesn't even have enough influence to get their tea into our harbor in the first place. Maybe this is some sort of international diplomatic comedy routine underway.
The king is more important than your freedom of speech, and you should all get that. Other parts of the world do not have to live by american traditions, or any other tradition in any other country.
Unfortunately I dont care for your freedom of speech, for example, and I side with the thai on that matter.
when i posted this comment, the only tag associated with the article was "google". really? that's the only tag this story deserves?
free software, open standards, open file formats, no software patents.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
This is offtopic, but why do you claim this?
it's pretty unfair to equate american free speech laws with those of europe. the united states has by far the most liberal free speech rights in the world. in germany and france unpopular speech will land you in jail. (genocide denial and others) and in the united kingdom, you better be careful what you say about the royal family and other public figures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Eur ope
Could you explain the link again between TFA and childprostitution in Thailand? I know demagogic emo-appeal is always a good way to get attention on slashdot, but going from possible censorship on youtube to your 'people-selling-their-kids' paragraph is somewhat of a stretch.
In fact, it has nothing to do with it.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
i wouldn't like it in the least
but for saying that to me do i now have the right to throw you in jail for years?
if i went that apeshit because you said that, all i'd be proving to my girlfriend is that i'm a hothead psycho that she should dump asap
if i ignored you however, i would prove to her that moronic namecalling has no effect on me, thus proving to her i'm a stable guy
meanwhile, if SHE got upset at that, and wanted me to do something about it, maybe that should tell me something about her insecurity and the need to dump her
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
A new saying: "more nervous than a foot fetishist in Thailand"...
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Somebody call the fucking Whaaaaambulance!
and yet, despite your not caring for my freedom of speech, thai king stands next to feet in youtube, digg and the others. who wins ? freedom of speech, i guess.
Read radical news here
It's lovely that you respect your monarch and won't say anything less than lovely about him, but you can't expect the rest of the world to follow that. The divine right to be king is a divine right to live under the world's scrutiny.
Say I hate to think what would happen if someone drew Mohammed as a monkey near some feet.
> time server
Argh...
Oh the irony!
I think the thing most people on this thread are unaware of (maybe purposefully, because a rant feels good every now ant then) is the difference in how the videos are viewed here as opposed to in Thailand.
Example: take any public figure you respect. Make one up if you don't respect any public figures. Let's callthis person X. If I post something along the lines of "I disagree with X's policy of Y" that's considered a healthy level of dissent. I might also phrase it as "X is an idiot for supporting Y" and most people would take it the same way. If I, however, just said "X sucks, the man's a total retard, he should be [insert something unpleasant here]" and left it at that then that's just defamation and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone beause it adds nothing to the discussion - *unless there was enough context to unambiguously link my statement to whatever Y is* - and I could, quite rightfully, be sued for making that statement.
From where we sit the videos are a display of dissatisfaction with the king/the lese majeste laws/whatever and we get angry that it's being suppressed. We go off about free speech and we equate it to the first (maybe second) statement. However, due to either the king actually being a good ruler or the people being indoctrinated from birth (which is a separate issue), Thais see nothing but insult, defamation, and they respond as any of us would to such a claim. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong (again, a different issue) that's how they see it, and it's a whole other level of insult to them.
So to everyone on the whole "learn to take a joke/deal with the insult/you're insecure" rant: it's one thing for you to claim tolerance when the angry people are half the world away. But I bet a good majority of you would break my nose (and probably do more) if I randomly walked up to you and said "your mom [or whoever it is you respect] is a dirty [etc] whore" - whether it's true or not. I would.
I'm not really defending the Thais, but our time might be better spent discussing something like "if group X thinks a statement is defamatory but Y doesn't - who's right and should the statement be suppressed?" instead of spewing mindless rhetoric (and basically acting like the people we're trying to attack).
if your an Aussie ... say nothing!!!
So what you're saying is if I have a foot fetish I shouldn't move to Thailand?
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
This is the third _______ sues YouTube story I've seen on Slashdot in the last couple weeks. I think Thailand is just looking for an excuse to join the club and maybe get some money out of it. Or send the company to jail. Which is difficult. Shouldn't they be filing suit against the people who *posted* the videos? They're easier to jail, at least.
it is like in V for Vendetta where they killed the guy for that... and for findin the koran.
"You are very difficult website!"
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
> And to the inevitable "What do you expect from a country of pedophiles?" comments: There's absolutely nothing of the sort in your country?
It's not legal here, nor does it approach the scale I understand is found in Thailand. I mean, we do NOT get sex tourists coming to our country to molest children. But that's a side issue and I sincerely hope your country puts an end to it.
As for the king, he's apparently a great guy and almost no one would WANT to insult him, anyhow. He's also called the law stupid. So why not repeal it? Don't you want to make your king happy? I think you'd find that a) almost nobody insults him because no one wants to and b) your king will be happy because you don't make him pardon people all the time and people have one less reason to complain about Thailand.
Honestly; I have nothing against your king. I see lots and lots of people saying how great he is, so I have to think that he really is adored. I haven't even heard any complaints about him. It's just the law itself which is bad. So why not make your king happy and get rid of the law he doesn't like? Do you like him enough to do that, or not?
*FUN FACT*
Did you know that the word Thai means "Freedom"?
Irony is always fun. As fun as a barrel full of royaly-edited composite-rendered monkeys.
Ook Eek.
How do we know whether he really is loved by all? If the lese majeste laws are so tough, I'd imagine they'd skew accurate reportage, wouldn't you?
Get the fuck over it. Seriously.
The laws are lame. Tough shit Thailand.
No, tough shit *you*. Thailand is enjoying something called sovereignty: the power to rule itself as a country. If they want to make a law banning showing the king next to feet- that's their goddamn right.
If they're happy, then there's no real problem. I'm guessing you're a "fellow" American. I wish people like you would stop giving our country a bad reputation as being full of arrogant, bossy idiots who want to tell everyone how to do things.
Please help metamoderate.
Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais...one of the few who is still protected by tough laws that prohibit any insult against the royal family.
Ok, if there are laws that prohibit insults against the royal family (like sending people to jail for 15 years), the king will be universally adored.
No Sigs!
Just because everybody respects and adores the king doesn't mean that he's in charge - they've had a military coup replace the previous elected government, but the generals all say they respect the King too, so it's ok for them to do that.
Here in America we'd never have a system like that. All of our citizens and politicians like Mom, The Flag, and Apple Pie, and when one political party wants to insult another they talk about how the other guys want to make Mom get a job, allow flag-burning, and regulate the Trans-Fatty-Acids and High Fructose Corn Syrup out of our traditional Apple Pie recipes and our Freedom Fries. Because really, that's much more important than habeus corpus or the right to travel or trial by jury or newer traditions like a non-partisan civil service.
The Thais are really polite people who want to keep the Internet free from King-Insulters, and the Americans government wants to protect the Homeland from havin' those narco-porno-copyright-stealin'-Terrorists jammin' up the Tubes. You gotta problem with that?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
YouTube's courts and system of government place a high value on copyright...the right of the publisher to copy an artist's work.
Thai courts and system of government place a high value on respect for the King.
YouTube can quite successfully remove material that might bring loss of revenue...when requested by the copyright holder.
YouTube should be able to remove material that might bring loss of respect...when requested by the people who hold the King in high regard.
Ask a Thai person, who is not in Thailand (and not subject to Thai law). You will hear 1.725 earfulls about how great King Rama IX is.
Go ahead. Try it.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Last year, the Indian government banned a few websites (mostly fundamentalist hindu/muslim sites), and at about the same time I read about onion routing and the EFF's Tor software. :), I am not a fundamentalist, I was just curious about anonymizing technology :).
I tried using it, and although it was obviously slightly slower than normal web access, it worked just fine -- and no
I used to live in Thailand, did some of my schooling there, and I know there is a large expatriate population there who might wish to access Youtube for legitimate reasons. They should try out Tor -- here's an overview:
http://tor.eff.org/overview.html.en
In my country, The king never said anythings about this story but All Thai people cannot accept in what is going on. It is like someone said badly to your daddy, your family, or your love.
In here, The king is our father too and we very care about what is going on.
We all love our king very much. He contribute all his life to his people.
Please don't comments before you come to Thailand. You will know when you come to this smile city.
That person uses emotional arguments and then says that freedom of speech is a privilege. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right, not a privilege. Sure, with rights comes responsibility (don't libel, slander, threaten or *physically* endanger someone with your words). Anything short of that is perfectly alright. His other arguments about how great Thailand is or his advice that we should be good representatives of the United States are irrelevant to the question of freedom of speech.
"If some guy comes along and starts parading child porn photos in the streets should we allow him to have his way simply because we do not wish to impose our value system on him?"
As the supreme court has said; the reason why a 'freedom of speech' defense doesn't work with childporn is because a child is harmed while making that porn. This overrules the free speech protection. It was quite clear this is not the case for things like virtual childporn, where no real kids are harmed (there was a FA on slashdot about that, some time ago). Ofcourse, even adult porn wouldn't be allowed in the streets like that, because of the numerous 'decency' laws...but really, these are completely arbitrary. If you will go to the middle east, you will notice that the decency laws there are quite different from ours, especially towards women.
In essence, those decency laws ARE a way of imposing the value system of the majority of a populace on the minority of that populace (which may disagree). Real tolerance would encompass the notion that each group may say what they want, as long as it remains speech (even if it goes against the popular vote).
"If a bunch of guys parade around town in KKK outfits with signs "Kill the Jews! Kill the N****rs" shouldn't we have a say about this sort of behavior?"
Yes, you should have a SAY about this sort of behaviour. And indeed, no-one should be able to stop you exercising your right of free speech to say something about it. In the USA, you CAN walk around in KKK outfits, because, though distastful and many (including me) may not agree with their ideology, it's still a form of speech (as long as they don't act on it). In that instance, the USA is far more free than the EU, where immer more draconian laws are past (but the right-wing movements are way bigger then in the USA regardless).
I'm not sure about the 'kill the nigger' though; I thought even the USA had laws against inciting to hatred or violent crimes, but I'm not sure to what degree. I don't know enough of the laws of canada to comment on that specifically.
But, contrary to you, I would applaud Canada if it had such open-minded laws that support free speech to such high degree. I think you, as many others, confuse the content of the message allowed (racism,...) with the fact that it IS allowed. Once you accept that it is 'reasonable' to censor some forms of free speech with which you do not agree, what is someone else to stop from 'reasonably' censor forms of free speech *you* want to use? In any given population that is big enough, you don't have a truelly universal agreement on what is reasonable or not; you will always have dissenting opinions. Why should those dissenting opinions be denied? I think a society shows more greatness by allowing dissenting speech to occur, than to censor it.
I always wonder what would happen if, in my own country, where the far right has already more then 25% of the votes (even - or maybe thanks to - strict laws against racist talk and what not) would ever gain 66%. There is no doubt in my mind, they would immediately censor any 'reasonable' (in their mind) speech, such as those criticising their racism. In short; the more you censor, the more you're actually acting as a facist movement would do. True democracy should encompas true free speech.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"some of the things that you think you're right about, you're actually wrong about, and it's valuable to keep that in mind when comparing your own views to others' views."
This is impossible to determine (who's wrong or not) when it remains an opinion/religious view, etc. That's because there is no way in which to prove or disprove such a view, because through its very nature, it surpasses the observable reality, and arguments are not given. (Well, there might be internal incosnsitencies you can point out, but it's perfectly possible to come up with a (internally) consistent worldview/opinion/religion, which is totally untrue anyway.
Simple comparison will not deal with that. There is only one way to objectively come to any conclusion, and this involves:
1)The subject matter is either observable (e.g. there is a possibilty of scientific falsification) or both parties agree to a premise.
2)you agree to use logic and rationality in deducing the value of any argumentation (and agree that arguments are necessary to substantiate any claim)
If those two criteria aren't met, it's essentially impossible to come to any fruitful determination of who's right or wrong.
Most (pure) opinions, ideologies and religions fall short of those requirements, hence you can not determine who's right or wrong - you still can change of opinion ofcourse, but you can't *determine* what's more correct and what not.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
This year I haven't taken any international clients. Until they work out the new laws. Remember when the Internet was its own entity not legally part of every country!?
California no longer has the most laws on the books, its the internet. But wait, I don't read and write every language on the planet and babel fish doesn't work for law books!
Sorry I have to go chill out for a while now.... (deep breath)
Will Google be extradited and sent to prison too for hotlinking the videos?
"I wouldn't care if someone were to censor my (or others') view if it results in violence against a group of people."
Well, ofcourse you wouldn't, but that's because you are of the opinion that censorship is a good thing (in those cases). Surely, you must see that's a bit of a circle-reasoning (if you're trying to substantiate the censorship by claiming you wouldn't mind).
Maybe ALF-members wouldn't care if someone were to censor their (or others') view if it results in violence against animals.
I even think Nazi's wouldn't care if someone were to censor their (or others') view if it results in criticism against Nazism.
The problem with all these arguments is, that you START with the premise of what you think is wrong and right, and then say: ok, and this should be forbidden, because I think it deserves no place in our society. Granted, there is no society which can exist without any rules or laws (even libertarian ones would adhere to the 'your freedom ends where anothers' begins'), but there is also no doubt that the more restrictions one imposes, the less freedom one has (inherently), *regardless* of what opinion you have about what is reasonable or not. It still begs the question what counter-arguments you would give if someone else limits your freedom of expression (you want to use) when they prohibit it on the same grounds, namely their arbitrary feelings about a subject they think should not be allowed.
The greatest possible loosening of censorship, however, does not mean society comes to an end. In a practical way, one can just look at different civilisations and see if the censorship is really necessary to maintain society. In that regard (racism, hate-speech, etc.) the USA has far more permissable laws then those in the EU. Now, does it make it impossible to live in that society? Is it crumbling because of it's more (in this regard) censorship-less laws? Is there even a case to be made there is more racism or more far-right wingers compared to the EU?
To all those questions one has to say: no (often the contrary). So is it necessary to impose those more restrictive laws? Not really. So the argument that one needs those laws for society to be working is not true.
What other arguments are there? That racism rubs you the wrong way? Well, me too, but if personal feelings would be the measurement of censorship, than one could censor a whole plethoria of things.
What about doing harm? In the case of (real) childporn, and in case of direct life-threats where people actually got hurt, it is clear that a case can be made that people have been harmed by it to some degree. That's why the USA has laws against that. However, it is not true that the words themselves inherently lead to harm (or the pictures of childporn, if it's virtual). If someone is of the opinion that niggers are inferior beings, then that is his opinion - what else can you call it? If he doesn't act on that opinion, where's the direct, criminal harm? Sure, black people will not like it and may be outraged by it, but if that were to be the measurement of censorship, then, again, a whole lot should be forbidden (showing pictures of Mohammed, for one). And other white folks may react on those words and act on it...but again, then it is those *actions* that should be dealt with, not the words.
The whole question, thus, is *when* (and if) it 'results' in violence. If someone talks racist, but there is no violence, then the argument falls. If someone talks (for instance, when I say Mohammed was a dickhead) and it results in violence...then who is responsible for the violence? Those who talk, or those who actually DO the violence? With your reasoning, since one could construe that my talk (or Mohammed picture showing) ultimately resulted in violence, I could be charged with incitement to civil unrest, or something (many authoritarian countries have such laws, btw). One could argument that it's only those who both talk and cause the violence at the same time thome should be restricted, but then you c
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Because it may bring back the internet as its own entity... oh or all the YouTube employees responsible in any way will go to jail. Hahaha have you ever tried to get a corporate person to admit they are responsible for a particular task?
How about doing that to create a portrait of a certain Mohammed, now *that* would command some Respect !
Or at least to read more about other countries.
The King of Thailand has regularly opossed military coups (which are saddly too common in Thailand) and comes from a lineage of liberal Kings that hadm little by little, introduced liberal reforms in the conservative Kingdom.
Something else that explains the Thai psique is the fact that Thailand has always been an independet country, never colonized by Western or other powers (not for lack of trying, mind you).
These stupid laws are put in place like politicians, who are the ones that legislate.
The King is the head of state but his role in politics is severely limited, nevertheless he has earned the moral authority he has in Thai politics, not to speak of the reverential love of his people which is part of Thai culture.
If you want somebody to blame, direct your anger at Thai politicians, which could aboilsh or modernize such laws, but don't do so since it is quite a good populist tool.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I know they never really went for political jokes, but you could just imagine a giant Terry G foot coming down on the King of Thailand, a la queen Vic. Then all these Thai folk in bowler hats discussing pointless aspects of Thai law. Ministry of Pointless Legal Actions
Im surprised no one knew about this. It was pork in a zinc mining bill passed in 2005. No one else watches C-SPAN? No one can make fun of David Hasselhoff anymore either.
I think some people here need to go travel the world a little before responding with the standard US-centric attitudes. Thailand DOES have some of the most freedom of any of the countries on that side of the world. Sure, every place has a hang-up with certain things. They don't like you making fun of their King (and yes, the people really do love and support their King). But you can do and say thing over there that we can't do anymore here in the US. (and I'm not talking about prostitution and whatnot, I'm talking about stuff you can't say because of our overly-politically-correct society and our strict anti-terrorism).
I live in China for a few years, and traveled around that part of the world. Thailand gives LOTS of freedoms that other countries in that part of the world don't.
Get over your Thai-bashing.
I think the king is cool, he pardoned that man over something so silly, but if I lived there would be pardon me for my 5 minute shoppe job? http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4086/screwthail andbi8.png
Spread freedom, and to the thais who curse my name, he's just a man, get over it. get democracy. I would have never made this if you didn't get all schizophrenic over it.