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.'"
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
Well, if Australians can be charged with breaking the DMCA then Americans should be able to be charged with breaking lese majeste.
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
The king himself actually cares very little for this kind of attention and has suggested publically that the government uses this law to silence dissenters more than anything else. He usually pardons them in his yearly pardon-athon.
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
Americans (and Brits, I would presume) might not readily understand this, given that their political space is mostly a circus, but what the Thai king gets is not just love, but respect. He kinda embodies their culture and their identity; they even use a different dialect when addressing the royal family. Heck, the grandfather of the current king, Rama V, is actually venerated as a demi-god; he regularly makes an appearance in most Thai families' prayer rooms, next to Buddha and other gods. This, in turn, is a throwback to the old tradition of treating the king as a devaraja.
Those laws, then, exist not to enforce a single person's ego, but as a way to warn us barangs to not overstep on to the things that the Thais respect.
The king has no policy oversight on anything in Thailand, and hasn't had for decades now. Quite a red-herring to conflate other issues with that of free-speech.
(Not to say I actually support the laws - censorship in any form is bad - but it's important to understand the historical and cultural context within which they exist.)
More than mere navel gazing.