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...
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
...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.
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.
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.
Well, if Australians can be charged with breaking the DMCA then Americans should be able to be charged with breaking lese majeste.
*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.
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
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
"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.
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)
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?
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.
Its amazing how many people don't understand how this works. There is a treaty, of which the United States, GB, and Australia are all signatories, that creates certain baselines for cybercrime. Since the treaty process was started by the Council of Europe, its rather disingenious to blame all of the resulting statutory implementations on the US. Yes, we did have a large part in the writing, but we were not the only ones who did, and the statutes that each country wrote as a result were their own doing. Yes, the US doesn't always play well with others (WTO, anyone), but the cybercrime treaty is good law, and in accordance with traditional common law principles. If you stand in Canada, and shoot a man in Michigan, you can be extradited to Michigan, if Canada decides that's the most effective method. Same thing here. If you hack a US server, even if you are in the UK, the UK can send you to the US for trial. Jurisdiction is commonly based on the effect of the crime, not just the origin. In this case, I doubt there is an applicable treaty, as the US Supreme Court would frown on restrictions of parody, and likely strike down Congressional implementation of any statute. Likewise, the Thai government could attempt a civil suit in US court, but I doubt that is going to carry much weight. Its also perfectly acceptable for Thailand to ban YouTube from doing business in Thailand absent a representative in Thailand for just this purpose, but if YouTube merely posts the videos, and Thais come to the videos, it will be difficult for Thailand to respond.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=jail
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.
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.
a. Do the right thing and denounce the law as unfair and unjust, telling your supporters not to be so overzealous, or
b. Silently accept the law, and reap the benefits of being able to "forgive" people for insulting you by pardoning them. Fools think you're a hero for being so generous.
Robbing someone of 15 years of their life and then giving it back isn't generous, it's cruelty. The people are foolish enough to support it, and the king does nothing about it.
"No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
What happened to respecting other peoples cultures and religious beliefs anyway?
They are *tolerated* not respected.
This is as it should be.
As in "Wow, you believe in some idiotic shit. Oh well, whatever floats your boat" as opposed to "OMFG you believe in the divinity of the taco?!? I'm never eating at Taco Bell again out of respect for your stupid
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!
I don't appreciate the need to respect other cultures', if said cultures are not worthy of respect. Not that I'm saying that Thai culture in general isn't worthy of respect, but there is no way in hell I'm going to "respect" the fact that they want to bring real fines and possibly jail time against someone for hurting peoples' feelings.
This is most especially true for local issues. What offends my neighbor may not offend me. Why should he get a law to criminalize conduct he finds offensive? At all?
Any kind of speech. At all. In every form. All should be protected in that there should be no laws favoring or opposing any of it preferentially - favor it all. Speech even in pictorial form (one of the oldest forms of written communication fer cryin out loud), prose, whatever. Say what you want. Just realize that others can too.
Decency and mutual respect can only occur when the powers are not favoring one over the other. if some people can say certain things and others can not you have just created friction greater than just letting people handle themselves.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
must... stay... awake...
I have lived in Thailand for six months. Last year, a guy was arrested and charged with this same crime for spray-painting graffiti on public portraits of the King. He was convicted about a month ago and sentenced to many years in prison. The king pardoned him about a week after his conviction. I read some newspaper articles here that said that the King has pardoned everybody that was convicted of this crime during his reign.
i d=1718
Still, sitting in Thai prison while waiting for trial and sentencing is one of the harshest punishments one can receive. Please read this article in the Chiang Mai Citylife magazine to get a small taste of how horrible it would be:
http://www.chiangmainews.com/indepth/details.php?
If the King really disapproved of the way that the government handles this law, all he would have to do is say so, and the government would never charge anybody again during his lifetime; for a prosecutor to do so would be to commit the same crime himself.
Please cite caselaw. Its most certainly not. See, for instance, Dog the Bounty Hunter to Mexico for a pop-culture example. I thought you were asking for references under the COE Cybercrime Conventions.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
He usually pardons them relatively quick, within a week or so of him finding out about it. The thing is, he can't change the law, he can only retroactively unenforce it. Such is the life of a King.
"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)
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/05/07/0144241.shtml
Any different?
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." ---
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!
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.