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
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.
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".
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)
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.
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
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.
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
Find a Thai person in your home country other than Thailand and ask him, given that he is not at the moment subject to the laws of Thailand, how he really feels about King Rama IX.
I can answer that for you. He will tell you that King Rama IX brought democracy to Thailand, uses his vast wealth to help poor, rural parts of the country, and is just generally a great guy. He also has gone on record stating that the laws against criticizing the monarch are stupid, and often pardons those convicted of criticizing him.
And no, I am not Thai by any stretch of the imagination.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
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.
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." ---
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!