Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More Websites Offending Thai Monarchy Blocked

Posted by timothy on from the really-could-skip-the-whole-prison-thing-altogether dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Thailand is ramping up their media wide censorship of anything that remotely offends Thai royalty. In the last three weeks, another 2,300 websites have been blocked. Another ~4,000 are soon expected. And not just websites, but books as well as the Economist have been blocked. And anyone caught publishing such material, including foreigners, will get 3 to 15 years in a Thai prison. You don't want to be in a Thai prison!"

9 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. Thailand's censorship directly impacts our news by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    CNN has censored itself on reporting on Thailand so as to not offend the government: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/19/thai.jail/index.html . This is the real problem with censorship in the internet age: It is very easy to say that the internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it. But in practice in many cases the ease of access leads to more censorship rather than less. This means that it is all the more important that we resist censorship in all its forms.

    1. Re:Thailand's censorship directly impacts our news by DeadPixels · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I wonder is why no one seems too concerned with the fact that the media is self-censoring. If CNN had refused to report on Iraq or any other such nation, they would be harshly criticized. It seems that the fact that there isn't a negative public opinion of Thailand has led to this being an overlooked occurrence - but a potentially very dangerous one.

    2. Re:Thailand's censorship directly impacts our news by spasm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      CNN != the internet.

      This is one of the main reasons I find `traditional' news media less and less relevant: a) they won't cover something discovered by another news agency unless that discovery creates additional news (eg an expose produces a resignation), which limits the propagation of often genuinely interesting news; and b) they self-censor in order to retain `access'. Neither of these are true about news via pure internet: a) internet news is all about repeating stuff someone else found first; and b) discussing the fact that the King of Thailand is raping ladyboys on a regular basis (or whatever) gives you your 15 minutes of fame on the intertubes, and since you never had `access' in the first place, this is gold gold gold.

      Re (b), I expect that as politicians increasingly treat bloggers and other pure internet news sources as regular journalists, we'll being to see more self-censorship on the web. Alas.

    3. Re:Thailand's censorship directly impacts our news by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sucks; but this story falls, hard, into the "quaint foreigners and their quaint customs" story frame. I'd be very surprised to see much media fuss about it.

      1. Thailand counts as "exotic" for western media. This isn't a local interest story.
      2. Thailand is neither friend nor foe in any emotionally significant way. This isn't an "our brave allies" or "our vile enemies" story.
      3. The subject of the story is monarchy, which gives it a sort of storybook air. Compare to, say, Chinese sensorship, which feels more modern, and gets a lot more coverage.

    4. Re:Thailand's censorship directly impacts our news by iminplaya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But with the internet we can route around CNN.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:Thailand's censorship directly impacts our news by Spasemunki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a) internet news is all about repeating stuff someone else found first;

      This is exactly why the internet journalism is still a long way away from being able to fill the role of the traditional media. Real journalism has nothing to do with link farming or writing editorials about issues that have already been reported. Very little breaking of actual news- the work of establishing what the facts on the ground are when an event is underway, or following leads over a long period to discover a story- is done by internet media. What do you repeat when there's no one to repeat?

  2. Simple: Don't go to Thailand by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If a country wants to enact oppressive laws that censor citizens and foreigners alike that's their perogative. Just another reason to boycott travel to such a country. It's not the only country I'd choose to forgo unless I had to travel.

    Meanwhile their Royal Family becomes less and less atuned to the sentiment of their populace. In other places and at other times similar action has usually led to poor leadership, the Royal Family becoming less relevant, and eventually the deposition of that family, often in a bloody revolution. It's the Royal Family that should be asking for this crackdown to end, if they know their history.

    I've been very careful but does the above paragraph mean it's no longer safe for me to travel to Thailand?

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  3. Re:This is not a problem with the Thai people by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Insulting the king is like insulting the founding fathers, everyone knows whilst you're in the US you just don't do it.

    Hate to say this, but noone here really cares if you insult America's Founding Fathers. It's not like we don't do it ourselves a fair amount.

    Hell, we insult sitting Presidents, so why shouldn't we insult dead ones?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  4. Re:This is not a problem with the Thai people by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

    censorship is not the act we should chastise Thailand about

    Why not? It's bad in China, it's bad in the US, it's bad in Europe, and it's bad in Thailand.