Slashdot Mirror
More Websites Offending Thai Monarchy Blocked
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!"
Finally, we'll get the answer to that burning question: how many pages are there on the Internet?
The King of Thailand will be honored for finding out before anyone else.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Joey, have you ever been to a Turkish prison?
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.
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
King Bhumibol, I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a binturong and your father smelt of durians!
Circumcision is child abuse.
The current government is in a precarious position and are attempting to use the Thai peoples reverence of the king to increase their own popularity. The current government will not be re-elected if general elections are called as they are favoured by the Thai upper and middle classes and disliked by the lower classes which make up the majority of the Thai people.
Despite outward appearances to us Farang tourists (Farang: Thai-white skinned foreigner) Thai people are quiet conservative but their religion (Bhuddism) teaches them to be open and accepting of others even when they do something rude.
As I said before, its not the Thai monarch, they have no real power, the king is king in name only (a rich land owner that holds no real political power much like the queen of England). It's Thailand unstable democracy that keeps producing these laws, not its monarch, they chose to pick emotional subject like the king to rally around to gain popularity. The king is very popular amongst Thai's, he was responsible for implementing education amongst even the poorest Thais and is respected for this. The Thai royal family holds as much political power these days as the house of Windsor (England's royal family).
It's pretty hard to be convicted of Leste Majesty in Thailand and that law is only ever used for political gain. The Thai king himself has tried to get the law struck down on several occasions but he is a constitutional monarch and failed. The King has pardoned almost everyone charged with leste majesty in recent years (since Thailand returned to democratic elections in the 80's).
Do my posts critical of the Bush administration make it dangerous for me to travel to the US? Thailand is a great holiday destination and is not dangerous to go to so long as you have half a brain. Insulting the king is like insulting the founding fathers, everyone knows whilst you're in the US you just don't do it. The most dangerous things in Thailand are the wild life, corrupt cops and falling in love with a Thai girl and for the first two, you can just avoid them.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Cue the million and one Slashdot analysts who believe they, yes, they! alone understand Thai domestic politics, and hence they know that this is a simple instance of unreasoning tyrannical government censorship rather than, say, a careful political gambit being played by pro-monarchy upper-class forces amidst a political battle that has lasted the past two years.
Yeesh. This isn't some minor county library board going thinkofthechildren!!1! yet again. The point isn't to actually control speech - this is a power play.
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"
Something tells me that if I marched into LAX with my Australian passport and shouted "George Washington was a Fag" someone would object. Not that I'd do that, I have common sense enough to be polite to the nation of which I am a guest. I have the good decency to only slag off other nations when I'm at home.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Yelling 'free hugs' in an airport would probably get you in trouble. On the other hand you can- and in fact someone has- publish a book suggesting that Lincoln was secretly gay without getting in any meaningful trouble. Do the same thing in Thailand with a member of the royal family, and you're in a lot of trouble.
More importantly, despite the official legal story about the Thai king being 'powerless' according to the law, there have been suggestions that the monarchy exerts a great deal of influence over Thai politics through indirect channels. At least one author has suggested that this interference is one reason why democratic governments tend to be so fragile in Thailand, and why there have been so many coups and revisions to the constitution. This kind of discussion about the interests and actors who influence government affairs is vitally necessary to the functioning of a democracy, but the lese majesty laws guarantee that this won't happen in an open and honest way in Thailand.
Interestingly, everyone always talks about how the king is 'universally beloved'. The Economist was almost certainly banned for an article published recently where they pointed out that the recent government crisis has started to put some dents in this image. They interviewed rural Thais (anonymously, of course) who felt betrayed that the monarchy was quietly supporting a political movement that seems intent on disenfranchising rural and ethnic minority Thais. The monarchy has been able to preserve its prestige by depicting itself as the protector of all Thais- as rescuing the country when things go badly out of kilter. During the most recent crisis, their support for a vocal minority over a very popular elected government who has catered to people outside of the Bangkok elite has damaged that perception.
read it here: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12724800&source=hptextfeature
Quote:
Bhumibol's tale, even if stripped of the mythology his courtiers have spent decades constructing around him, is exceptional. The American-born son of a half-Chinese commoner accidentally inherits a throne close to extinction and revives it, creating one of the world's most powerful and wealthy monarchies, and surely the only one of any significance to have gained in political power in modern times. The king's charisma, intelligence, talents (from playing the saxophone to rain-making, a science in which he holds a European patent) and deep concern for his people's welfare make him adored at home and admired around the world. His image perhaps reaches its zenith in 1992, after the army shoots dozens of pro-democracy protesters in Bangkok, when television shows both the army leader (and prime minister) Suchinda Kraprayoon and the protest leader, Chamlong Srimuang (now a PAD stalwart), kneeling in an audience with him. Shortly afterwards General Suchinda resigns, and the king is given credit for the restoration of democracy.
I can see how this might piss of the Powers That Be..
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
In the recent troubles, the royal consort (Queen) was seen at the funeral of a PAD (Peoples Alliance for Democracy, the anti-elected government faction). The Rural Thais would not act against the king. The Economist was attempting to draw conclusions without a sufficient understanding of the people (Thai culture is far more complex then western culture). The king was attempting not to take sides this was exacerbated by his health issues.
The king has a great deal of influence with the people but he cant dictate policy directly or indirectly and stays out of politics for the most part. The King is the only part of political stability the nation has and I'd hate to think what will happen when he dies. Thailand has had as many coups as the US has had democratic elections since 1932 (when the monarch gave up absolute power) 20 to be exact, make no mistake, this act was in no way ordered by the king as unlike the semi-elected government has no need to silence critics.
The king has pardoned almost anyone convicted of Leste Majesty in recent years, Thai and Farang alike. With how tolerant the Thai people are you have to deliberately insult the king to get them to act on it. Being rude is easy, for example pointing at a picture of the king with your forefinger is rude (you are meant to use your palm) but if you do it the vast majority of Thais will say nothing.
It's bash censorship week on slashdot, same as every week but Thailand is not the worst censor and censorship is not the act we should chastise Thailand about, their treatment of Burmese refugee's is appalling, but this is done by the military, a political force in their own right (19 coups and not all of them bloodless).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
It'd not be too bad, consider some of them put males and females in one single large cell!
They flip side is that you'd possibly be treated as female nevertheless.
In the recent troubles, the royal consort (Queen) was seen at the funeral of a PAD (Peoples Alliance for Democracy, the anti-elected government faction). The Rural Thais would not act against the king. The Economist was attempting to draw conclusions without a sufficient understanding of the people (Thai culture is far more complex then western culture). The king was attempting not to take sides this was exacerbated by his health issues.
The notion that Tha culture is 'more complex' and therefore somehow incomprehensible to Westerners is just an old orientalist canard. Rural Thais might not act against the king directly, but if they continue to feel that their interests are being denigrated in favor of the interests of the Bangkok elite, it will have significant consequences for future governments, and for whoever takes the throne after the current king.
The king has a great deal of influence with the people but he cant dictate policy directly or indirectly and stays out of politics for the most part. The King is the only part of political stability the nation has and I'd hate to think what will happen when he dies.
The idea that the king 'stays out of politics' is a common aphorism, but it's hard to say how true it really is. It's very hard for writers in Thailand to say anything about the role of the king in politics. The Economist and other Western journalists have written about how the king has likely taken an active hand in several of the coups- essentially overturning the democratic system when it's felt by members of the aristocracy that a democratic movement has gotten out of hand and needs to be reigned in. Publishing these kind of works basically guarantees that they will lose the ability to report from inside Thailand.
It's true that respect for the king has been a stabilizing factor in many cases, but the thesis put forward by some of the critics is that overall his interventions in politics have prevented the development of a more robust and stable democracy in Thailand- rather than coping with short-term crises through democratic means, royal and military intervention have been used. It means that after the king passes away, Thailand will be in much worse shape than it would be if they had been force to deal with these sorts of issues directly. Of course, these sorts of counter-factuals are easy for historians to make, but hard to prove.
With how tolerant the Thai people are you have to deliberately insult the king to get them to act on it.
To me, the insults or criticism is less significant than the fact that it's not possible to write honestly about politics in Thailand. Looking critically at the role the monarchy plays is simply not possible from inside Thailand, or in the Thai press. This also prevents criticism of other political groups that have ties to the monarchy. It's certainly true that the king isn't responsible for the lese majesty laws, and that he has pardoned those who have run afoul of them; on the other hand, there was talk at one point that Thaksin would be charged with lese majesty (before the coup and the trial in absentia). I have little faith that he would have been pardoned if it had happened.
Uh, no. Thailand is ramping up their media wide censorship of anything that remotely offends the kind of obnoxious people who think censorship is a great idea, are looking for something to get offended about, and don't mind using the king's good name as an excuse.
There's a difference.
The actual king says that people should be permitted to criticize him, and I believe he has not expressed that he's in any way offended by any of the stuff people are being jailed for.
Hell, we insult sitting Presidents, so why shouldn't we insult dead ones?
Because it's just not nearly as much fun. Try it yourself and see -- "Grover Cleveland was a fucking pussy." "Andrew Jackson was a racist prick."
Hey, I think I was wrong; this actually does have its appeal. Millard Fillmore was so fat....
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.
Pattaya is hardly typical Thailand. It's like going to Las Vegas and drawing conclusions about the USA.
Thailand is a conservative country, but their idea of conservative is different to yours. Furthermore, it's not a rich country, so the prospect of extracting a lot of money from foreign douchebags is able, in some places, to supplant traditionally (and universally) conservative values like keeping the exploitation of women behind closed doors. Hence Pattaya, Patong, Patpong, Nana, etc.
Recently a Thai friend of mine was supposed to go to Patpong Road (in Bangkok) in the evening to make some observations, as an assignment for her postgraduate degree studies. She didn't feel comfortable going on her own, and couldn't find anyone else who was willing to go with her. Most Thais find that stuff as objectionable as anyone else would if it were in their country. They're just good at smiling and pretending it's okay.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
No, saying so is like saying that evil is evil anywhere on the globe regardless of any "moral relativist" crap.