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
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.
The Thai king is very old and very fragile. Succession is imminent. In Thailand you probably won't hear a bad word about the king but you seldom hear a good word about the crown prince. The current king has taken the royal family from penniless pawns of the military elite (ethnic Thais) and business elite (Chinese/Thai)to being phenomenally wealthy and arch manipulators of everybody and everything; politics, politicians, the army, the courts, markets, property deals and so on. He is also one of the few uniting factors in a nation horribly divided by religion, ethnicity, class and money, rural vs urban. When he dies there's a very good chance that Thailand will descend into a bloody mess. The recent more robust (than usual) prosecution of lese majeste cases probably has many causes but surely one is the stark realisation by the current self appointed government that when the monarchy ceases to be universally respected it must at least be prohibitively risky to criticise it. If the majority of Thais, who are very poor and have seen the only politician who ever gave them anything deposed and then the next government they elected dissolved in a de facto coup, one day cease to be blinded by their adoration of King Bhumibol, if they finally see how the royal family and the urban rich are ceaselessly getting richer while the poor stay poor and are also disenfranchised....maybe they won't be too happy...and there are plenty of them. Thaksin might even be able to exploit the situation by being the only person capable of quelling a serious threat akin to the communist insurgency of the 70s. The current rulers of Thailand would go to almost any lengths to keep Thaksin out and he and his supporters will be very interested in opportunities to foment a volatile and frightening climate. It would be extremely ironic if the next king found himself asking such a bitter enemy to save his skin. Thailand is a very fucked up country and I would hate to be there when the king dies. There will be a few weeks of mourning and then anarchy.
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"
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.
They forgot to mention the part about him and/or his mother the queen shooting his older brother dead and thus guaranteeing the succession of a hard nosed and ambitious leader instead of a sickly youth. Thais just love that story, start telling it as soon as you're through immigration, or maybe even right there at the desk while the happy cop checks your passport.
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.
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