Facebook/Twitter Banned In Thailand For Election

societyofrobots writes "In the run up to the July 3rd election in Thailand, use of Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are banned for campaigning and other election related purposes. Offenders face a maximum six months in prison and a 10,000 baht ($330) fine. The ban includes sending short telephone texts and forwarding emails. 'There will be a unit of more than 100 officers to monitor this,' said police spokesman Prawut Thavornsiri of the social media ban. 'If we can track the origin of (an online message) right away, we will block the site and make an arrest. But if the sites are registered overseas and we can't check the origin, we'll first block it and ask the IP (Internet Protocol) providers for further investigation,' Prawut said."

Comments

Only banned during last hours before polls

[cgeys]

They did not ban the use of Twitter, Facebook and social media for election related purposes. This ban is only effect from yesterday 6 PM to today 3 PM until the polls are over. It's a cooling period before the polls, which by the way have already opened. It's so that the candidates and parties or their supporters won't do any cheating or try last minute mass campaigning. Hell, the headline made it sound like some China thing where they banned Facebook and Twitter completely. And I should know, as I live here, have a thai wife and many thai friends.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still censorship and a pretty stupid thing to censor at that.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Anonymous Coward]

Same in Canada, although in our case it's so that results on the east coast aren't transmitted to the west coast, where they're still voting, until AFTER the election is actually over.

While I don't like it all that much, it's really not that onerous.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really impressive the amount of Thai astroturfing in Slashdot.

Yes, it's a repressive move, Thailand has a long history of repressive regime and it's hardly a working democracy.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Lanteran]

Thank you. That is all.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

... cheating ...

How does one "cheat" elections using Twitter or Facebook? Could you elaborate?

... or try last minute mass campaigning ...

You mean the military junta and royalty-approved stooges or enemies of a renegade billionaire would be put at a further disadvantage yet?

Isn't "campaigning" what politicians do (many of them sadly even stopping at campaigning altogether)?

Aren't you a bit fuzzy on that whole election idea thing?

Hell, the headline made it sound like some China thing where they banned Facebook and Twitter completely.

It is only a matter of degree. In both countries vicious and entrenched power structures live in terror of their subjects communicating with each other in "unapproved" ways. In both they block, censor and monitor the subjects of their tyranny and abuse their peons in a myriad other ways.

And I should know, as I live here, have a thai wife and many thai friends.

The terms you are looking for are "lack of perspective", "being corrupted by local corruption", "ignorant of the precepts of democracy", etc.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Scutter]

So, since it's only a little bit of government censorship, it's OK? How much until it's not OK anymore?

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Anonymous Coward]

That's up for us to decide. Just like a little air conditioning is ok, or a little dessert, or a little alcohol.

Believe it or not, humans don't live in a world of absolutes, there are things that are acceptable in moderation.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[shutdown -p now]

So, since it's only a little bit of government censorship, it's OK?

Well, yes. More generally, it's a little bit of censorship that is very limited both in time and in scope, and which has a well-defined goal that the society considers important (fair elections).

Considering that, as far as censorship goes, this is far less significant than, say, criminalizing "incitement to riot", Americans should be familiar with the overall idea.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[shutdown -p now]

Thailand has a long history of repressive regime and it's hardly a working democracy.

True.

Yes, it's a repressive move

No, not really. This would only be true if it didn't apply to some of the candidates. As it is, it's not any different than similar laws on the books in most Western countries. The general idea is to ensure that election is fair, and one candidate doesn't attempt to "drown out" the others by his campaigning, if he has access to superior resources in that department.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[master_kaos]

sure they "banned" it in Canada, but there is no way that they could have enforced it.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[captain_sweatpants]

I don't really see how censoring politicians could ever be a bad thing? Most of the time when politicians speak I get an overwhelming urge to punch them in the face until they shut up! (Senator Conroy I'm looking at you!)

Seriously though I think this measure was designed by the relatively less corrupt current government to prevent the significantly corrupt former government from using it's ill gotten billions to buy it's way back into office by sending out propaganda to the poorly educated rural population.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in .au it's exactly the same. In the last week (might be days?) before an election the parties are no longer allowed to advertise or campaign. Censoring a political party I see no issue with, as long as all parties are under the same restrictions.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[bluemonq]

Passing laws against shouting fire in a crowded theater is also censorship. I guess by your rhetorical questions you're not okay with that.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Martin Blank]

A lot of news organizations do exit polling, which until recent years has often been remarkably accurate. In the last couple of presidential elections, the accuracy has dropped a bit because fewer people are willing to respond to the exit pollers or they are deliberately giving wrong answers.

Media organizations are often requested by the government to hold onto exit polls for individual states until polls close, something they usually do. The major news organizations screwed up in 2000 when they apparently forgot that Florida is in two time zones and started calling the election for Gore before the panhandle polls closed an hour later. The panhandle is (or at least was) a more Republican area and the whole fight over who won the state might have been avoided depending on the actual turnout and how they voted. They've been more careful since then.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[stephanruby]

It could also be a way to make sure the candidates and parties or their supporters don't do any real-time independent reporting or double-checking. After all, it's far easier to mess with the results of an election through the television networks and the government infrastructure if you're part of the government, than to try control what people are going to say to their family or their friends on Twitter or Facebook.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[MacTO]

It would constitute censorship under very limited circumstances. It would constitute censorship if new information was discovered in the final hours of the election, and it was prevented from inadvertently reaching the voter due to the blackout.

But the reality is that new information rarely pops up in those final hours. Because of that, most of the campaigning done would have more to do with manipulating the political process (e.g. presenting misinformation that the other parties cannot respond to). That sort of situation is far more dangerous to democracy than something that a few people could interpret as censorship because they see the world in black-and-white terms.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Paradise Pete]

It's at least even-handed. The current party in power is the wealthier one, them being cut off from facebook and twitter is a bigger handicap to them than it is to the opposition, whose supporters are more rural and poor.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Noughmad]

The law is to prevent candidates from claiming their opponent is a pedofile just as the voting starts, as in this case the opponent would have no time to respond to such allegations even if they can be easily proven false.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[poetmatt]

this magically assumes that last minute campaigns are somehow different if from twitter/facebook versus doing them in public. Won't people do these last minute campaigning anyway?

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[poetmatt]

if this were true wouldn't all campaigning for the last 24 hours be banned instead of "hurr lets block facebook/twitter"? Sounds pretty specious to me.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[X.25]

It is still censorship and a pretty stupid thing to censor at that.

In many countries election related 'advertising' (or campaigning) is prohibited for 24 hours before election starts.

No, it's not censorship.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[mjwx]

Lots of nations have an advertising blackout before elections, particularly in some Nordic nations that rate more free then most nations.

This blackout is to allow people to think who they are voting for, of course if you had of complained that this is pointless because the election is drawn up upon socio economic lines with the poor (majority of Thai's) being supported by the corrupt Pleu Thai party and the rich Thais being supported by the corrupt Democrat party that would be justified. Or if you complained about the rampant vote buying (US$5 will buy a vote in Issan) then you'd also be justified. But complaining about a ban on political advertising, that's just ridiculous.

Not that it really matters, shortly we will be welcoming in Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra as the new leader of Thailand, then wait a week or two for the inevitable coup and welcome back Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. If we're really lucky, deposed and exiled former PM Thaksin Shinawatra (brother of Yingluck) will make a special guest appearance. Once again, complaining that the military really rules Thailand would have also been more relevant then what you whined about.

As a lot of Ex-pats would say, "TiT" (This is Thailand.). This is really par for the course.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Zironic]

All campaigning for the last 24 hours -is- banned you ignorant twit.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[mdragan]

How does one "cheat" elections using Twitter or Facebook? Could you elaborate?

This is a common procedure for democratic elections. It is not specific to Thailand. Campaigning in the media in general is forbidden on the election day, so that participants don't keep a "dirty secret" on one another, releasing it at the last minute without a chance for the other side to replay.
What is specific to Thailand, probably not for long, is that they include Social Network sites in the "Media" category and are trying hard to enforce the rule on a medium where that is hard thing to do.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Anonymous Coward]

The crowd of bootlicking nanny-statists on here tonight is just unbelievable. :(

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[smittyoneeach]

Better still would be to enforce the ban socially.
If everyone agrees that spreading scurrilous rumors prior to a vote is self-outing as the loser, then there is a negative feedback loop, to minimize the behavior.
Governments run open loop; law begets law begets law. Society arrives at results opposite to the original intent. All lose.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

This is a common procedure for democratic elections.

It is nowhere near "common" in established democracies. It is also highly dubious. There is no substantive difference if a "dirty secret" is released at 11:59pm on the day prior to the ban or 1 minute before the polls open or one minute before they close. In none of these cases there is a chance to reply since all banned "campaigning" also includes "replies". Of course "replies" of the friends of the ruling junta are usually "special" and thus "exempt".

Thus it is all bullshit instigated by people in shaky fake "democracies" (like Thailand) who are afraid that elections will "heat up" (i.e. the patsies ... err ... "voters" of the crook facing an imminent loss will be prompted to resort to violence at the polls).

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Rogerborg]

How does one "cheat" elections using Twitter or Facebook? Could you elaborate?

People (you're familiar with them?) are essentially lazy and reactionary. Get a good whispering campaign going that Sock Puppet X is already heading for a landslide victory, and people either won't bother turning out to vote for them, or will vote for Sock Puppet Y just out of contrariness.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[MacTO]

The article was quite clear that they were expecting a blackout of social media website. That means that it extends beyond Facebook and Twitter. It even includes forwarding emails and SMS. In other words, they're talking about technologies that have an immediacy and reach comparable to television and radio. It is quite different from a lot of last minute campaigning that could be done. If there are regulations regarding last minute campaigning using television and radio, it is extremely different all of the last minute campaigning that could be done.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[cgeys]

If everyone agrees...

Yeah good luck with that.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Which movie were you picturing in your head during that obvious karma bait?

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[DrXym]

It is still censorship and a pretty stupid thing to censor at that.

Lot's of countries have similar laws. The UK for example prohibits people making statements while polls are open about the way the vote is going based on exit polls or speculation that could reasonably be interpreted as such. And of making false statements of fact about a candidate. Doing so could land you in prison for 6 months or a £5000 fine. And it's not intended as censorship but to stop people rigging polls, e.g. by passing false comments which could have an adverse affect on voters. And yes tweeting would land you in the shit too if you engaged in it.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[DrXym]

How does one "cheat" elections using Twitter or Facebook? Could you elaborate?

Easily. Just tweet that your opponent came in to vote reeking of drink or was charged with touching a minor or some other slur. Lots of countries put specific regulation around an election to stop this kind of shit and remedies for when it does happen.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[cgeys]

Yes, it really is common in other countries too. And for a good reason. It just has been in traditional media before, because technology like internet haven't existed for long, social media even less. Other countries will most likely include social media in the, well, media category too.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Only of course the same will happen if the "whispering campaign" happens 2 days before, 5 days before etc. What then? Ban on all media appearances and all political communications 2 months before elections? Where does this end?

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Yes, it really is common in other countries too.

List any that are not a running joke when it comes to credibility of their vote counting process.

And for a good reason.

What logical reason?

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[skegg]

I don't really see how censoring politicians could ever be a bad thing ... Senator Conroy I'm looking at you!

In Soviet Australia, Senator Conroy censors you !

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Easily. Just tweet that your opponent came in to vote reeking of drink or was charged with touching a minor or some other slur.

And this will not work if you use anonymous posters put up at night by masked provocateurs on every street corner or if you broadcast this from a foreign radio station across the border because?

And the effect will be different if you do it at 11:59pm of the day before the ban how exactly?

Lots of countries put specific regulation around an election to stop this kind of shit and remedies for when it does happen.

All of which countries have highly ... err ... colorful history surrounding elections, such as missing ballot boxes and bodies of candidates found in the river.

Face it, the only places that have such laws are banana "republics" and fake "democracies" run by military juntas and God-appointed "kings". Like, say, Thailand.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[DrXym]

And this will not work if you use anonymous posters put up at night by masked provocateurs on every street corner or if you broadcast this from a foreign radio station across the border because? And the effect will be different if you do it at 11:59pm of the day before the ban how exactly?

Well tell you what go read the UK's Representation of the People Act and see how these offences would be dealt with. I expect a judge would reasonably consider the time that people first receive & read the message than the actual time it was posted.

All of which countries have highly ... err ... colorful history surrounding elections, such as missing ballot boxes and bodies of candidates found in the river. Face it, the only places that have such laws are banana "republics" and fake "democracies" run by military juntas and God-appointed "kings". Like, say, Thailand.

Nonsense. Every democracy in existence puts laws in place to protect and ensure that elections are free and fair. And in most countries that includes restrictions on what people may say or do while the vote is in progress or some period before. It's laughable that Thailand should be criticized for this measure given its recent history.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[metalmaster]

While I do agree with you, sadly this IS the state of things for many people in the US. Ad campaigns, while not being outright smear campaigns, go a long way to subtlly discredit the other person's character. If there is an ad centered around a political issue both parties give their input. However, if you listen closely enough its sometimes the same answer phrased differently.

Case and point: Fill in the blank ads
"$candidate_foo claims to do things "for the people" but did you know that he voted for $bill that led to $hardship in this great state? He has also done x, y and z that didnt help either. Im different. Vote for me! This campaign ad was paid for with the blood of your first born

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[BasilBrush]

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/case+in+point

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[ian_from_brisbane]

It is still censorship and a pretty stupid thing to censor at that.

In many countries election related 'advertising' (or campaigning) is prohibited for 24 hours before election starts.

No, it's not censorship.

Yes it is. It's '24 hours of censorship before the election starts'. Read your own post.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[BasilBrush]

List any that are not a running joke when it comes to credibility of their vote counting process.

The UK.

What logical reason?

Because it's better to let the electorate have a free period to make up their mind on all the information they've received through the campaign period, rather than to have them voting based on an emotive last minute smear or dirty trick.

If the last minute smear or dirty trick comes just before the campaigning deadline, then the media still have time to fact check the claim, and report it. Factual reporting is not campaigning, and thus isn't subject to the election period campaigning ban.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[BasilBrush]

No. 2 days before, people can only say that they think X will win. Two hours before the polls close, they can say that can say that according to ballots already counted, or according to exit polls, X ALREADY HAS won. Completely different thing.

And this is not a theoretical risk. Follow political news and you see this type of electoral fraud happening fairly often.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[jklovanc]

They don't campaign in public anyway because it is against the law. It is a cooling off period for all campaigning. Here is the relevant section from Thailand's Electoral law http://www.elections-lebanon.org/elections/docs_6_G_8_1_14.aspx
"Section 48. No person shall make an election campaign by any means, whether it may be favorable or disfavorable to any candidate or political party, from 6:00 pm of the day before the election day to the end of the election day."
This ban on campaigning is nothing new. All that is happening is the things one can not do on the street, on TV, in newspapers, etc. can not be done on social media during the time specified. It is a ban on all campaigning not just social media as the article implies. I am for this "cooling off" period. Important decisions should not be made at the last minute based on information that can note be refuted by the target.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[jklovanc]

All last minute campaigning is illegal. Here is the relevant section from Thailand's Electoral law http://www.elections-lebanon.org/elections/docs_6_G_8_1_14.aspx [elections-lebanon.org]
"Section 48. No person shall make an election campaign by any means, whether it may be favorable or disfavorable to any candidate or political party, from 6:00 pm of the day before the election day to the end of the election day."

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[BasilBrush]

And this will not work if you use anonymous posters put up at night by masked provocateurs on every street corner or if you broadcast this from a foreign radio station across the border because?

That's like saying there's no point in making bank robbery illegal because people can still burgle houses.

And the effect will be different if you do it at 11:59pm of the day before the ban how exactly?

Because the media can still fact check the claim and report during the campaigning ban.

All of which countries have highly ... err ... colorful history surrounding elections, such as missing ballot boxes and bodies of candidates found in the river.

I already gave you the UK when you asked for one counter-example. Actually AFAIK this is common practice in Europe, many countries of which, just like the UK, have far less corruption in elections than the US. (Whilst of course there are other European countries that have more election corruption than the US.)

Face it, the only places that have such laws are banana "republics" and fake "democracies" run by military juntas and God-appointed "kings". Like, say, Thailand.

Face it, your opinions are much bigger than you political knowledge.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Noughmad]

Better still would be to enforce the ban socially.

In an ideal world, yes. However, despite what Slashdotters tend to believe, politicians (at least the successful ones) are smarted than most people. You must have noticed that news like "Candidate A did something very bad" are must more publicized that "Candidate A isn't all that bad, Candidate B made that up".

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[it-diary]

actually its good because some blackhat people may change minds of people with filthy tactics on social networking sites. 1 day is not big deal for greater good.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[jklovanc]

How about Australia
Under Schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which is administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), election advertising in the electronic media is subject to a 'blackout' from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the end of polling on the Saturday. This three-day blackout effectively provides a "cooling off" period in the lead up to polling day, during which political parties, candidates and others are no longer able to purchase time on television and radio to broadcast political advertising.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[jklovanc]

And Australia
Under Schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which is administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), election advertising in the electronic media is subject to a 'blackout' from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the end of polling on the Saturday. This three-day blackout effectively provides a "cooling off" period in the lead up to polling day, during which political parties, candidates and others are no longer able to purchase time on television and radio to broadcast political advertising.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[outsider007]

Anyone who badmouths the king of thailand goes to jail. I suppose that's not censorship either?

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[cgeys]

That law exists because Thai people want it to exist. The king itself is against it and has said so publicly. He also pardons people who violate that law, especially foreigners.

If it would be some law that is forced on people when majority of them object it, you would have a say. But when majority of people want such law to exist, well, it's their country their rules. Most Thai people really do love their king.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[mjwalshe]

actually you can campaign in the UK on election day - the parties will do whats referred to in polictical jargon as "knocking up" ie trying to make sure your supporters get out and vote and the parties do one last push for photo ops before the candidates go back to the constituancies.

Thats why you get asked for your number by the watchers from the parties at the door - the numbers are fed back to the constituency office and checked against your list of supporters.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[outsider007]

First of all, bullshit. Second of all, freedom of speech is necessary for a democracy whether the people want it or not.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[captain_sweatpants]

In Soviet Australia, Senator Conroy thinks he censors you! FTFY!

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[drinkypoo]

Because it's better to let the electorate have a free period to make up their mind on all the information they've received through the campaign period,

[citation needed]

If something that will change my mind comes out at the last minute, then why should I not have a right to know about it? It's my responsibility to check facts before I vote.

Of course, that assumes an intelligent, educated electorate. And that is very inconvenient to the corrupt.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[drinkypoo]

That law exists because Thai people want it to exist.

No, you only believe that to be true because the law essentially prohibits reporting on the opposite. Saying that it takes a law to prevent badmouthing the king is badmouthing the king and thus illegal, so they legally can't say it in the media.

Most Thai people really do love their king.

[citation needed] — there's no particular reason to believe that people aren't worried about being turned in for not loving their king.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Well tell you what go read the UK's Representation of the People Act and see how these offences would be dealt with. I expect a judge would reasonably consider the time that people first receive & read the message than the actual time it was posted.

Right. And then the judge, by use of powers arcane and divine, and upon consultation of tarot cards and Ouija board, will determine which of the many factions did that.

Oh, you mean this works only for a two "party" system?

Well then, a clever guy could run a mildly disparaging "smear" campaign against himself and then the all-seeing judge would disqualify the other side! Elections won! What a great law!

Nonsense. Every democracy in existence puts laws in place to protect and ensure that elections are free and fair.

Except of course what you describe has nothing whatsoever to do with "fairness". The laws of this kind are meant to give advantage to the whomever is tightening his grip on power. They are positively Orwellian in that they do precisely the opposite of what they claim to. While everyone is effectively muzzled, the "protectors" get to "be sadly forced by the perfidy of the opposition" to "make a one time exception" to "refute" "outrageous claims" on the, usually national, TV. While the "upstart rabble" does not, of course.

Fairness my ass.

And in most countries that includes restrictions on what people may say or do while the vote is in progress or some period before.

Yes, right. Preferably 10 years before. Or is that too short? If not, why? An arbitrary ban is arbitrary. The "logic" applicable to a 1 day ban is exactly the same that applies to a 1 week ban, 1 month and so on.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Factual reporting is not campaigning, and thus isn't subject to the election period campaigning ban.

Says who?! "Reporting", out of mere "civic duty" and "concern for the public", that the other guy is a child-molester three hours before the polls close is merely "reporting facts", no?

Give it up. Any such laws are wholly arbitrary and intended to give more power to whomever happens to be in control of the election process at the moment, which in banana republics is usually the eternally "re-elected" (with 99% of the vote) junta.

They get to decide who "violated" the "sacred law" by speaking "unapproved words" "out of turn". The upstart peasants and their puppet do not get such perks.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

No. 2 days before, people can only say that they think X will win. Two hours before the polls close, they can say that can say that according to ballots already counted, or according to exit polls, X ALREADY HAS won. Completely different thing.

No it isn't. In both cases it is mere conjecture. Since "people" do not get to count the votes.

Exit polls are wrong all the time too.

As I keep explaining, the true purpose of the law is to give the incumbents, or whomever controls the process, a stick with which to beat the upstart challengers.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Another banana republic who is also fond of Internet censorship and the like. See other Slashdot stories.

Note that these ever more pro-establishment laws (since it is them who do not need to advertise, only small parties and upstarts of all sorts) are appearing only recently (in this case 1992) as the democracies and their principles crumble around the world.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

See my other reply. Laws like these are a sure sign of a decaying democracy.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[cgeys]

Oh come on, just go to Thailand and you can see it yourself. I've lived here many years and I can say their love for the king is genuine. For a good reason too, he has done a lot of good for the country during his life.

Don't mix him in with the military junta that actually hold power here. But about this election were talking now, the opposition (red shirts) won. Even their old ex-prime minister admitted it and hoped the power transition goes smoothly. People got what they wanted.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[msobkow]

Canada has a ban on posting poll results and stats to social media sites during the election as well.

It's not censorship -- it's an attempt to prevent people who vote later in the day from basing their votes on the results so far in other jurisdictions, which would probably sway the vote rather seriously if that information was made public before polls closed.

Personally I think every country should have a similar rule in place, and if people can't abide by it, disable social media sites for the duration of polling.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

That's like saying there's no point in making bank robbery illegal because people can still burgle houses.

No, its like saying there is no point to have Sharia law declare that all women have to wear burkas because they can escape to the West and wear skirts there...

See what I did here? Your "analogy" is as bullshit.

Because the media can still fact check the claim and report during the campaigning ban.

And since media is usually owned by one of the incumbents these days, or one of the moneyed challengers, it can also "report facts" that the other guy happens to be accused of child molestation, 3 hours before the polls close. Or the governing "authorities" are "sadly forced by the perfidy of their barbarian opponents" to "refute" "vicious claims", while the upstart rabble of course does not have that opportunity.

Laws like these were specifically invented to muzzle smaller parties and "dangerous rabble-rousers" and give unchallenged platform to "serious players" for the last few days of the election, lest the "voters" forget who is their boss.

Face it, your opinions are much bigger than you political knowledge.

My "political knowledge" encompasses small things like the knowledge that you (and all the other posters here) have so far failed to indicate how any of these laws work to protect democracy (that is anything beyond your unsubstantiated opinion and hand waving). I on the other hand pointed out a myriad ways in which they can be and are used to stifle democracy.

Furthermore, it is a sure sign that any "democracy" or "republic" which enacts such laws (which originate in the banana republics I mentioned) is in a steep decline and on its way to autocracy. See also under: UK, Australia etc. Even the US is likely to follow suit soon, but that's another story.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[BasilBrush]

Yes they certainly can and do do that. But they can't put out campaign messages on the day.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[BasilBrush]

And since media is usually owned by one of the incumbents these days, or one of the moneyed challengers, it can also "report facts" that the other guy happens to be accused of child molestation, 3 hours before the polls close.

And if that's a problem in practice rather than theory, then it may be time to look at the rules again. In the UK it isn't. Thankfully there's no Fox News equivalent here. Deal with your own broken political process.

Furthermore, it is a sure sign that any "democracy" or "republic" which enacts such laws which originate in the banana republics I mentioned) is in a steep decline and on its way to autocracy. See also under: UK, Australia etc

Having been proved wrong on your claim that it was only banana-republics that do this, you'r'e now trying to put the cart before the horse that say that any country that does this is thus heading towards a banana republic. Even though such rules are long standing.

You're living up to your username. Your posts are neither reasonable nor well informed, and thus rather pointless.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[DrXym]

Right. And then the judge, by use of powers arcane and divine, and upon consultation of tarot cards and Ouija board, will determine which of the many factions did that.

No dummy, the police will and the cps will prosecute.

Except of course what you describe has nothing whatsoever to do with "fairness". The laws of this kind are meant to give advantage to the whomever is tightening his grip on power. They are positively Orwellian in that they do precisely the opposite of what they claim to. While everyone is effectively muzzled, the "protectors" get to "be sadly forced by the perfidy of the opposition" to "make a one time exception" to "refute" "outrageous claims" on the, usually national, TV. While the "upstart rabble" does not, of course.

Yes it's absolutely to do with fairness. Perhaps in some paranoid other reality you think it's a-ok for politicians to be standing outside polling stations, tweeting, leafleting on polling day telling people their opponent is a kiddie fiddler or some other scare tactic. Back in reality most modern democracies recognize that elections require extra legislation to ensure everything is as fair as possible.

Yes, right. Preferably 10 years before. Or is that too short? If not, why? An arbitrary ban is arbitrary. The "logic" applicable to a 1 day ban is exactly the same that applies to a 1 week ban, 1 month and so on.

Now you're just being stupid. Willfully stupid.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Lord Kano]

Personally I think every country should have a similar rule in place, and if people can't abide by it, disable social media sites for the duration of polling.

That will never happen in the U.S.A. The constitution specifically prohibits it.

LK

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[gl4ss]

effectively just discussing if last minute campaigning should be done or not would get you arrested. how someone thinks of that as reasonable I have no idea. from the big usa elections there's last minute campaigning echoing all around the world every time those big elections are held.what they need in thailand is more transparency - not less. especially this time they're voting.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Anonymous Coward]

> The king itself is against it and has said so publicly. He also pardons people who violate that law, especially foreigners.
He only pardons a small subset of those imprisoned for criticizing him. And even then, it's only after they have spent 6 months to years in prison. If he cared, he'd have the law removed.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[captain_sweatpants]

Because they can vote. And they're easily influenced. I think you underestimate the power of social media and the ability of people in the developing world to use it. See: Egypt.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[LingNoi]

As fellow living in Thailand as well this is the first I heard about any such ban and have been using twitter and facebook everyday. Also, 100 officers to monitor the whole internet? Good luck with that.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[LingNoi]

They're all wealthy. There's not a single person running in the election that isn't rich.

The supporters are rural and poor however the Shinawatra family that represents them in the election were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. They own billions including one of the largest telecommunication companies (AIS). To pretend that they have no means of providing a proper election campaign is ridiculous to say the least.

They've already won the election with a huge campaign which cost millions, it's up to them now to see if they're actually going to bother doing anything for those rural poor supporters or if it's yet another power struggle between billionaires. This will be the third member of the Shinawatra family to become prime minister in Thailand.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

And if that's a problem in practice rather than theory, then it may be time to look at the rules again. In the UK it isn't. Thankfully there's no Fox News equivalent here. Deal with your own broken political process.

Except, as I keep pointing out, and which you keep studiously ignoring, these "rules" make no sense whatsoever in theory and practice both. You, nor any of the other posters here, provided a shred of evidence that these laws actually help democracy in any way, although you did engage in a lot of hand waving and "they made it a law so it must be right" type of authoritarian arguments.

Even though such rules are long standing.

No, they are not. At the earliest, they were introduced in the mid-20th century.

Your posts are neither reasonable nor well informed, and thus rather pointless.

Says the dude who is unable to offer any reasoned counter-argument whatsoever to the long list of reasons I posted of why such laws are undemocratic.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

No dummy, the police will and the cps will prosecute.

How!? I keep asking this question and you keep replying "yea, they will!". Any broadcast from foreign soil is out of jurisdiction. By definition. Even more so if the idiotic law in question is not applicable in the country of origin. So unless they plan to invade, there is no way they can determine if the broadcast was by the party that is supposedly "set-up", in a false-flag operation, or by the actual opponents. None whatsoever.

And the Internet introduces a whole new level of impossibilities.

Yes it's absolutely to do with fairness. Perhaps in some paranoid other reality you think it's a-ok for politicians to be standing outside polling stations, tweeting, leafleting on polling day telling people their opponent is a kiddie fiddler or some other scare tactic. Back in reality most modern democracies recognize that elections require extra legislation to ensure everything is as fair as possible.

You keep using this word, "fair", and I don't think you have any clue what it means.

Fair is when small parties, with tiny budgets, can run ads right before the election because their impact diminishes rapidly over time and when there is a 2 week "cooling period" it greatly advantages the few top "establishment" parties. So it is yet another reason in a myriad of why laws like that are unfair. Always.

Fair is when speech of any non-establishment opponent is not muzzled during elections. Unfair is when laws are made to muzzle it in the name of "fairness" (to the establishment).

Fair is when laws are not made to be used as a witch hunt tool when some false-flag operator releases "smears" against a major incumbent party candidate on the Internet and which then causes the opposition to be accused of breaking this "holly law".

I could keep on going, for the list is long, but I am sure it will all be lost on you, authoritarian that you are.

Now you're just being stupid. Willfully stupid.

Thus I accept your inability to provide any reasonable counter-argument. I posted outrageous time frames for a reason: an idiotic premise has idiotic implications, and which implications the proponents of said idiotic premise usually refuse to face. You are no exception in this.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[tehcyder]

Here in .au it's exactly the same. In the last week (might be days?) before an election the parties are no longer allowed to advertise or campaign. Censoring a political party I see no issue with, as long as all parties are under the same restrictions.

It's the same in the UK, all TV stations show on the day before a general election is news that there is an election tomorrow, they don't do party political broadcasts or election-related discussion until the polls close.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[tehcyder]

It is still censorship and a pretty stupid thing to censor at that.

In many countries election related 'advertising' (or campaigning) is prohibited for 24 hours before election starts.

No, it's not censorship.

Yes it is. It's '24 hours of censorship before the election starts'. Read your own post.

No, censorship carries the meaning that it is done by the government against the people's wishes. Most people seem to agree that it is a good idea to prevent damaging and scurrilous revelations just before an election.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[tehcyder]

Personally I think every country should have a similar rule in place, and if people can't abide by it, disable social media sites for the duration of polling.

That will never happen in the U.S.A. The constitution specifically prohibits it.

LK

So change your constitition, it's just a collection of two hundred year old words, not the fucking Ten Commandments.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[tehcyder]

That's up for us to decide. Just like a little air conditioning is ok, or a little dessert, or a little alcohol.

Believe it or not, humans don't live in a world of absolutes, there are things that are acceptable in moderation.

Not for the libertarian slashtards. If you so much as criticise someone when they spout vile fascist nonsense, you're denyin them the right to free speech and are therefore a fascist. Or something.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[tehcyder]

This is a common procedure for democratic elections.

It is nowhere near "common" in established democracies. It is also highly dubious. There is no substantive difference if a "dirty secret" is released at 11:59pm on the day prior to the ban or 1 minute before the polls open or one minute before they close. In none of these cases there is a chance to reply since all banned "campaigning" also includes "replies". Of course "replies" of the friends of the ruling junta are usually "special" and thus "exempt".

Thus it is all bullshit instigated by people in shaky fake "democracies" (like Thailand) who are afraid that elections will "heat up" (i.e. the patsies ... err ... "voters" of the crook facing an imminent loss will be prompted to resort to violence at the polls).

Fuck you, countries like Canada, Australia and the UK have perfectly real "democracies" and limit news coverage during elections.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[tehcyder]

actually you can campaign in the UK on election day - the parties will do whats referred to in polictical jargon as "knocking up" ie trying to make sure your supporters get out and vote and the parties do one last push for photo ops before the candidates go back to the constituancies. Thats why you get asked for your number by the watchers from the parties at the door - the numbers are fed back to the constituency office and checked against your list of supporters.

Try running a party political broadcast on TV during election day. Oh, wait, you can't. We have limitations on absolute free speech, in the furtherance of helping to keep elections as fair as possible. Shockingly, in the UK you can't even post a libellous personal attack on Twitter about a rival politician during an election without getting into trouble.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[DrXym]

How!? I keep asking this question and you keep replying "yea, they will!". Any broadcast from foreign soil is out of jurisdiction. By definition. Even more so if the idiotic law in question is not applicable in the country of origin. So unless they plan to invade, there is no way they can determine if the broadcast was by the party that is supposedly "set-up", in a false-flag operation, or by the actual opponents. None whatsoever. And the Internet introduces a whole new level of impossibilities.

I haven't said "yes they will" in all circumstances. I apologise for making statements that any reasonable and sane person would have no trouble following. It appears that you think that since not all crime can be prosecuted (in this instance interference with an election) that laws should not exist to describe said crimes and their punishment. It's a bizarre and wilfully stupid assertion.

You keep using this word, "fair", and I don't think you have any clue what it means. Fair is when small parties, with tiny budgets, can run ads right before the election because their impact diminishes rapidly over time and when there is a 2 week "cooling period" it greatly advantages the few top "establishment" parties. So it is yet another reason in a myriad of why laws like that are unfair. Always. Fair is when speech of any non-establishment opponent is not muzzled during elections. Unfair is when laws are made to muzzle it in the name of "fairness" (to the establishment). Fair is when laws are not made to be used as a witch hunt tool when some false-flag operator releases "smears" against a major incumbent party candidate on the Internet and which then causes the opposition to be accused of breaking this "holly law".

I'm starting to see now. You're paranoid AND stupid. False flag operation... for fuck's sake. Embargoes around certain activities close or during polling are to stop people interfering with the result of a free and fair election. It's not some conspiracy no matter how much you wish it were.

Thus I accept your inability to provide any reasonable counter-argument. I posted outrageous time frames for a reason: an idiotic premise has idiotic implications, and which implications the proponents of said idiotic premise usually refuse to face. You are no exception in this.

Your counter arguments are not reasonable, they're insane.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[tehcyder]

If something that will change my mind comes out at the last minute, then why should I not have a right to know about it? It's my responsibility to check facts before I vote.

So it would be fine for rich political parties simply to carpet bomb abuse, innuendo and outright lies onto the public, even if they were all proved to be true after the election, when it was too late? You can't personally fact check every fucking media story.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[tehcyder]

Did you just call Australia a banana republic?
You just lost whatever your argument was hands down, you utter twat.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[DrXym]

If the king doesn't want the law to exist he should pardon EVERYONE who violates it, encourage all citizens and free press to do it and implore the government to strike the law. At some point the Thai parliament would actually follow his wishes. That he does none of the above would suggest he wants to maintain the status quo and is perhaps fearful of the kind of stuff that might be revealed about him and his family if he did.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[tehcyder]

Only of course the same will happen if the "whispering campaign" happens 2 days before, 5 days before etc. What then? Ban on all media appearances and all political communications 2 months before elections? Where does this end?

Ah yes, a brilliant slippery slope argument. Obviously, if you have any interference whatsoever in the absolute freedom to publish anything at any time, you can only end up with an Orwellian nightmare with no freedom at all. All the countries that have anything like this are as oppressive as North Korea. In the UK, we suffer under the horrible evil of not being able to hear politicians lie about each other during election day, it's barely credible that such tyranny can exist.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[DrXym]

Having been proved wrong on your claim that it was only banana-republics that do this, you'r'e now trying to put the cart before the horse that say that any country that does this is thus heading towards a banana republic. Even though such rules are long standing.

Yup poor old IgnoramusMaximus has just demonstrated a live example of "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy. Apparently other democracies are "banana republics" because their definition of free and fair elections does not fit his own. They can't be true democracies, oh no.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[tehcyder]

Right. And then the judge, by use of powers arcane and divine, and upon consultation of tarot cards and Ouija board, will determine which of the many factions did that.
Oh, you mean this works only for a two "party" system?
Well then, a clever guy could run a mildly disparaging "smear" campaign against himself and then the all-seeing judge would disqualify the other side! Elections won! What a great law!

Jesus H Christ you're stupid. If you tried that in the UK, you'd be in prison for a while. Oh sorry, I forgot we're just a banana republic so we don't count.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[tehcyder]

I keep asking this question and you keep replying "yea, they will!". Any broadcast from foreign soil is out of jurisdiction. By definition. Even more so if the idiotic law in question is not applicable in the country of origin. So unless they plan to invade, there is no way they can determine if the broadcast was by the party that is supposedly "set-up", in a false-flag operation, or by the actual opponents. None whatsoever.

You are clutching at straws. Why do you think that thepolice couldn't trace an overseas broadcast? Do you think there is no such thing as interpol, cross-country police co-operation? The UK (or whoever) national responsible would be guilty of breaking the UK election law and sent to prison.
In any case, bizarre anonymous overseas broadcasts are not what most peopole spend their evenings listening to, it's the BBC/ITV.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[tehcyder]

Furthermore, it is a sure sign that any "democracy" or "republic" which enacts such laws (which originate in the banana republics I mentioned) is in a steep decline and on its way to autocracy. See also under: UK, Australia etc.

You don't give up do you? If you are seriously comparing the UK and Australis to a military dictatorship like Thailand or some mythical South American banana repulic, you need to get out and have a word with reality now and then, because you're obviously delusional.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[tehcyder]

Are you a troll or just a stupid fucking cunt? I'm now genuinley curious.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[SavvyPlayer]

Law can never hope to be perfect, only effective. That being said, what better legitimacy can a government hope to achieve than its people united in belief of its divine ordination?

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

It's a bizarre and wilfully stupid assertion

Particularly when the said "crimes" are wholly made up and if missing even one instance invalidates the whole premise of the law, no?

I'm starting to see now. You're paranoid AND stupid. False flag operation... for fuck's sake. Embargoes around certain activities close or during polling are to stop people interfering with the result of a free and fair election. It's not some conspiracy no matter how much you wish it were.

And I note, again that you failed to explain how censorship (you are calling it an "embargo" now to make it sound less devious) is supposed to help "fairness". I already pointed out a myriad ways in which it helps the electoral process become unfair.

Furthermore, your "arguments" have now devolved into mere swearing. A sure sign of a lost debate.

Your counter arguments are not reasonable, they're insane.

See above. If they are "insane", they are surely very easy to refute. Which you somehow forgot to do.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Law can never hope to be perfect, only effective.

Well, that's true but laws also have to have a modicum of rationality behind them to begin with. And I am pointing out, repeatedly in the face of really pig-headed refusals to accept the obvious, that laws instituting censorship to "help" democracy are like laws instituting mandatory burkas in the effort to "help" self determination of women ...

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[ian_from_brisbane]

It is still censorship and a pretty stupid thing to censor at that.

In many countries election related 'advertising' (or campaigning) is prohibited for 24 hours before election starts.

No, it's not censorship.

Yes it is. It's '24 hours of censorship before the election starts'. Read your own post.

No, censorship carries the meaning that it is done by the government against the people's wishes. Most people seem to agree that it is a good idea to prevent damaging and scurrilous revelations just before an election.

It doesn't carry that meaning with me. If 99.9% of the population agree that censorship is a good idea 24 hours before an election, it's still censorship.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

In the UK, we suffer under the horrible evil of not being able to hear politicians lie about each other during election day, it's barely credible that such tyranny can exist.

In which case why forbid it? Since it apparently has no effect whatsoever, its just "lies about each other" ... or it has one so profound that the whole democratic process teeters on the edge of collapse and so laws have to be made to "protect" it from this dire danger ....

Pick one. You can't have it both ways, you know.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Did you just call Australia a banana republic? You just lost whatever your argument was hands down, you utter twat.

Australian and incidentally UK (and many others) democracies have been steadily sliding backwards into autocracy over many decades, evidence of which can be had in pretty much every other headline.

Also, calling someone a "twat" is not exactly a conclusively winning argument in a debate, no matter what your mother told you.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Jesus H Christ you're stupid. If you tried that in the UK, you'd be in prison for a while. Oh sorry, I forgot we're just a banana republic so we don't count.

It has not only been tried (example here), but it has been done so repeatedly all over the UK and no, no one went to prison for it.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You are clutching at straws. Why do you think that thepolice couldn't trace an overseas broadcast?

Which part of "out of jurisdiction" do you not grasp?

Do you think there is no such thing as interpol, cross-country police co-operation?

Which part of "out of jurisdiction" do you not grasp? Or do you believe that inane UK election laws apply to the whole planet?

The UK (or whoever) national responsible would be guilty of breaking the UK election law and sent to prison.

So you do believe that UK laws apply to non-UK citizens abroad, throughout the globe. No surprise, really, but it does advance your "credibility" just that one bit further...

In any case, bizarre anonymous overseas broadcasts are not what most peopole spend their evenings listening to, it's the BBC/ITV.

Not anymore, Internet is replacing the traditional mass media, Internet that makes such anonymous broadcasts truly cheap and easy. That is why censorship of the Internet is now at the forefront of the self anointed "protectors" of democracy and their "we had to destroy the village to save it" muzzling campaigns.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

What is there not to compare? UK (and many other Western "democracies") have long since lost their way and became "two-party establishment" systems. In many cases the two parties even have nearly the exact same major agendas. That is why it was possible for a leader of a supposedly "Labour" party to be a champion for worker-dispossessing globalization and an ass-kissing side-kick to a authoritarian war-monger at the helm of a super-power. Examples of the recent decline of the UK and other Western democracies are endless.

And censorship laws to "protect" democracy are just one such.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Are you a troll or just a stupid fucking cunt? I'm now genuinley curious.

Do you have an actual argument or is enumeration of imaginary beasts and slang terms for parts of female anatomy the extent of it?

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[mjwalshe]

A PPB isn’t the same as campaigning on the day they where certainly leafleting hard at the train station on Election Day – and I seem to recall the tv news covering the major players last day campaigning.

There are quite rightly rules about campaining in the vicinity of poling stations poll watchers can only wear colors no rosettes with names of candidates/parties and if you need to use the loo in the same building you are escorted by the polling officer there and back.

Re:Only banned during last hours before polls

[Lord Kano]

Personally I think every country should have a similar rule in place, and if people can't abide by it, disable social media sites for the duration of polling.

That will never happen in the U.S.A. The constitution specifically prohibits it.

LK

So change your constitition, it's just a collection of two hundred year old words, not the fucking Ten Commandments.

You, apparently, don't understand the situation. Without going into the minutia of the process, it takes the support of 2/3 of the country to accomplish such a feat. And because most of us take the First Amendment quite seriously, it's not possible to make such a change.

LK

outrageous!

[B3ryllium]

that is outrageous! this would never happen in a civilized country ... like Canada.

oh wait.

Re:outrageous!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Elections Canada was widely criticized for this but at least they had a particular objection which was restricted to posting premature or false election results, rather then "campaigning", "inciting to vote" and the like, which is what the Thai elites are worried about.

In Canada this action was a direct consequence of a law intended to stop poll manipulation by mass media during the election. The idea itself is very controversial (i.e. the idea that people are influenced by such data and change their votes to suit the media) and attempts at killing this law were made repeatedly and will likely succeed in not so remote future since the technological progress has completely outpaced the notions upon which the law was based.

You will also recall that Elections Canada was laughed into promising that they won't prosecute anyone for this.

Re:outrageous!

[Mashiki]

Well it seems between Elections Canada and various elections boards in the US, EC has the right idea. Anyone who's paid attention to the polls and the media spouting their favorite top floppy head on election night, for or against has a direct impact on the outcome.

Re:outrageous!

[jklovanc]

The issue isn't Westerners changing their vote it is westerners not voting at all. Why vote if the outcome of the elections are already known? At least allow those of us on the west coast the illusion that we have a say in Ottawa. Publishing results in one province before the polls are closed in another is bad form.

Re:outrageous!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

So the cure to failure of democracy - which has, let's face it, failed completely in most of the West by being successfully tamed and defanged by the oligarchs, mindless consumerism, breakdown of social trust and the like - is censorship?

"Fucking for virginity", that's what it is.

Re:outrageous!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Except, of course, that any such censorship ideas are completely unworkable, not to mention inherently undemocratic.

The true solution is education of electorate but that would be rather inconvenient to far too many would-be "leaders". Censorship laws on the other hand are meant to empower establishment con-men and professional public opinion manipulators under the very pretense of "protecting fairness of the elections" from these same individuals. Truly Orwellian pieces of work they are.

Re:outrageous!

[Mashiki]

So wait. Attempting to stop groups from directly influencing an election especially media outlets is undemocratic? I dunno. Seems to me to be the opposite. As that small minority(20%), who swing are the ones who actually make or break the vote.

See I generally have a problem when a news outlet comes out a few hours before polls close and tries to influence an electoral outcome. To me that's undemocratic, and vote tampering.

Re:outrageous!

[jklovanc]

Sorry but a restriction for a few hours for the greater good is not censorship it is common sense.

Re:outrageous!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

So wait. Attempting to stop groups from directly influencing an election especially media outlets is undemocratic?

Except, which I keep pointing out, and which people keep ignoring, a) there is no way to practically stop people from "influencing" an election with information as information is the very currency of elections, b) banning certain forms of announcements only advantages those capable of others, c) if it was really about "fairness" the law, instead of censorship, would be concerned with providing the disadvantaged candidates with a platform to make rapid replies. And these are just the top reasons.

You simply fell into the trap which the creators of these laws want you in as they use words like "fairness" and "protecting democracy" to institute procedures that do exactly the opposite. Its positively Orwellian and a lot of people are apparently, as Orwell predicted, fair game for such tricks.

See I generally have a problem when a news outlet comes out a few hours before polls close and tries to influence an electoral outcome. To me that's undemocratic, and vote tampering.

So facts are undemocratic and suppressing them from the electorate is the democratic thing to do?

Re:outrageous!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Sorry but a restriction for a few hours for the greater good is not censorship it is common sense.

What "common good"?! Explain. All I want from you and all the other posters to explain, using reason and logic, how censorship is supposed to serve this "common good". So far no-one has been able to do so. Instead I've heard "reasons" such as "they've made it a law so it must be something", "voters can't vote 'right' if given unauthorized - by the authorities - information", "voters are too stupid to vote unsupervised", "voters will go into stupor if given too much data", "poor downtrodden billionaire candidate B won't be able to reply to evil billionaire candidate A in time", etc.

Not a single logical or reasonable argument as to how these kinds of laws provide for "common good" although it is plain to see how they can greatly advantage certain - particularly major and established in power - groups and how they are thus deeply undemocratic.

Maybe you will be first. Go at it.

Re:outrageous!

[tehcyder]

You seem incapable of appreciating that the release of a smear campaign during an election (that is, when people are either actually voting or just about to vote) can sway voters as there may not be enough time for a response.
In terms of your strawmen:
"they've made it a law so it must be something" No, but the fact that many civilized countries have such laws (and not just banana republics as you keep insisting) makes it not unlikely that there is something to it.
"voters can't vote 'right' if given unauthorized - by the authorities - information", It's not factual information that's the propble, it's lies, innuendoes, false allegations and the rest.
"voters are too stupid to vote unsupervised", Who said anything about supervision?
"voters will go into stupor if given too much data", No, again people are saying you can have as much in formation as you can handle, just not for a short time period.
"poor downtrodden billionaire candidate B won't be able to reply to evil billionaire candidate A in time" In most countries outside the US and Russia, billionaires aren't generally politicians (and vice vversa). Political parties ae composed of normal human beings, who just need an equal fair crack of the whip.

Re:outrageous!

[nazg00l]

Please note that in many countries outside the Rich West current government has an additional advantage in form of direct access to public media. One of the explicit goals of such "blackout periods" is often removing manipulation power from the current government. If you don't think such access could be used for aiding the currently-ruling political option to remain in power, think again.

On the other hand, could you please state the disadvantages of such mandatory silence periods? Yes, I know you call them "censorship", but anything besides that? Any side loses anything? Anybody is manipulated? Anybody gains unfair advantage? Or do you simply believe any restriction on personal freedom at all is always evil and must be opposed?

Re:outrageous!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I tire of repeating myself over and over. Read my other posts in this thread.

I will only give you these hints: advertising has en effect that diminishes with time, so an established party with a huge budget and repeated media recognition (like the current government) will suffer far less then a small party whose tiny budget offered it only a modicum of advertising before the "cooling off" period. By the time the election comes the effect of advertising of smaller players will be nullified.

As to the government being disadvantaged it is laughable. Exactly the opposite happens (that is why the laws were made - by the governments in power) as it affords whomever is controlling the process an opportunity to indirectly harass the other players by either accusing them of "breaking the law" or making exceptions for the ruling elite because of "particularly malicious attacks" etc. And then there is the fact that most media these days are owned by affiliates of one of the major parties or even outright by candidates themselves and media are not exempt from "reporting" on the other, usually "upstart" challengers, who of course have no recourse.

And so on.

Censorship never "helps" democracy. It is in fact the very anathema of it.

If the laws were truly meant to help democracy they would concern themselves with ensuring that smaller players have a level playing field and that all candidates have a chance to make last-second replies. They would ensure that the voters get maximum exposure to information, complete with information kiosks at the polls where all parties could post last minute appeals free of charge so they stay fresh in the voter's minds, etc and so on.

Re:outrageous!

[nazg00l]

I tire of repeating myself over and over. Read my other posts in this thread.

Believe me, I have...

I will only give you these hints: advertising has en effect that diminishes with time, so an established party with a huge budget and repeated media recognition (like the current government) will suffer far less then a small party whose tiny budget offered it only a modicum of advertising before the "cooling off" period. By the time the election comes the effect of advertising of smaller players will be nullified.

If that were true, smaller parties would be severely disadvantaged and would gradually disappear. Care to run a reality check for some European countries, where such laws are in effect?

As to the government being disadvantaged it is laughable. Exactly the opposite happens (that is why the laws were made - by the governments in power) as it affords whomever is controlling the process an opportunity to indirectly harass the other players by either accusing them of "breaking the law" or making exceptions for the ruling elite because of "particularly malicious attacks" etc.

I call bullshit. At least in the case of my country, there are no exceptions whatsoever to the radio silence period and all the media refrain from reporting anything even remotely political - which actually looks kinda weird, as for a day or two news program are filled with absolute trivialities.

And then there is the fact that most media these days are owned by affiliates of one of the major parties or even outright by candidates themselves and media are not exempt from "reporting" on the other, usually "upstart" challengers, who of course have no recourse.

Again, please run a reality check. All media are forbidden to report anything that could be considered election-related or politics-related. There have been some highly-publicised early transgressions that ended up with huge fines and universal disapproval, and now the situation is absolutely clean election after election.

Censorship never "helps" democracy. It is in fact the very anathema of it.

Citation needed. There are in fact multiple censorship laws in force around the world, like forbidding publishing Nazi ideology, hate speech etc., and democracy does not seem to suffer as a result. Care to point to some example country where there is no such restrictions and democracy actually flourishes?

If the laws were truly meant to help democracy they would concern themselves with ensuring that smaller players have a level playing field and that all candidates have a chance to make last-second replies. They would ensure that the voters get maximum exposure to information, complete with information kiosks at the polls where all parties could post last minute appeals free of charge so they stay fresh in the voter's minds, etc and so on.

There are multiple ways in which smaller players are being favoured in many countries I know of, including mandatory airtime in public media and state-allotted funds for running both the party and the campaign itself. If what you claim were true, the discussed laws would grossly favour current political establishment, and the government side in particular. Care to check whet the situation actually looks like in Europe and how often ruling parties change?

Re:outrageous!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You seem incapable of appreciating that the release of a smear campaign during an election (that is, when people are either actually voting or just about to vote) can sway voters as there may not be enough time for a response.

No, it is you who are incapable of realizing that stopping a "smear campaign" is impossible and that these laws have nothing whatsoever to do with the effort (other then their pretense).

If "smear campaigns" were really the concern, efforts exactly opposite to censorship would be taken: kiosks at polls where last minute replies/appeals of all candidates, free of charge, could be uploaded. A national "elections TV" and "elections radio" channel where very same appeals could be broadcast etc.

Democracy is based on free flow of information and censorship, being the very anathema of democracy, never "helps" or benefits it. Under NO circumstances. NO exceptions.

Anyone who believes that muzzling someone is to "help" democracy has either no clue what democracy is or is an authoritarian who is using the term "democracy" in the same way as the Nazis did: as a mere means to an end - gaining power.

... there is something to it.

That is the famous "a million flies cannot be wrong" argument. Otherwise known as the argumentum ad potentiam logical fallacy.

It's not factual information that's the propble, it's lies, innuendoes, false allegations and the rest.

And of course it is the "authorities" who get to decide what is a "lie" or "innuendo" or a "false allegation" etc and what mere "reporting", no?

Who said anything about supervision?

What else can actions of a nanny-state aimed at controlling access to information by the voters be called?

No, again people are saying you can have as much in formation as you can handle, just not for a short time period.

... or else "voters will go into stupor", no? You do realize that you just confirmed the very thing you tried to refute, don't you?

In most countries outside the US and Russia, billionaires aren't generally politicians (and vice vversa). Political parties ae composed of normal human beings, who just need an equal fair crack of the whip.

Actually, no. In most Western democracies most politicians are either directly millionaires or are directly backed by billionaires. Furthermore, a typical election budget of a major party runs into hundreds of millions of dollars. Parties themselves are usually multi-hundred-million dollar enterprises. Then there are media moguls who control (unlike the olden days) most major media in the world who are also affiliated with political parties.

In short, it is the very small time passionate candidates who get completely destroyed by these laws (as was intended by the creators of these laws all along).

Re:outrageous!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

If that were true, smaller parties would be severely disadvantaged and would gradually disappear. Care to run a reality check for some European countries, where such laws are in effect?

Curious that you mentioned it: what was the last time in European democracies (barring the unstable former Warsaw Pact countries) when a small party grew in size to win elections? Last I checked such an event was extremely rare and it is the establishment (usually represented by two similarly-flavoured parties - even though they are sometimes called by drastically opposite names) that grows to swallow all else leaving only a perpetual token presence of minor "fringe" parties that never hope to win more than a few seats.

I call bullshit. At least in the case of my country, there are no exceptions whatsoever to the radio silence period and all the media refrain from reporting anything even remotely political - which actually looks kinda weird, as for a day or two news program are filled with absolute trivialities.

So do you plan to pull the plug on the Internet too? Since it is obvious that it is the only way to enforce such an inane law in the 21st century when "mass media" is in decline and Internet in ascendance...

What about email? Mass SMS messages?

Or do you plan to keep your head in the sand and hope that censorship of some types of media somehow justifies the deeply flawed premise?

Again, please run a reality check. All media are forbidden to report anything that could be considered election-related or politics-related. There have been some highly-publicised early transgressions that ended up with huge fines and universal disapproval, and now the situation is absolutely clean election after election.

How do you fine a foreign blogger who lives out of jurisdiction? Or do your inane laws apply to the whole planet?

Citation needed. There are in fact multiple censorship laws in force around the world, like forbidding publishing Nazi ideology, hate speech etc., and democracy does not seem to suffer as a result. Care to point to some example country where there is no such restrictions and democracy actually flourishes?

All of them are undemocratic, rather obviously. The fact that democracy doesn't outright crumble overnight when such laws are passed to erode it does not constitute an argument for them. But every one of these laws weakens democracy because it takes out of the public discourse controversial ideas which someone, somewhere dislikes and labels "hate". In Canada, for example, "hate speech" laws were successfully used by right-wing groups to muzzle opponents of the Afghanistan military adventure while these same "hate speech" laws could not be used to get a right-wing Jewish extremist to shut up (probably the fact that the "hate speech" court is staffed by people affiliated with Israel had something to do with it). Cases like this are aplenty wherever "hate speech" laws are in effect.

There are multiple ways in which smaller players are being favoured in many countries I know of, including mandatory airtime in public media and state-allotted funds for running both the party and the campaign itself.

Those are laws that actually help democracy and they are responsible for the smaller parties surviving and these laws, not the censorship idiocy, are responsible for the greater richness of European politics when compared to countries which do not have such laws. Laws like this can only be applauded as they are indeed very democratic in nature.

If what you claim were true, the discussed laws would grossly favour current political establishment, and the government side in particular. Care to check whet the situation actually looks like in Europe and how often ruling parties change?

"Ruling parties changing" alone means nothing.

Re:outrageous!

[nazg00l]

Oops, I have posted as an AC. Please see my reply above.

Re:outrageous!

[jklovanc]

The insistence that and restriction on speech is dogma.

1. If an untrue statement about a candidate is released close to voting time there is no time to gather factual information to refute the claim. Sorry but "I didn't do it" is not sufficient. Anyone voting on that information can not retract their vote when the truth comes out.

2. I just noticed your handle IgnoramosMaxumis which translated to Big Idiot. On that note I will consider the source of the dogmatic replies and act accordingly.

Re:outrageous!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Some nice definition of stability you have there, with a dozen of those having been considered worthy of EU and NATO membership...

That's a laughable set of criteria.

NATO would gobble up Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Mongolia if they could get away with it. "Stability" was never NATO's concern, sticking it to Russia and its allies at all costs, wagging their collective dicks around Middle East and generally trying to provide markets for its top member's military-industrial-complex are the goals of NATO. The utter lie of NATO's original mandate (to oppose the Warsaw Pact) became quite transparent nearly three decades ago.

As to EU, its stability as a whole is quite shaky. I am not sure if you noticed, but even its founding members are in dire straights. See also under: Greece and Portugal.

Off the top of my had, you may want to check the name Forza Italia and the recent political history of Netherlands. Furthermore, in a multi-party environment, unlike in the case of e.g. the US, a party does not need to win the majority to get some influence on country policy - it is enough to grow large enough to be worth including in a majority coalition. In many countries various ecological movements gain disproportionate influence by this mechanism.

I grow tired of this. You've got two examples, one in a country that is famous for most of its governments to last less than a month for most of the 20th century. And all of these countries have also other laws, like public financing of campaigns, which truly are responsible for their state of affairs, despite the censorship. I dare you to explain how censorship is, in any way, responsible for their "multiparty coalition" character - not that it actually matters in practice in most of them: they are still ruled by two major parties that control them for most of the last 6 decades, merely that the two majors cannot do it entirely alone ....

No, you do not need to actually block such communications. It is enough to record them and judicially punish the offending parties post factum (including mandate cancelling if justified).

Again, I marvel at your smug confidence in the divine powers of the "authorities" and how horribly dissonant it is with your protestations of your defense of ideals of democracy and how well it instead fits an authoritarian mindset that you actually display in your reasoning.

I think I mentioned, just about 20 times now, that communications on the Internet and many, many other modes of transmission can be made anonymously. In which case the "authorities" are unable to determine who transmitted what and for what purpose. "Smearing" oneself and then pointing a finger at the other guy becomes quite viable and effective maneuver, particularly if one acts in collusion with these "authorities". Not to mention camouflaging "smears" as "breaking news" (which is when the "authorities" get to decide on what is and what is not "news"). Etc and so on.

As I keep repeating, censorship, being the very anathema of democracy, always damages its implementation. No matter what convoluted excuse is used to introduce it.

The fact that you call them so does not create reality, you know. Democracy is not identical to unrestricted freedom. Actually, there have been cases when unrestricted freedom caused a once-powerful country to fall - check the history of Poland for an example. Also, some limitations of the democratic process have been recognised (see early 20th century history of Germany for two examples) and I believe it is only prodent to put in place some guards not to repeat the same mistakes again.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with censorship. Or "unrestricted freedom" (which is Anarchy btw). Democracy fundamentally depends on free and unrestricted speech and compromising this ability by definition compromi

Re:outrageous!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The insistence that and restriction on speech is dogma.

One cannot help but notice that your "arguments" would have somewhat more impact if only they were grammatical. Or coherent.

As it is however, your above "sentence" makes no sense whatsoever. Nevertheless, I take a liberty of guessing that you wish to accuse me of being "dogmatic", which is quite amusing given my ample explanations for the many reasons behind my statements, which thus prevents them from being "dogmatic".

By definition.

In this, I also took a leap of assuming that you've read the contents of your own link, which might be a bit optimistic on my part.

1. If an untrue statement about a candidate is released close to voting time there is no time to gather factual information to refute the claim. Sorry but "I didn't do it" is not sufficient. Anyone voting on that information can not retract their vote when the truth comes out.

That assumes (no surprise there) that censorship is the only recourse. Halting (or even cancelling and postponing) elections in such extreme cases never came to your mind, naturally.

How do you think the electorate will feel the morning after when they discover that their choice did in fact happen to be a corrupt crook, only that this information was suppressed and hidden from them by the "authorities" in the name of "fairness"?! Bonus points if the crook-elect is also a personal friend of key members of these "authorities"!

2. I just noticed your handle IgnoramosMaxumis which translated to Big Idiot. On that note I will consider the source of the dogmatic replies and act accordingly.

Since your "arguments" have dwindled so completely as to leave you only with an assault on my Slashdot alias as your last remaining desperate ploy, I therefore accept this as your plea for mercy in this dialogue.

Your surrender has been accepted.

Re:outrageous!

[jklovanc]

How do you think the electorate will feel the morning after when they discover that their choice did in fact happen to be a corrupt crook, only that this information was suppressed and hidden from them by the "authorities" in the name of "fairness"?! Bonus points if the crook-elect is also a personal friend of key members of these "authorities"!

That is why there are impeachment and recall laws to fix issue just like that. Also any opposing political party would demand the person resign. I so not understand the point about "authorities" since all campaigning, not just negative information, is prohibited.

Conversely, and much more likely, what would happen if a false claim was put forward at the last minute which swung the vote? Do you really think the election would be re-run? How would someone prove that the outcome was changed? There is no way to check each individual vote to see if the false report had any effect. How could one prove it was done by the candidate? Maybe it was done by a misguided supporter but still had the same effect. Without solid proof nothing will happen.

The sentence I thought I wrote but didn't come out right was as follows;
"The position that any restriction on speech is censorship and therefore bad is dogmatic."
Sorry but it was late and I was tired. So I was a little off on my usage.

Re:outrageous!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

That is why there are impeachment and recall laws to fix issue just like that. Also any opposing political party would demand the person resign.

Not only most countries do not have "recall" laws or anything resembling impeachment, but cases when such scandals erupted and the politico in question served his full term laughing at the voters and doing all sorts of damage are aplenty. Hell, in some cases the politician was convicted in the court of law and even then still refused to resign and had to be forcibly booted out of whatever body he was a member in. Not to mention that any legal proceedings against the crook can be successfully stalled for so long that his term is likely to end before the impeachment even gets going properly.

Furthermore, while I keep pointing out proactive measures that empower the electorate, you keep insisting on reactive, post-facto measures that not only dis-empower voters but go against the grain of the whole democracy thing by requiring censorship and other forms of muzzling media, citizens and politicians.

I so not understand the point about "authorities" since all campaigning, not just negative information, is prohibited.

Who, pray tell, gets to decide what is "campaigning" and what is not?! Who decides what actions are in "violation" of the laws?! It is the "authorities", i.e. the members of the government - be it its judicial or executive branches - who do! Next I expect you are going to tell me that they are wholly, impeccably impartial and make such decisions from the purity of their noble hearts, completely focused on the well being of the nation and its denizens in their incorruptible minds ...

Conversely, and much more likely, what would happen if a false claim was put forward at the last minute which swung the vote? Do you really think the election would be re-run? How would someone prove that the outcome was changed? There is no way to check each individual vote to see if the false report had any effect. How could one prove it was done by the candidate? Maybe it was done by a misguided supporter but still had the same effect. Without solid proof nothing will happen.

So on the one hand we have certainties, i.e. a bona-fide crook being elected when the electorate was dis-enfranchised and forbidden from knowing the truth and on the other hand we have "coulda-woulda-shoulda" voodoo whereby no one can tell what impact what statements had on the elections but the electorate still remains fully empowered to make decisions on whatever information is available, no matter its source or quality. In one corner the nanny-state is "protecting" poor wee idiot voters "from themselves" by denying all of them all information it can lay its paws on and in the other one we have a possibility that some of the voters might be misled by late game chicanery (assuming that none of the counter-measures I described repeatedly are taken).

It is then of little surprise that I believe that empowering voters (at the risk of finding out that some of them are idiots and can't handle uncertain, last minute information) is the democratic thing to do while it is also quite obvious that you find censorship, dubious and highly corruptible "protections" of a nanny-state and general distrust of the choices of voters in favour of a blind trust in the authorities so much more your cup of tea.

That is because, quite contrary to what you believe yourself to be, you are not a proponent of democracy but rather an authoritarian. You find some, select aspects of democracy agreeable only as long as they can be used as part of an unassailable "authority" that you desperately need in your life to make important decisions for you and for others. For their own "good", no doubt.

Re:outrageous!

[jklovanc]

Not only most countries do not have "recall" laws or anything resembling impeachment, but cases when such scandals erupted and the politico in question served his full term laughing at the voters and doing all sorts of damage are aplenty. Hell, in some cases the politician was convicted in the court of law and even then still refused to resign and had to be forcibly booted out of whatever body he was a member in. Not to mention that any legal proceedings against the crook can be successfully stalled for so long that his term is likely to end before the impeachment even gets going properly.

It seems strange that in one sentence you say there is no way to get a politician out of office and the next you say politicians had to be "booted out of whatever body he was a member in". Those statements seem to be contradictory.

Furthermore, while I keep pointing out proactive measures that empower the electorate, you keep insisting on reactive, post-facto measures that not only dis-empower voters but go against the grain of the whole democracy thing by requiring censorship and other forms of muzzling media, citizens and politicians.

It seems that you may need to look into the definitions of proactive and reactive. You solution seems to be to react to something happening and stop or re do an election. The Thai solution is to proactively stop the situation from happening by having a cooling off period.

Who, pray tell, gets to decide what is "campaigning" and what is not?! Who decides what actions are in "violation" of the laws?! It is the "authorities", i.e. the members of the government - be it its judicial or executive branches - who do! Next I expect you are going to tell me that they are wholly, impeccably impartial and make such decisions from the purity of their noble hearts, completely focused on the well being of the nation and its denizens in their incorruptible minds ...

You accuse me of being authoritarian. You seem to have the opposite view that anyone in authority is automatically corrupt. That is the position of an anarchist. You seem to forget that the people in authority were democratically elected. Also, the candidates you seem to be trying to protect are attempting to become the authority. It seems that your position is that somone seeking authority is worthy of protection but if they gain authority that are corrupt.

So on the one hand we have certainties, i.e. a bona-fide crook being elected when the electorate was dis-enfranchised and forbidden from knowing the truth and on the other hand we have "coulda-woulda-shoulda" voodoo whereby no one can tell what impact what statements had on the elections but the electorate still remains fully empowered to make decisions on whatever information is available, no matter its source or quality. In one corner the nanny-state is "protecting" poor wee idiot voters "from themselves" by denying all of them all information it can lay its paws on and in the other one we have a possibility that some of the voters might be misled by late game chicanery (assuming that none of the counter-measures I described repeatedly are taken).

So someone who is underhanded enough not to get caught manipulating an election with last minute falsehoods is fine with you

It is then of little surprise that I believe that empowering voters (at the risk of finding out that some of them are idiots and can't handle uncertain, last minute information) is the democratic thing to do while it is also quite obvious that you find censorship, dubious and highly corruptible "protections" of a nanny-state and general distrust of the choices of voters in favour of a blind trust in the authorities so much more your cup of tea.

That is because, quite contrary to what you believe yourself to be, you are not a proponent of democracy but rather an authoritarian.

Google+

[mmajorek]

use Google+ :)

Re:It's not THAT bad

[captain_sweatpants]

Is it just TV and Radio or is it all forms of media advertising? If not Twitter, Facebook, etc. would be a pretty significant loophole these days. I can't see censoring of personal Twitter accounts ever happening.

...and ask the providers for further investigation

[__Paul__]

Good luck with that, guys.

I expect your requests to overseas ISPs will cause much hysterical laughter.

Re:It's not THAT bad

[Sparx139]

Google turned this up. Note the 'Rules governing political advertising' section. It looks like it's enforced from the broadcaster side:

Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 places three key requirements on the broadcasters of political advertisements. Clauses 3, 3A and 4 of Schedule 2 require broadcasters to:
...
cease political advertisements in the three days before polling day (from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the close of the poll on polling day).

The Act in question Doesn't seem to include social media -- it has television and radio.
I'm no lawyer, but to be honest if any of Australia's laws were that current I would be shocked. I mean, we have a communications minister who thinks that you can filter bit torrent without killing it

I can see exactly why things like this are done.

[rainmouse]

In the Scottish election in 2007, the nationals party were set in the polls for a landslide victory and on the morning the polls opened, virtually every national newspaper in Scotland had an enormous full-front page spread containing much misleading information. This enormously expensive smear campaign had a huge effect and though the nationals still crept into power, it was only by a narrow margin leaving them largely toothless for four years.

Here's an interesting article on cooling off periods for those who like the original poster, seem to think they are undemocratic or some form of censorships like the original poster seems to. http://kelvinteowrites.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/why-the-reason-behind-cooling-off-period-may-throw-past-elections-results-into-disrepute/

Re:...and ask the providers for further investigat

[Zironic]

Odds are they're not going to ask the overseas ISP, but rather ask their own ISP about who's been writing data to the site.

Re

[mjwx]

if this were true wouldn't all campaigning for the last 24 hours be banned instead of "hurr lets block facebook/twitter"? Sounds pretty specious to me.

They do,

This is to try to prevent vote buying before the election, not that it works, 100 to 500 Baht (US$3.50 to US$16 approx) is all it takes for a lot of Thailands poor to be convinced to vote one way or another.

The bigger issue that everyone on /. is overlooking is the real potential for violence during the election.

Re:Re

[poetmatt]

looks like Zironic has corrected my statement, so I suppose all campaigning is banned, but I have heard that almost every election season is violent. What is different now than every Thai election in that sense?

Re:Re

[PixetaledPikachu]

looks like Zironic has corrected my statement, so I suppose all campaigning is banned, but I have heard that almost every election season is violent. What is different now than every Thai election in that sense?

If you want to start another, totally different topic, feel free to start it somewhere else

Re:Re

[mjwx]

looks like Zironic has corrected my statement, so I suppose all campaigning is banned, but I have heard that almost every election season is violent. What is different now than every Thai election in that sense?

A recent history of violence
Bangkok 2010 protests
86 dead, over 2000 injured, large tracts of Bangkok's Silom district burned including Asia's largest shopping centre. There have also been ongoing protests although, not as large as the May 2010 protests but a few have made the news such as forcing the government to cancel an ASEAN summit due to protests.

The conflict between the Red shirts (Pleu Thai and Former Thai Rak Thai party) and the Yellow shirts (supporters of the current regime). The Reds have the numbers, but no real leadership or support. The Yellows are much smaller but have the support of the army. Lines are really drawn on socio economic backgrounds, the majority of Thais are poor and predominantly live in the North and East of the country, they support the Red shirts and Pleu Thai party, the rich and middle class Thais predominately live in the south and Bangkok itself support the Yellow shirts and the current government, the Democrat party.

Whoever wins really doesn't matter, any result will leave a lot of people pissed off, so what everyone is afraid of happening is a repeat of the last 2 years, Protests by the Yellow shirts that shut down the Bangkok international airport forcing a military coup against the remnants of the TRT party. Then the Red shirts that turned Bangkok's business district into turmoil. This is really just the beginning, Thai politics can make US politics look sane, honest and extremely productive in comparison.

Re:Re

[tehcyder]

The bigger issue that everyone on /. is overlooking is the real potential for violence during the election.

That's because it's not a software or computer related issue, and therefore the drooling geeks who slaver at the thought of any obstruction to their precious online right to download child abuse pornography aren't interested.

we do the same thing in Australia

[benengel]

see here http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/election_advertising.htm#blackout

"This three-day blackout effectively provides a "cooling off" period in the lead up to polling day, during which political parties, candidates and others are no longer able to purchase time on television and radio to broadcast political advertising"

This entire story and headline is slanted to portray what the thais are doing as chinese style censorship when it is nothing of the sort. Many western countries including australia do the exact same thing

Its the rules, not censorship

[tanveer1979]

Political parties are not allows to campaign on the last day preceding the elections in many countries. They have just extended the ban to online mediums.

not censorship at all

[nazg00l]

As many have written already, this has very little to do with censorship and much to do with providing elections free from sociological manipulations. Mandating political silence just before and during the actual voting prevents primitive sociological tricks like "party X is doing really poor in the polls and is unlikely to clear the parliament-admission threshold, don't waste your vote on them, vote for similar party Y instead!" where people might get semi-consciously swayed at the last minute.

And, contrary to what many people write, such a ban is actually fairly easy to enforce. Simply monitor such cases, and post-factum declare parts of the overall voting process (in certain regions, circuits, whatever you have) invalid. This forces repeating parts of the election and, provided the society is at least somewhat legalistic, creates strong bias against the offending candidates or parties. (There may be significant financial penalties involved as well). In my country (Poland) this approach works surprisingly well, the ban is universally obeyed and the very rare transgressions are universally looked down at.

Re:not censorship at all

[cryfreedomlove]

It is censorship, no matter how you dress it up.

How about we do this: anybody can say anything and then we leave it to adult voters to sort it out for themselves. Would that work? Or are voters in Thailand not adults?

Re:not censorship at all

[nazg00l]

Nice try. It is not a question of being adults or not, but rather of human beings in general being susceptible to certain psychological tricks. Like the government of the moment launching a massive FUD campaign in public media just before voting commences. Or the same government publishing fabricated polls during the election itself with the aim of swaying undecided people. How would you have them handle the issue afterwards? "Ooops, sorry 'bout that"?

I don't believe telling all interested parties to shut up for a day or two and think the matter - arguably the most important matter for the country - through is not censorship. Furthermore, I believe much of the world agrees, judging by rules of this sort being in place in multiple countries of very diverse backgrounds.

Contrary to what I have heard sometimes, absolute and unrestricted freedom to say anything without any consequences is not the optimum state. Think crying "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Think libel. And how exactly do you impose consequences after elections won by last-minute false mud-throwing campaign? "Oops, sorry"?

Re:not censorship at all

[nazg00l]

I don't believe telling all interested parties to shut up for a day or two and think the matter [...] through is censorship, of course...

Re:It's not THAT bad

[captain_sweatpants]

Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 places three key requirements on the broadcasters of political advertisements. Clauses 3, 3A and 4 of Schedule 2 require broadcasters to: ... cease political advertisements in the three days before polling day (from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the close of the poll on polling day).

Thanks for confirming that. About what I was expecting. A pretty significant loophole.

The Act in question [austlii.edu.au] Doesn't seem to include social media -- it has television and radio. I'm no lawyer, but to be honest if any of Australia's laws were that current I would be shocked. I mean, we have a communications minister who thinks that you can filter bit torrent without killing it [nocleanfeed.com]

Ah yes the venerable (lol) Senator Conroy. Probably the entire reason for that mans existence is to distract attention onto more trivial and unresolvable matters. Avoiding scrutiny on the real issues is a great way to ensure such loopholes stay open (amongst other things.) But that's probably giving the morons that selected him as communications minister way too much credit!

Citizen's Concern of epSos.de

[Anonymous Coward]

Same in Germany. No ads on election day. The article and the headline are misleading and very negative about a very positive aspect of democracy.

The same as everywhere else

[Peeteriz]

Pretty much all democratic countries have prohibited political advertising or campaigns during the voting event for some 24-72 hours.

It's only appropriate 'digital attitude' to note that this restriction doesn't apply only to radio and TV campaigns, but applies to everywhere, including Twitter and Facebook as well.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Vote Stealing

[Mephesh]

The country probably had problems with underhanded campaigning using the internet just before elections, manipulating votes. Imagine a rumour was communicated to you over the net, (you are a swinging voter), you changed your vote only to find later that your vote was effectively stolen due to a false rumour. The second party would not have time to respond to the communication and effectively the election is won underhandedly.

Fine 10x for non-Thai campaigners (3 thousand USD)

[pokyo]

Note that the customary non-Thai prices are in effect. If you do not look Thai and are found to be using such services pre-election, you will be fined 100,000 baht.

(Note that this joke will make zero sense if you haven't travelled to Thailand)