Slashdot Log In
Thailand Blocks Anti-Royal Websites
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:53 PM
from the should-internet-take-the-definite-article? dept.
from the should-internet-take-the-definite-article? dept.
societyofrobots writes "'The Thai government says it is planning to build an Internet firewall
to block websites deemed insulting to the country's hugely popular royal family.' In the past, Thailand has blocked YouTube because of a video that criticized the King. While, locally served websites that criticize the king are forcefully taken down, this new law will attack external sites."
Related Stories
[+]
More Websites Offending Thai Monarchy Blocked 220 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Thailand is ramping up their media wide censorship of anything that remotely offends Thai royalty. In the last three weeks, another 2,300 websites have been blocked. Another ~4,000 are soon expected.
And not just websites, but books as well as the Economist have been blocked. And anyone caught publishing such material, including foreigners, will get 3 to 15 years in a Thai prison. You don't want to be in a Thai prison!"
[+]
Thai Gov't Sets Up Site For Snitching On Royals' Critics 329 comments
An anonymous reader writes "In a move that would make the old eastern German Stasi green with envy, the Thai government has modernized a system that allows citizens to snitch on fellow citizens. 'Internet users are being urged to show their loyalty to the king by contributing to a new website called protecttheking.net, which has been set up by a parliamentary committee. On the site's front page it is described as a means for Thai people to show their loyalty to the king by protecting him from what it calls misunderstandings about him. It calls on all citizens to inform on anyone suspected of insulting or criticising the monarchy.'
An large unknown population of political prisoners are currently being held for 3 to 15 years in Thai prisons for being interpreted as insulting the monarchy."
[+]
Games: Thai Gaming Sites Ordered Shut Down After Suicide 82 comments
eldavojohn writes "Seventy-two websites have been ordered shut down by the courts in Thailand following the suicide of a 12-year-old boy who jumped from the sixth story of his school after his father banned him from playing computer games. This brings more action from the court: 'Some websites are rumored to take in over 100 million baht from online betting a night at peak periods, causing huge economic losses to the country. To prevent online gambling, the DSI, also a member of the internet safety committee, would notify all Internet service providers across the country about the court order. From now on, any provider found to encourage or provide online gambling will not only face a jail term and a fine, but also have his/her ISP license revoked by the ICT.' Thailand is no stranger to internet censorship of various sites."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
In before apologists... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll bite before the apologists do that claim it's OK "because it's their culture" or some other nonsense where they try to find a way to justify individuals being oppressed by their government.
It doesn't matter how many people like the Royalty there. In fact, I would call that blind nationalism--not at all a good thing.
If the royalty there--and I know someone is going to bring it up--is so good, then why are they allowing/accepting this nonsense to be put into law? Nobody honorable anywhere allows censorship to go on in their name.
Anyway, especially in this day and age, royalty is at worst a tyranny of one family often with weird eugenical notions of bloodline purity, and at best is a grandiose leech on society with weird eugenical notions of bloodline purity.
Re:In before apologists... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is said that the Thai king's enormous popularity is because he has always been politically savvy.
However, his political maneuvers are always behind-the-scenes and therefore nothing can be directly attributed to him, including the last coup.
His open, public side, is always related to charity events, social and economic development proyects.
Re:In before apologists... (Score:5, Informative)
His open, public side, is always related to charity events, social and economic development proyects.
And commuting the sentences of people convicted of insulting him.
Apparently he doesn't have any control over prosecution and conviction, but he can essentially pardon them when it is all over.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course he pardons them!
That way, the lese-majesty laws stay where they are (stiffling criticism), while the King remains gracious and benevolent in the eyes of the public
Re: (Score:2)
That way, the lese-majesty laws stay where they are (stiffling criticism),
He really doesn't need to stifle any criticism, you know. He's incredibly popular.
Re: (Score:2)
On paper maybe. In practice, the Thai monarchy is able to exert much more significant influence over politics in Thailand than the British monarch. While his 'constitutional' powers are very limited, he has a lot of support in the military and the aristocracy. A lot of observers of Thai politics would tell you that Thaksin Shinawatra lost his job first and foremost because he was challenging certain prerogatives traditionally reserved to the king instead of the elected government. Whenever a democratica
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, no, that's bullshit.
Living outside of D.C., I assure you that people complain about the crimes about the administration all the time. (And they screw up traffic). Want to complain? Try (random Google search):
http://answer.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANS_homepage [pephost.org]
or
http://media.www.dailyorange.com/media/storage/paper522/news/2007/01/29/News/Iraq-War.Peace.Rallies.Washington.D.c.Syracuse.Joins.Celebrities.To.Protest.Bu-2682704.shtml [dailyorange.com]
or any of the other of hundreds of protests for everything un
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bite before the apologists do that claim it's OK "because it's their culture" or some other nonsense where they try to find a way to justify individuals being oppressed by their government.
Other countries look at the USA's insanely high incarceration rate and say the exact same thing.
Acknowledging cultural differences is not making apologies for them.
Anyway, especially in this day and age, royalty is at worst a tyranny of one family often with weird eugenical notions of bloodline purity, and at best is a grandiose leech on society with weird eugenical notions of bloodline purity.
Welcome to the American political system, where multi-generational dynasties are the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it fascinating how the leftists always want to disparage the US but then defend any other country doing the same things as "cultural differences"! I guess it's just our culture to invade Iraq and stuff, right? Of course, that won't sit well for you.
Rape? "Eh, it's just their culture." Murder? "Who are you to force your cultural norms and values upon another people?" Ad naseaum.
I'm not stupid. I know what sort of premises allow for that stupid kind of thinking--the type that is so democratic, tha
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, try to stop blaming "leftists" for everything you disagree with, this particular issue has nothing to do with "left" or "right".
Second, you do realize that in the United States an overwhelming majority could in fact amend the Constitution to mandate [insert ridiculous mandate here], and it would be perfectly legal AND Constitutional.
This is a country with a National Religion that is prohibiting the desecration of what they hold sacred. Why do you have a problem with that? We're not talking F
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think the guy you were responding to was doing? He was trying to deflect the issue to criticism of the United States. They do it every single time. Without fail. I anticipated it...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would think that any "anti-insult" law would only serve to render any compliments pointless. It's parallel to the everyone-gets-a-trophy kind of parenting that is
Re: (Score:2)
Are you so ignorant that you cannot distinguish between:
1)Prohibiting your family from watching FoxNews/MSNBC because of a political bias you disagree with
2)Throwing some stranger out of your house because he keeps calling your wife a Cunt.
You Are Wrong.
hugely populer? (Score:2)
Ah, so *that's* why they need laws to stop people from saying nasty or critical things about them, its because they're *popular*...
I understand now.
Oddly enough we manage in the UK without laws to stop people from insulting the queen. We don't forbid it, and for the most part people don't do it. Strange that....
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is one obvious example:
And sure enough, as far as I can tell, Sid Vicious [wikipedia.org] never got arrested... well, not for sayin' the Queen ain't human, at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the sex pistols version of god save the queen was used by the BBC not long back in a progam related to the royal family, I think you'll find we don't consider that to be particularly bad nowadays :)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really? (Score:2)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7081038.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so *that's* why they need laws to stop people from saying nasty or critical things about them, its because they're *popular*...
The people support those laws because the like the king and do not want to hear people speak ill of him. He honestly and truly is hugely popular. Go ask any Thai person.
Re: (Score:2)
I was in Thailand this winter, and the affection in which he is held is quite amazing. River boats with lights that spell out (in English, so presumably for foreigners) "We love our king". Ordinary people on the streets wearing a T-shirt with his picture on it, often with a slogan like "long live the king".
Every mile or so on the road there will be a picture of somebody in the royal family.
The really amazing thing is I saw no indication that it was forced or calculated - it seemed to be genuine.
Watch out! (Score:2)
Thailand (Score:3, Interesting)
Get drunk and smash a picture of the king, be prepared to either run or bribe the police.
So it doesn't suprise me that they do this. Not that it makes it right. For the most part though the Royal family seemed to be well thought of from the people I talked to when I was there in '04. But while being one of the wealthiest people on earth he should be ok with taking a bit of flak.
Those damned Cardinal Fans! (Score:2)
What gives guys? There's room for more than one baseball team in Missouri!!!
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
Wow. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, the king of Thailand is fairly relaxed about this stuff and often pardons people convicted of lese-majeste offences. It's his fans among the general public who insist that the king should be above criticism. He's apparently very popular.
Internet Censorship (Score:2)
It hits so many different nerves, case-by-case.
I wonder how the Great Firewall of America will be characterized?
Re: (Score:2)
Cops pretending to be 12 year old girls, and then arresting people in person and charging them with "solicitation of a minor", even though there wasn't any minors involved?
Or the RIAA members suing anyone that uses a file sharing application ex parte, trying to get most of the case over before the defendant has a chance to reply?
Re: (Score:2)
Run by the Music And Film Industry Associations, I expect.
Some relevant background (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because it doesn't pertain to America, doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it doesn't pertain to America, doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
You must be new here.
And by 'here', I mean America.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here.
And by 'here', I mean America.
Consider, there are an awful lot of us who've been 'here' (/.) for years, and who think of America as 'there'.
Re: (Score:2)
Cultural relativism is pretty much complete bullshit. It can be used to justify oppressing people "because it's the cultural norm", especially when those norms are being generated by a tyrant or dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
Two words:
So what?
Its not like the parent poster was advocating any of those things. Pointing out someone else's flaws does not diminish your own, and you're a tool for suggesting otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is still a form of oppression, even then. Freedom of speech is onl
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is always oppressive - there should be no rules against free speech.
Society is free to make rules against speech which it finds offensive, and the individual is free to ignore those rules.
I personally think that Germany is wrong to ban Holocaust deniers - if there is evidence that 6 million Jews died, then produce it.
The repression of skepticism of the Holocaust makes me think that the evidence for it is lacking - if there is evidence, why don't they produce it rather than making doubt illegal?
An
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... and yet, if another country later decides it's okay to use mass filtering or blocking services, they will point to countries like Thailand and China and say "Well, it works for them, why not?".
It's another instance of the fragmentation of the World Wide Web. It will get worse before it gets better.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I'll 1up yours.
Fuck all royalty everywhere.
They all end up as wormfood anyways. There's nothing special about their blood or some "mandate from the heavens" garbage. They popped out of a female's pussy and they end in the grave. Whoop-de-fuck.
Accepting the idea such as royalty goes traditionally in the belief of "philosopher rulers" who choose the best for everyone. When they die, they get somebody worse off. When they die, you get crony dicatorism. We all can see what that behaves like by looking at Burma.
Re: (Score:2)
There is historically. The "'mandate from the heavens' garbage" is what solidified early governments and got us (well, most of us) out of living in holes in the ground - because they were in a position to be able to institute public works, consolidate languages, and so on. But yeah, now, not so much. The smart ones have since redistributed the power of their monarchy to elected officials.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yeah, the US ditched King George and got President George, son of George. Big improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the President George they ditched King George to install was fairly decent for a treasonous rebel blackguard. It's the Presidents George they ended up with a couple of centuries later who aren't worthy of the name.
Re: (Score:2)
You may dislike royalty, but. . . .
God Save the Queen. We mean it MAN!
Re: (Score:2)
It's some big bald guy. Likes to sing a lot...
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't he have a somewhat tumultuous affair with his kids' English teacher a few decades ago? I could see why he would want to suppress stories about that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Lovely young girl named Anna. Quite the scandal, actually. They buried the story as much as they could, but you can only burst into song so many times before someone's bound to be there with a camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh look, an ignorant American, "fuck the world and what they believe in we Americans know best".
Here's a suggestion, don't a talk about a country's beloved king if you can't even point that country out on the map.