Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Thailand Sues YouTube

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon May 07, 2007 01:35 PM
from the let's-all-take-off-our-left-shoe dept.
eldavojohn writes "Thailand is hitting YouTube with charges of lese majeste (up to 15 years in prison) regarding the recent videos on YouTube showing the king next to feet, something extremely offensive in Thailand. 'Since the first clip, more new videos mocking the king have appeared on YouTube, including pictures of the monarch that had been digitally altered to make him resemble a monkey. Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais, is the world's longest-reigning monarch, and one of the few who is still protected by tough laws that prohibit any insult against the royal family.'"

Related Stories

[+] Politics: Venezuela's Contrarian TV Station Survives on YouTube 457 comments
carlos_J writes "Ars Technica is running a story about RCTV, a Venezuelan television station whose broadcast license was refused renewal by the government. In response, the station turned to YouTube to get its message out. Says Ars, 'El Observador clips have been seen 175,000 times since May 28, and the channel is currently the most-subscribed channel of the week. While putting the station's shows on YouTube is an excellent idea, YouTube still lacks anything near the reach of over-the-air broadcasts. But the use of the site to avoid censorship is growing, and it's not hard to imagine a day in the near future when the site (or sites like it) becomes as essential as local TV stations. As that happens, YouTube will come into even more conflicts with governments that have an interest in controlling what their citizens see, It's already happening--Thailand's king, for instance, has a thing for iPods but isn't too keen on YouTube. Will Hugo Chavez show more tolerance? '"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Thailand Sues YouTube | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 435 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • "loved by all" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 07 2007, @01:36PM (#19024821)

    Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais, is the world's longest-reigning monarch, and one of the few who is still protected by tough laws that prohibit any insult against the royal family
    Nearly every story I see on this subject restates this 'fact'. One should keep in mind that many dictators have had this sort of law in place, and it does seem to work. That is until the law is ended, and people are free to speak their mind. Sure some will maintain their support, if only because of how they were raised. Of course as many of them see nothing wrong with selling their daughters into prostitution (and often AIDS) [msmagazine.com]...

    ...including pictures of the monarch that had been digitally altered to make him resemble a monkey

    Perhaps instead they should photo-shop him into the pictures of the child prostitutes for which his country is infamous (not X-rated would get the most press, just standing among the lineups, and next to the AIDS ridden ones who are dying would be appropriate). Maybe his loving subjects might reconsider selling their daughters into a life of misery.

    posted AC as I am a coward, more reading on the king and Thailand [speroforum.com]

    • Re:"loved by all" by ackthpt (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @01:44PM
    • Re:"loved by all" by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @01:45PM
    • Re:"loved by all" by empaler (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @03:05PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:"loved by all" by J'raxis (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @03:19PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • right... (Score:5, Insightful)

      Could you explain the link again between TFA and childprostitution in Thailand? I know demagogic emo-appeal is always a good way to get attention on slashdot, but going from possible censorship on youtube to your 'people-selling-their-kids' paragraph is somewhat of a stretch.

      In fact, it has nothing to do with it.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:right... by weighn (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @09:38PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:"loved by all" by Rac3r5 (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @05:03PM
    • Re:"loved by all" by StrahdVZ (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @06:30PM
    • Re:"loved by all" by v1 (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @08:14PM
    • Re:"loved by all" (Score:4, Interesting)

      Americans (and Brits, I would presume) might not readily understand this, given that their political space is mostly a circus, but what the Thai king gets is not just love, but respect. He kinda embodies their culture and their identity; they even use a different dialect when addressing the royal family. Heck, the grandfather of the current king, Rama V, is actually venerated as a demi-god; he regularly makes an appearance in most Thai families' prayer rooms, next to Buddha and other gods. This, in turn, is a throwback to the old tradition of treating the king as a devaraja [wikipedia.org].

      Those laws, then, exist not to enforce a single person's ego, but as a way to warn us barangs to not overstep on to the things that the Thais respect.

      The king has no policy oversight on anything in Thailand, and hasn't had for decades now. Quite a red-herring to conflate other issues with that of free-speech.

      (Not to say I actually support the laws - censorship in any form is bad - but it's important to understand the historical and cultural context within which they exist.)

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:"loved by all" by DrXym (Score:2) Tuesday May 08 2007, @07:29AM
    • Re:"loved by all" by bradavon (Score:1) Tuesday May 08 2007, @09:18AM
    • 7 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Royal Family (Score:5, Funny)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Monday May 07 2007, @01:37PM (#19024829)
    (http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
    Can suck my toe..

    Now, sue me. Just try it. In *my* country i can say this, so go away.
    • vacations cancelled by BamZyth (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:06PM
    • lets sue thailand by js3 (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:32PM
    • Re:Royal Family by comp.sci (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:55PM
    • Re:Royal Family by element-o.p. (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @03:37PM
    • Re:Royal Family by PoopDaddy (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @04:31PM
    • Re:Royal Family by bky1701 (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @01:42PM
    • Re:Royal Family by brunascle (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @01:43PM
      • Well, by joe 155 (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @01:53PM
        • Re:Well, (Score:5, Informative)

          by gravesb (967413) on Monday May 07 2007, @02:07PM (#19025399)
          (http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com/)
          Its amazing how many people don't understand how this works. There is a treaty, of which the United States, GB, and Australia are all signatories, that creates certain baselines for cybercrime. Since the treaty process was started by the Council of Europe, its rather disingenious to blame all of the resulting statutory implementations on the US. Yes, we did have a large part in the writing, but we were not the only ones who did, and the statutes that each country wrote as a result were their own doing. Yes, the US doesn't always play well with others (WTO, anyone), but the cybercrime treaty is good law, and in accordance with traditional common law principles. If you stand in Canada, and shoot a man in Michigan, you can be extradited to Michigan, if Canada decides that's the most effective method. Same thing here. If you hack a US server, even if you are in the UK, the UK can send you to the US for trial. Jurisdiction is commonly based on the effect of the crime, not just the origin. In this case, I doubt there is an applicable treaty, as the US Supreme Court would frown on restrictions of parody, and likely strike down Congressional implementation of any statute. Likewise, the Thai government could attempt a civil suit in US court, but I doubt that is going to carry much weight. Its also perfectly acceptable for Thailand to ban YouTube from doing business in Thailand absent a representative in Thailand for just this purpose, but if YouTube merely posts the videos, and Thais come to the videos, it will be difficult for Thailand to respond.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Well, by Hognoxious (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:52PM
            • Re:Well, by twistedsymphony (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @03:11PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:Well, by gravesb (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @03:16PM
              • Re:Well, by Hognoxious (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @03:21PM
                • Re:Well, by gravesb (Score:3) Monday May 07 2007, @03:28PM
                  • Re:Well, by Hognoxious (Score:2) Wednesday May 09 2007, @04:17AM
                  • Re:Well, by gravesb (Score:2) Wednesday May 09 2007, @06:13AM
                  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Well, by Stile 65 (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:10PM
          • Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)

            by phasm42 (588479) on Monday May 07 2007, @02:32PM (#19025825)

            The funny thing is, the king in Thailand seems to like to pardon people (or at least foreigners) that do this, according to TFA.
            This actually seems to be a fairly smart PR move. Imagine if there was a law that made it a crime to insult you (3-15 years in jail), and you also had the power to pardon people sentenced under this law. You could:
            a. Do the right thing and denounce the law as unfair and unjust, telling your supporters not to be so overzealous, or
            b. Silently accept the law, and reap the benefits of being able to "forgive" people for insulting you by pardoning them. Fools think you're a hero for being so generous.

            Robbing someone of 15 years of their life and then giving it back isn't generous, it's cruelty. The people are foolish enough to support it, and the king does nothing about it.
            [ Parent ]
            • Re:Well, by EraseEraseMe (Score:3) Monday May 07 2007, @03:40PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Public Policy Exception by ubuwalker31 (Score:3) Monday May 07 2007, @02:17PM
        • Re:Well, by Hognoxious (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:54PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Royal Family (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jimstapleton (999106) on Monday May 07 2007, @01:46PM (#19025017)
      (Last Journal: Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:13AM)
      They only have a chance of that if YouTube has servers in Thailand
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Royal Family by jeffasselin (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:02PM
    • Re:Royal Family by Rycross (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:24PM
    • Re:Royal Family by nurb432 (Score:3) Monday May 07 2007, @02:29PM
    • Re:Royal Family by demeteloaf (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @03:53PM
    • 8 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Universally adored? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Warlock (701535) on Monday May 07 2007, @01:37PM (#19024833)
    If he's universally adored, then why are people making fun of him on the Internet?

    Or is he universally adored in Thailand because it's illegal not to?

    (Damn, I wish I could have people thrown in prison for making fun of me on the Internet. Wow.)
    • Re:Universally adored? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FooBarWidget (556006) on Monday May 07 2007, @02:03PM (#19025327)
      It may very well be that 99% of the Thai sincerely adore the king, but that only 1% want to mock him. The existence of such laws do not necessarily imply that people are forced to like the king.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Universally adored? by Junior J. Junior III (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:30PM
    • Re:Universally adored? by Rob the Bold (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:40PM
    • Re:Universally adored? by piojo (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @03:01PM
    • Re:Universally adored? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jaiyen (821972) on Monday May 07 2007, @03:26PM (#19026789)
      If he's universally adored, then why are people making fun of him on the Internet?

      Or is he universally adored in Thailand because it's illegal not to?


      I live in Thailand, and there's no doubting the King is genuinely universally adored. For example, to celebrate his 60th year on the throne the royal family asked people to wear yellow shirts (the royal colour) on Mondays. That was months ago, but still in Bangkok now every Monday at least 50% of the people you see about are voluntarily wearing yellow shirts with "We live the King" written in Thai on them. No one has a bad word to say about the King even in private, and just about every household has a picture of the King and Queen too.

      There's no doubt in my mind the affection is genuine and not legally mandated (after all, the Crown Prince is protected by the same law but much less venerated), although to what extent it's caused by "brainwashing" and propaganda is somewhat arguable. After all, if you're only ever told how wonderful your King is and all the good things he's done for the country and never hear a word of criticism, then who wouldn't love him ?

      (Damn, I wish I could have people thrown in prison for making fun of me on the Internet. Wow.)

      Interestingly, the King himself actually told people him and his ideas shouldn't be above criticism in one of his birthday speeches - though he's probably the only person in Thailand who could publically make such a statement! He also pardoned the Swiss guy jailed for lese majesty very quickly, so he doesn't seem to be the instigator to me.

      As to why people put the videos on youtube, well who knows, but Thais I know who have seen the video are very angry about it - much more so about that than the fact that youtube is blocked. I've seen quite a few "boycott youtube" messages on Thai websites, so whatever else the failings of the junta government they do seem to be in touch with the feelings of the population on this issue, and they could have faced a bigger problem if they'd done nothing. It seems strange to me Google accommodate China's censorship and oppression but are unwilling to work with Thailand on this issue.

      Personally I find the block very frustrating though, I didn't realise how often I went to youtube following some link or other before this!
      [ Parent ]
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Applaud (Score:5, Funny)

    LeoPetr, almost universally revered by Thai Slashdotters, makes an incisive and witty comment on the situation.
  • Hrm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by laddy (159448) on Monday May 07 2007, @01:38PM (#19024851)
    Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais, is the world's longest-reigning monarch, and one of the few who is still protected by tough laws that prohibit any insult against the royal family.'
     
    Hrm...
    • Re:Hrm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Monday May 07 2007, @01:53PM (#19025127)
      Imagine this for the British Royals! Teh horror! What would the yellow press do?

      No more Duke of Ears jokes, no more Hakenkreuz-Harry, no "why can't Camilla ride a horse" jokes... the world would be poorer ... or better off.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Hrm... by ettlz (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @05:12PM
      • Re:Hrm... by king-manic (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @05:13PM
      • Re:Hrm... by Opportunist (Score:3) Monday May 07 2007, @02:06PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Hrm... by AndroidCat (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @01:56PM
      • Polling by Grashnak (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @03:20PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Hrm... (Score:5, Informative)

      by morgan_greywolf (835522) * on Monday May 07 2007, @02:07PM (#19025389)
      (http://stylus-toolbox.sf.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 15, @11:50AM)

      Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais, is the world's longest-reigning monarch, and one of the few who is still protected by tough laws that prohibit any insult against the royal family.'


      And this, my friends, is why we we have the 1st Amendment to the Constitution in the U.S. ... to protect offensive speech. Because offensive speech (particularly involving the monarch) was punishable by imprisonment in Imperial England.

      Your lesson in American History and Civics brought to you today by the King of Thailand -- Universally Adored by Thais everywhere!

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Hrm... by Kjella (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:46PM
      • Re:Hrm... by rtechie (Score:3) Monday May 07 2007, @06:07PM
    • Re:Hrm... by AnalogDiehard (Score:2) Tuesday May 08 2007, @10:26AM
    • Re:What's so funny? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @02:14PM
    • Re:What's so funny? by myth24601 (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @02:35PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • oooh! Witty comeback! by UbuntuDupe (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @01:39PM
  • Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zappepcs (820751) on Monday May 07 2007, @01:40PM (#19024891)
    (Last Journal: Friday May 18, @11:07AM)
    While there may be laws in Thailand against such pictures, there are none in most of the rest of the world. King or not, you cannot regulate the entire network. Perhaps by law, YouTube must remove such offending pictures in their Thailand based servers, but if anyone, I mean ANYONE thinks they can regulate the entire Internet... they are in for a surprise.

    In fact, since this story has come out in the open now, you are sure to see even more pictures of the king in all sorts of not-so-pleasant-for-him ways.

    I guess they have to try until they learn....

    Queue the viral news stories with funny pictures of the king in 3... 2... 1..
  • The government of Thailand by WombatDeath (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @01:40PM
  • Universally adored, eh? by Reason58 (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @01:41PM
  • Thailand is hitting YouTube with charges of lese majeste (up to 15 years in prison)
    YouTube should plead guilty and accept their 15 year prison sentence.

    Take that you abstract embodiment of an American corporational contract owned by another abstract entity also with no definite personification! It's off to the pokey!

  • Nice... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Moridineas (213502) on Monday May 07 2007, @01:42PM (#19024943)
    (Last Journal: Thursday April 10 2003, @03:01AM)

    "Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais"
    To paraphrase the Simpsons, this story was brought to you by one B. Adulyadej. No no, that's too obvious, let's say Bhumibol A. [wikipedia.org]
    • Re:Nice... by Thuktun (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @03:27PM
  • Why do I get the image (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tkrotchko (124118) * on Monday May 07 2007, @01:43PM (#19024959)
    (http://mysite.verizon.net/tkrotchko/)
    Why do I get the image of a server sitting in the pokey in Thailand?

    No seriously...

    Do people think Google officials should be sent to Thailand on extradition the way Australia sent alleged copyright criminals to the United States? Is this the same situation, or is it fundamentally different?
  • Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Roachgod (589171) on Monday May 07 2007, @01:43PM (#19024963)
    Get the fuck over it. Seriously.

    He is a KING. A KING. He should be able to deal with (oh horror) FEET!. I am aware of the cultural implications (I am friends with a few people from Thailand), but I expect people to be able to get over jackasses giving them the finger. I expect more of a guy who is a king.

    The laws are lame. Tough shit Thailand.
    • Re:Um.... (Score:5, Funny)

      Agreed. You made me wish I had mod points.

      He's a king; if he can lead the country, surely he can withstand...FEET. I understand that feet are treated differently over there.... but well, if someone posted a picture of me next to a bare penis (or hell, even a BEAR penis), I don't think I'd be trying to sue them--it's the internet. Nobody cares.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by secolactico (519805) on Monday May 07 2007, @02:02PM (#19025307)
      (Last Journal: Wednesday March 27 2002, @09:26PM)
      He is a KING. A KING. He should be able to deal with (oh horror) FEET!. I am aware of the cultural implications (I am friends with a few people from Thailand), but I expect people to be able to get over jackasses giving them the finger. I expect more of a guy who is a king.

      I'm thinking that it's not the King who wants to sue, but some officials who feel insulted or wants to ingratiate themselves or whatever. Remember that Thailand is under military rule and the monarch is just the "head of state".

      In fact, it was the king who pardoned the swiss man who defaced his portrait. For all we know the king doesn't give a hoot about this issue but it's not in his power to change the law or to keep people from trying to enforce it.

      In any case, I don't think this will amount to anything. I think they just want their displeasure to be heard but they are fully aware that a lawsuit of this kind will not do a thing.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Um.... by identity0 (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @05:10PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @11:45PM
    • Re:Um.... by Hognoxious (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @03:03PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Um.... by xelah (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @03:12PM
    • Re:Um.... by TranscendentalAnarch (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @03:21PM
    • Re:Um.... by jaiyen (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @03:36PM
      • Re:Um.... by jaiyen (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @03:45PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Um.... by visualight (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @04:20PM
    • Re:Um.... by aaarrrgggh (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @04:44PM
    • Re:Um.... by nomadic (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @08:17PM
    • sovereignty by SuperBanana (Score:3) Monday May 07 2007, @08:32PM
      • Re:sovereignty by Stephen Maturin (Score:2) Tuesday May 08 2007, @03:19AM
    • Re:Um.... by brunascle (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @02:13PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Trick or Treat by darkrowan (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @01:43PM
  • What goes around... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by d34thm0nk3y (653414) on Monday May 07 2007, @01:44PM (#19024977)
    Well, if Australians can be charged with breaking the DMCA then Americans should be able to be charged with breaking lese majeste.
  • Protected by law?! by Wandering Wombat (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @01:44PM
    • Re:Protected by law?! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EraseEraseMe (167638) on Monday May 07 2007, @01:59PM (#19025247)
      The king himself actually cares very little for this kind of attention and has suggested publically that the government uses this law to silence dissenters more than anything else. He usually pardons them in his yearly pardon-athon.
      [ Parent ]
  • by phorest (877315) on Monday May 07 2007, @01:45PM (#19025003)
    (Last Journal: Friday January 12 2007, @12:24PM)

    *ADVICE*

    Next time you want real Thai food, go to the corner emigre's restaurant instead, yes I know it's so much fun to fill up the party plane and jet on over, but seriously, you'll get to enjoy your freedom...

    *FUN FACT*
    Did you know that the word Thai means "Freedom"?

  • here we go again... by Ayal.Rosenthal (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @01:46PM
  • Err... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @01:47PM
    • Re:Err... by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:15PM
    • Re:Err... by rrohbeck (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:45PM
      • Re:Err... by shri (Score:2) Tuesday May 08 2007, @02:35AM
  • The King of Siam by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @01:47PM
  • OP, RTFA. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Samurai Cat! (15315) on Monday May 07 2007, @01:48PM (#19025037)
    (http://www.alphageek.com/)
    Submitted title: "Thailand *sues* YouTube"

    Actual article title: "Thailand *to sue* YouTube over king clips"

    First line in article: "We are *considering* taking legal action against the website," said Vissanu Meeyo, a spokesman for the information ministry."

    Teeensy bit of difference, there.
    • Re:OP, RTFA. by TrevorB (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @02:31PM
  • Expression (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kaleco (801384) <greig.marshall2@btint e r n et.com> on Monday May 07 2007, @01:48PM (#19025045)

    Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais, is the world's longest-reigning monarch, and one of the few who is still protected by tough laws that prohibit any insult against the royal family

    Maybe there is a relationship between this universal adoration and the tough laws that prevent Thais from expressing opinions to the contrary.

    • Re:Expression (Score:5, Informative)

      by Slashdot Parent (995749) on Monday May 07 2007, @02:45PM (#19026027)
      Find a Thai person in your home country other than Thailand and ask him, given that he is not at the moment subject to the laws of Thailand, how he really feels about King Rama IX.

      I can answer that for you. He will tell you that King Rama IX brought democracy to Thailand, uses his vast wealth to help poor, rural parts of the country, and is just generally a great guy. He also has gone on record stating that the laws against criticizing the monarch are stupid, and often pardons those convicted of criticizing him.

      And no, I am not Thai by any stretch of the imagination.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Expression by adrianmonk (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @08:02PM
        • Re:Expression by Slashdot Parent (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @10:31PM
    • Re:Expression by udoschuermann (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @02:52PM
    • Re:Expression by sboire (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @03:35PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • NOW we might finally get an answer! by Opportunist (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @01:50PM
  • when you attempt to censor something, anything, you just give whatever it is free advertising

    i'm glad the thais love their king. but if they are secure in their love for their king, the existence of these videos won't mean anything to them. by freaking out at the existence of these videos, they only demonstrate insecurity on their part, and they cheapen and devalue their love for their king

    same when deeply religious people freak out at some sort of sacriledge. with dignity and ignoring the sacriledge, they show the depth of their love, by turning into ravenous dogs, they only denigrate their faith, such as with devout muslims and pictures of muhammad, or devout catholics and depicitions of the virgin mary

    if your faith or love is storng, idiots and childish pranks don't move you. if it does move you, it only shows your love or faith is cheap and shallow and insecure
  • Not sure what the king has to worry about by zappepcs (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @01:50PM
  • Its the YouTube sys admins I feel sorry for by Timesprout (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @01:55PM
  • Mocking the Royal Family by zoomshorts (Score:2) Monday May 07 2007, @01:58PM
  • 09f9 effect? by davidwr (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @01:58PM
  • Well, I think it's true enough they love him by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday May 07 2007, @02:02PM
  • I'll get this in (Score:4, Informative)

    by dave_boo (1089337) on Monday May 07 2007, @02:02PM (#19025299)
    before there's too many idiots reguritating their nonsensical rhetoric concerning Thailand.

    I'm a resident of Thailand, let's get that out of the way right now.

    Firstly, all those who insist that the lese majeste laws are there because the majority of Thais would suddenly rise up and start doing what those without respect for anything would do are seriously disillusioned. And/or they've never traveled to Thailand. There's a deep reverence for the King here which arises from all that he has done. The fact that he has mostly remained out of politics has been a bonus, but the attention that he pays to his people weighs significantly in his favour. And the link that another poster put in that suggest that he had a personal dislike for Thaskin, and that is what forced him out of the country is laughable. As anyone who follows the politics knows, the situation had been brewing for quite some time. The fact that Thaskin was guilty of doing exactly what people hate Bush Inc for is conveniently either glossed over or omitted.

    And to the inevitable "What do you expect from a country of pedophiles?" comments: There's absolutely nothing of the sort in your country?
  • A few people post an insult, they show it to their friends, they all get a laugh. You find this horribly offensive, what do you do?

    A) While the number aware of the