Thailand Censors 'Inappropriate' Websites 42
In addition to putting a curfew on an online game (Ragnarok) and Internet cafes, Thailand also starts to censor 'inappropriate' sites. More details can be found here and here. Since the rise of the current administration two years ago, freedom of the press in Thailand has been more and more restricted. Big media, newspapers, telecom companies are now owned by the administration's cronies. It makes me wonder when the government will censor any opposition on the web using this 'inappropriate contents' pretext.
Related /. story (Score:2, Informative)
Related
Re:Keep Slashdot online in Thailand! (Score:2)
-uso.
Damn, I listen to Missy Elliott way too much.
Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Her main argument was about the "bad taste" of some movies and tv shows.
Who is good enough to decide what's good taste and what's bad taste for everyone?
Who is good enough to decide what's appropriate and what's inappropriate for everyone?
A mindless computer program?
Some censorship comity that don't knows me/you and thinks it can decide what I/you can look at?
Censorship = Abuse
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:4, Informative)
Who is good enough to decide what's appropriate and what's inappropriate for everyone?
Fine companies with products such as these:
* BESS [peacefire.org]
* Cyber Patrol [peacefire.org]
* WebSENSE [peacefire.org]
* Net Nanny [peacefire.org]
* SmartFilter [peacefire.org]
* X-Stop [peacefire.org]
* I-Gear [peacefire.org]
* CYBERsitter [peacefire.org]
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
Believe it or not, when I forgot to remove the bypass from a library computer I was then banned forever from their computers.
*sigh*
-uso.
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
Censorship is a hard word to throw around. What is the difference between child porn and regular porn? Age is just a arbitrary number, 18 by no means implies rational intelligent thought (nor does 21 for that matter).
NYC is now completely non-smoking in all public places. Why? Public health is bull sh*&. Go somewhere else if you think it is unhealthy. You sw
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
Public health is bullsh*&? (btw, "bullsh*&"? please tell me that was an intended censorship joke) Best I can tell, most of the public is pretty concerned with their health. By your logic we shouldn't have laws banning spaying machine gun fire in public - Go somewhere el
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Machine guns are illegal too...
Most of the general public is NOT concerned about their health (looka the obesity numbers, or smoking numbers, of US citizens).
My ire is due to the fact that
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
why aren't cigs illegal? well, if you think drug policy is good thing, they *should* be illegal, but fat chance the southern tobacco growing states and the tobacco lobby are going to let that happen. if you think drug
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
Not much can change though until the Supreme Court is no longer a lifetime appointment.
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
as far as the court, how long of an appointment should it be? I mean, if the executive branch can fill in the court when elected that pretty much destroys the whole idea of checks and balances.
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
Every other judge in the country (AFAIK) has a term. Some are elected by the public, other by their peers. There is nothing in place to hold the Supreme Court Justices in check. They can do whatever, whenever, for as long as they shall live. They have more power than anyone else in the country; due to the fact that they can outlast any of their detractors. All they end up doing is voting party lines 90% of the time anyhow. Since when does politics govern law
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
There are currently 9 members [akamaitech.net] (1 Chief and 8 Associate Justices).
I guess it is more practical to have terms of 9 years (1 new SCJ per year). Make the Chief Justice position open only to current SCJ's with 5 years of bench time or more, no more than 7 years.
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
But that's defeating the purpose of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to be there for a long time, relatively speaking. Their opinions on how the law should be interpretted aren't supposed to be dictated by popular opinion. Most of the time, popular opinion would remember something that happened 8 or 9 years ago (remember Gulf War I? see, I'm right). If a SCJ
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
My basic fear is; this country is going straight into the shitter. People are willing to give up their basic civil liberties with just the mention of the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" or whatnot. They think that it only affects those that are being villainized by the government. They fail to see that everyone is being clustered into one group; possible suspect. Some non scientific (read online) polls I have seen show 70% or more approval of diminished civil libert
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
I absolutely couldn't agree with you more. I think the biggest "concern" that the "minorities" have is what they like to call "diversity", which is gradually turning into the source for a good number of problems, including the dumbing down of our nation's children, discrimination against "non-minorities", etc. At some point, the general public will realize this is what's happening... which is w
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
What is so great right our country right now that we should be the bellweather of what is considered great? Nothing that I can see. America was not better in the past because it was America, it was better because of its ideals, and it
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
Our country is great simply because we're better than any other country. The example you gave, France, is definitely not a great example of how a country can operate. They have much higher unemployment, a higher national debt, lower average wages, lower average intelligence, and no power or authority to change anything in the course of history. The same things apply to most of the other countries in
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
I'm sorry... this is just a pet peeve of mine. "Agreeance", while being an obsolete word, isn't a word in common usage, and thus shouldn't be used. We have invented a "replaceanced" word called "Agreement". Please, please use it... It's a good word.
As far as the content of your post, I agree... the American Legal System is a wreck and needs to be seriously rethought from the beginning. Then again, so does the American government.
Not much can change though until the
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
For second-hand smoke, it appears the jury is still out. A recent study in the British Journal of Medicine on American Cancer Society data shows almost no increase in smoking-related problems for non-smoking spouses living with smokers for the last 30+ years.
The study was done by two British scientists funded by tobacco industry interests; however, this isn't your standard biased American Tobacco Institute study. It actually got published in a p
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:1)
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
Actually, with science, there's always a jury out.
However the data sets used in these studies are so small they aren't statistically relevant.
The dataset in the BMJ article began with over 118,000 people 30+ years ago, including 35,000 nonsmokers living with smokers. This huge, long-term dataset resulted in, you guessed it, a very tiny correlation, but not the 20-30% usually quoted.
One flawed EPA study is the basis for almost all passive smoking bans.
Got a link?
Here's mine [bmj.com].
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:1)
No, they aren't. You just have to pay a $200 registration fee/tax stamp. See the 1934 National Firearms Act [google.com].
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
What would the liquor store signs read?
Please have your ID or Highschool Equivalency Certificate ready before purchasing!
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
Please have your ID or Highschool Equivalency Certificate ready before purchasing!
My plan entails the kids going to the dmv and getting an endorsement on their DL saying they are legal for alcohol consumption
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
We just lowered it to 18 [findlaw.com] a while ago.
Make the drinking age 21 or High School graduation.
How about using Germany as a model: 18 for everything, although kids of 16 can still buy beer and wine IIRC. This way they know how to drink and handle their alcohol, and it isn't special anymore by the time they get their driver's license at 18.
Re:Some people are going to applaude censorship (Score:2)
I have a better idea. How about making the drinking age 12? That way they can go out and get drunk when they're very young and get it "out of their system" (that's a figure of speech). Then when they learn to drive, "Big Brother" will know which ones to watch, since they'll already be known alcoholics. Crazy idea, I know, but just crazy enough to work.
Don't worry: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry: (Score:1)
Re:Don't worry: (Score:2)
Re:This happened last month in Iran... (Score:2)
b)If it's important to you, post a link to something that gives us more info. Linkless stories don't usually get posted
c)Pro-American regimes are what we're fighting against in many cases (or the degredation of Americanistic countries).
d)We can't post everything everytime
e)I think I've just fed a troll...
That being said. I'm a Canadian... the above mark my respect for the intent of the American forefathers. Since when is Thailand pro-American? Heck, even Canada isn't really that pro-Am
Re:This happened last month in Iran... (Score:1, Informative)
I'm sick of the news media ignoring Iran just because the government and their goons won't let any Western media take pictures [mytelus.com]. There were protests around the world and all the media report about Iran today is those unfortunate twins!
Here's the information on the satellite uplink jamming [msnbc.com]. The jammed TV stations include NITV [www.nitv.tv] and Azadi TV [azaditv.com].
For information on today's protests in which 100,000 came out in Tehran, there is information from the BBC [bbc.co.uk] and the Jerusalem P [jpost.com]
Last I heard.... (Score:1)