Red-shirt TV channel suspended again

By The Nation

 

 

The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) on Monday ordered a15-day suspension of the broadcasting licence of Peace TV, a satellite-based station run by red-shirt leaders.

 

The suspension, one of several for the station, was linked to Peace TV’s broadcasts last October, when it it hosted a programme from in front of Bangkok Special Prison, where red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan is detained.

 

Key red-shirt figure Thida Thavronseth said the NBTC had reasoned that the programme’s interviews of visitors to Jatuporn could “politically instigate the public”.

 

Peace TV has been temporarily suspended at least three times by the military-dominated NBTC. During these suspensions, the channel has relied on online channels to continue broadcasting its content.

 

“Would the NBTC want all people in this country to hold the same political ideology?” Thida asked on Facebook Live. “We’ll always be at risk of being shut down unless we shift our political stance, which we won’t do.”

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30338174

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-02-07

it`s becoming more like China  in 1970s and 1980s.

3 hours ago, akampa said:

it`s becoming more like China  in 1970s and 1980s.

 

Did China have a private political militia owned by a criminal to enforce his wishes then in the 1970's & 80's?

3 hours ago, webfact said:

“Would the NBTC want all people in this country to hold the same political ideology?”

That would be a delusional yes. 

38 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Did China have a private political militia owned by a criminal to enforce his wishes then in the 1970's & 80's?

It certainly did until 1976...

I heard  in my local town today that there is a red shirt rally happening this friday in BKK. Might be true might not be but if so not a good move with the powers that be me thinkss.

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Did China have a private political militia owned by a criminal to enforce his wishes then in the 1970's & 80's?

I'm not sure I would necessarily agree with you that Prayuth is a criminal nor your claim that the military is subject to his private whims.

8 hours ago, akampa said:

it`s becoming more like China  in 1970s and 1980s.

Except in countries run by despots,  where do U find political party's having there own propaganda TV ...........................

A post containing a disallowed reference to the PM has been removed. 

18 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Did China have a private political militia owned by a criminal to enforce his wishes then in the 1970's & 80's?

You seem to have omitted the role of the people in continually electing Thaksin to "enforce" their wishes for things such as universal health care, raising minimum wages and investing in rural infrastructure. There's not too many left who view Thaksin as worse than the Junta.... or am I entirely wrong, are you referring to Suthep?

13 hours ago, chainarong said:

Except in countries run by despots,  where do U find political party's having there own propaganda TV ...........................

I know in Thailand the military owns banks as well as TV stations and has a stranglehold on the boards of nearly all state owned enterprises.... kind of goes a long way to explaining why there are so many coups, don't you think?

If the TV channel incites hatred and violence then it should be shut down,  however if it doesn't and runs programs that suit all then it should be left alone.

2 minutes ago, steven100 said:

If the TV channel incites hatred and violence then it should be shut down,  however if it doesn't and runs programs that suit all then it should be left alone.

You forget where you are. Under the current regime in Thailand, if a TV channel "incites" democracy and freedom it is shutdown, however, if it runs pro-junta propaganda it is left alone.

9 minutes ago, pornprong said:

You forget where you are. Under the current regime in Thailand, if a TV channel "incites" democracy and freedom it is shutdown, however, if it runs pro-junta propaganda it is left alone.

as I mentioned, as anywhere in the world ... .... if a channel incites hatred & violence then it's cause for concern and closure should happen.

It's got nothing to do with freedom or democracy .... it's about inciting hatred to cause fighting and violence.

This is a classic example of how democracy is false .... just a word ....  nothing more. I agree you should have some freedom of speech but not when violence is instigated.  IMO

23 minutes ago, steven100 said:

as I mentioned, as anywhere in the world ... .... if a channel incites hatred & violence then it's cause for concern and closure should happen.

It's got nothing to do with freedom or democracy .... it's about inciting hatred to cause fighting and violence.

This is a classic example of how democracy is false .... just a word ....  nothing more. I agree you should have some freedom of speech but not when violence is instigated.  IMO

"democracy is false...just a word... nothing more"

 

Democracy is the great leveller - one person - one vote, under democracy everyone is an equal shareholder in the sovereignty of one's nation. To deny democracy is to refuse to acknowledge that we are all equal, all deserving of the same rights and freedoms and all have an equal right to participate in the governing of the nation. 

 

The violence being committed by the junta right now, may not be as visible as that of Suthep in 2013/2014 or the military in 2010, but it is just as oppressive and detrimental to the nation and its people. The current regime is a violent regime that rages against freedom in order to line its own  pockets.  

 

You are a cheerleader of the violent oppression of a people...it is not Peace Tv that should be shutdown - but you.

 

Edited February 8, 20188 yr by pornprong

10 minutes ago, pornprong said:

"democracy is false...just a word... nothing more"

 

Democracy is the great leveller - one person - one vote, under democracy everyone is an equal shareholder in the sovereignty of one's nation. To deny democracy is to refuse to acknowledge that we are all equal, all deserving of the same rights and freedoms and all have an equal right to participate in the governing of the nation. 

 

The violence being committed by the junta right now, may not be as visible as that of Suthep in 2013/2014 or the military in 2010, but it just as oppressive and detrimental to the nation and its people. The current regime is a violent regime that rages against freedom in order to line its own  pockets.  

 

You are a cheerleader of the violent oppression of a people...it is not Peace Tv that should be shutdown - but you.

 

I don't think he should be shut down - after all we are discussing freedom of speech.

 

Besides, it is salutary, and I have to say often quite entertaining, to read the banal, often semicoherent ramblings of a genuine enthusiast for fascism...

OK guys... freedom of speech and being allowed to voice one's opinion (even if it differs from the mainstream) is one thing, but let's not descend into personal attacks or flames please.

what ideology and political views these red shirts represent? if some nonsense just about gaining power and democracy then shut it down for good. To me libertarian and anarcho-capitalism ideas are more close, and anyone fighting for just gaining power with populistic ideas is just disgusting 

52 minutes ago, JAG said:

I don't think he should be shut down - after all we are discussing freedom of speech.

 

Besides, it is salutary, and I have to say often quite entertaining, to read the banal, often semicoherent ramblings of a genuine enthusiast for fascism...

While I utterly, totally and wholeheartedly disagree with the views that Steven100 expresses in his enthusiastic support for the junta, I 100% support his full right to express them. That is the difference between those of us who oppose fascism and those who support it: we do not sink (or should not sink) to the level of a bludgeoning dockside bully. We allow all viewpoints to be aired. That is what many of us stand for. Freedom of speech is precious precisely because it allows views with which we disagree to be brought into the open and discussed. Put a lid on that, and you have a potentially explosive situation brewing, where the repressed forces finally erupt in fury ...

55 minutes ago, Eligius said:

While I utterly, totally and wholeheartedly disagree with the views that Steven100 expresses in his enthusiastic support for the junta, I 100% support his full right to express them. That is the difference between those of us who oppose fascism and those who support it: we do not sink (or should not sink) to the level of a bludgeoning dockside bully. We allow all viewpoints to be aired. That is what many of us stand for. Freedom of speech is precious precisely because it allows views with which we disagree to be brought into the open and discussed. Put a lid on that, and you have a potentially explosive situation brewing, where the repressed forces finally erupt in fury ...

It was Voltaire who first said:

 

"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It"

 

However, in the ensuing 3 centuries, we have evolved and advanced both ethically and morally - hate speech, child pornography and false statements of facts are all outlawed in civilised societies.

 

Like everything else, for the greater good, freedom of speech has limitations.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

 

http://www.collectionslaw.com.au/chapter-25-restrictions-on-freedom-of-expression

 

The tolerant should not tolerate the intolerant.

Edited February 8, 20188 yr by pornprong

1 hour ago, pornprong said:

 

 

The tolerant should not tolerate the intolerant.

I totally share your loathing of fascists, believe me - but if we start shutting people up, we are behaving as fascists ourselves! After all, Prayut can (and does) say that Red Shirts should not be tolerated and ought to be silenced - for the 'greater good'. The trouble is: whose greater good? And who decides? Only by allowing a full and free debate can the populace make a genuinely informed choice.

42 minutes ago, Eligius said:

I totally share your loathing of fascists, believe me - but if we start shutting people up, we are behaving as fascists ourselves! After all, Prayut can (and does) say that Red Shirts should not be tolerated and ought to be silenced - for the 'greater good'. The trouble is: whose greater good? And who decides? Only by allowing a full and free debate can the populace make a genuinely informed choice.

You are naive in the extreme

 

As every proponent of freedom of expression must allow, the right to it is not an unqualified one. The standard way of explaining why is to cite the case of someone’s shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. Because it can do harm, and because it can be used irresponsibly, there has to be an understanding of when free speech has to be constrained.

Just now, pornprong said:

You are naive in the extreme

 

As every proponent of freedom of expression must allow, the right to it is not an unqualified one. The standard way of explaining why is to cite the case of someone’s shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. Because it can do harm, and because it can be used irresponsibly, there has to be an understanding of when free speech has to be constrained.

I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one (falsely shouting 'fire' in a cinema has absolutely nothing realistic whatsoever to do with the notion of 'free speech'). Let us agree to disagree  -  although I share your revulsion for fascists and fascism !

12 minutes ago, Eligius said:

I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one (falsely shouting 'fire' in a cinema has absolutely nothing realistic whatsoever to do with the notion of 'free speech'). Let us agree to disagree  -  although I share your revulsion for fascists and fascism !

But do you share my revulsion of naive fools and puritanical pedants who in their striving for some unachievable utopian perfection instead of accepting perfectly acceptable mediocrity create the circumstances that give rise to the likes of Trump and Prayuth?

 

BTW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

Edited February 8, 20188 yr by pornprong

On 2/7/2018 at 1:03 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

Did China have a private political militia owned by a criminal to enforce his wishes then in the 1970's & 80's?

Yes they did, and they still do. Much like the RTA is an arm of the old elite the PLA is an arm of the Chinese Communist Party.  Bunch of human rights abusing criminals in my book, just like the junta toads.

5 hours ago, JAG said:

I don't think he should be shut down - after all we are discussing freedom of speech.

 

Besides, it is salutary, and I have to say often quite entertaining, to read the banal, often semicoherent ramblings of a genuine enthusiast for fascism...

The key word being "semi".

Just now, Becker said:

Yes they did, and they still do. Much like the RTA is an arm of the old elite the PLA is an arm of the Chinese Communist Party.  Bunch of human rights abusing criminals in my book, just like the junta toads.

 

Yes. That's an interesting phenomenon with countries that have "Peoples' whatever" in their title - People's Republic, Peoples' socialist republic etc etc. They always have a strictly controlled military wing that takes over the armed forces and usually, some political police such as the NKVD, KGB (FSN?), Red Guards, Revolutionary Guards or whatever name they dream up. The Nazis had their SA and SS and the Italian fascists their black shirts.

 

Hun Sen and Maduro are both using the military and police in their respective countries to ensure their continuity in power.

 

Here it seems the Shin clan and factions attempt at creating their own para military force fell somewhat short. All the others managed to either get the backing of or neuter their military in addition to creating their own paramilitary force. 

 

 

On 2/7/2018 at 1:42 PM, baboon said:

It certainly did until 1976...

 

Who was the criminal who owned it?

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yes. That's an interesting phenomenon with countries that have "Peoples' whatever" in their title - People's Republic, Peoples' socialist republic etc etc. They always have a strictly controlled military wing that takes over the armed forces and usually, some political police such as the NKVD, KGB (FSN?), Red Guards, Revolutionary Guards or whatever name they dream up. The Nazis had their SA and SS and the Italian fascists their black shirts.

 

Hun Sen and Maduro are both using the military and police in their respective countries to ensure their continuity in power.

 

Here it seems the Shin clan and factions attempt at creating their own para military force fell somewhat short. All the others managed to either get the backing of or neuter their military in addition to creating their own paramilitary force. 

 

 

What universe are you in?

 

Which side in Thailand uses the military to "ensure their continuity in power":

 

Small hint... it ain't Thaksin.

(given that there is only two sides in this fight, even you could probably get the right answer from here.... then again, maybe not)

20 hours ago, jayboy said:

I'm not sure I would necessarily agree with you that Prayuth is a criminal nor your claim that the military is subject to his private whims.

 

Khun General Prayuth isn't a convicted criminal, nor does he have several serious outstanding charges waiting in the courts for his return. 

 

However the convicted criminal, and wanted by courts, owner of the Red Shirt Militia does. But of course you know that.

 

Just usual deflect quick and divert.