Youtube

[Johpa]

I noticed another Lese Majeste incident. This time it was a comment. They did ban the member, but the comment is still there.

I can understand the point of banning YouTube completely if they refuse to remove videos/comments.

As I am sure has been said before blocking youtube over this was not a smart move. Nothing to do with cencorship anything like, it isn't smart because it gives this video publicty. Want to make something famous? Ban it.

You got that right. Without the ban, the video in question would have been long forgotten in the moronic wasteland that is YouTube. Now excuse me while I go listen to mrpregnant's criticism of rap music one more time.

[andy1308]

I think if, as reported, the Thai Government asked YouTube to withdraw the video and they refused, they are perfectly within their rights to block the video. I don't agree that blocking the whole site was the best way to go, but it's certainly made the point.

YouTube has withdrawn videos before that are far less inflamatory (I haven't seen it, just going by what is reported). I worked for a newspaper in the UK and we highlighted a video that was there showing a 'happy slapping' incident in our town. That was removed within five minutes of us contacting their media office.

Whether we like it or not rules around the world are different. What is printed or published in other parts of the world would be considered against the law here and also in other parts of the world. That's the problem with global sites; there are no such thing as global laws or rules.

In summary I actually back the Thai Government on this issue, although I don't agree with the way it was handled. Alas the negative publicity has already had an impact around the world - which was bound to happen. The headlines focus on the banning, and not on the reasons behind it. That's the way the media works.

[cdnvic]

Take a screen capture of the clip and incorporate it into a T-shirt and wear it anywhere in Thailand and see the reaction you get.

Probably lucky if the police catch you first. Best scenario is jail and deportation.

[andook]

Nothing like giving loads of free publicity to something trivial by banning it is there?

I wonder if a lot of the (UK, anyway) peeps condemning this vid as reprehensible ever laughed along with "Spitting Image", "Derek & Clive", or bought a copy of the Sex Pistol's "God Save The Queen?"

[sriracha john]

I wonder what the reaction of the people of Thailand would be if the government did not impose a ban?

The Thais in my office are fully aware of the offending video and the government's resultant block of youtube. They are without exception fully supportive of the action.

"Nobody should do that to my King."

The surprising thing to me in this thread is that that apparently comes as some sort of a surprise to some posters.

Thanks, JD.

Edited April 5, 2007 by sriracha john

[cdnvic]

Nothing like giving loads of free publicity to something trivial by banning it is there?

I wonder if a lot of the (UK, anyway) peeps condemning this vid as reprehensible ever laughed along with "Spitting Image", "Derek & Clive", or bought a copy of the Sex Pistol's "God Save The Queen?"

You're applying British laws and traditions to Thailand.

[sriracha john]

I think if, as reported, the Thai Government asked YouTube to withdraw the video and they refused, they are perfectly within their rights to block the video. I don't agree that blocking the whole site was the best way to go, but it's certainly made the point.

YouTube has withdrawn videos before that are far less inflamatory (I haven't seen it, just going by what is reported). I worked for a newspaper in the UK and we highlighted a video that was there showing a 'happy slapping' incident in our town. That was removed within five minutes of us contacting their media office.

Whether we like it or not rules around the world are different. What is printed or published in other parts of the world would be considered against the law here and also in other parts of the world. That's the problem with global sites; there are no such thing as global laws or rules.

In summary I actually back the Thai Government on this issue, although I don't agree with the way it was handled. Alas the negative publicity has already had an impact around the world - which was bound to happen. The headlines focus on the banning, and not on the reasons behind it. That's the way the media works.

Just scanned over a number of articles from the major news sources (Reuters, BBC, ABC, etc.) and most are at least incorporating the WHY into their headlines, or subheadlines, and in their articles.

If nothing else, it's educated people around the globe on just how fervant the passion is that Thai's have for their beloved King. The articles invariably incorporate Mr. Jufer into their articles, which is also a good educational tool as it lessens the chance that some other moron will copy that moron's behavior in Thailand.

Edited April 5, 2007 by sriracha john

[andook]

Nothing like giving loads of free publicity to something trivial by banning it is there?

I wonder if a lot of the (UK, anyway) peeps condemning this vid as reprehensible ever laughed along with "Spitting Image", "Derek & Clive", or bought a copy of the Sex Pistol's "God Save The Queen?"

You're applying British laws and traditions to Thailand.

Just offering some perspective.

[phazey]

I've just came across the offending video embedded in a news site i frequent. It's a disturbing thought that the proliferation of this material may incure more censorship. What would happen if this story reached CNN/BBC tv broadcasts etc ? With a company with such a high profile such as Google, i'm sure it will in time.....

Ps. I refuse to watch the offending material.

PPs. I've got scampy's videos saved locally if anyone needs them.

[taxexile]

the bbc news website is reporting it as well.

Thailand blocks access to YouTube

The Thai government has banned access to the YouTube video-uploading website after it broadcast material critical of the country's king.

Communications Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom said the site was banned after a 44-second film showing graffiti over the king's face was aired.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 79, is revered and it is forbidden to insult him.

The minister said a ban came after the Thai government asked YouTube's owner Google to remove it and they declined.

The contentious film also shows feet being placed over the king's face - an offensive act to Thais, who consider feet dirty.

YouTube 'disappointed'

"It's a serious case of lese majeste," said Mr Sitthichai, referring to crimes of offending the country's monarchy. "We asked Google to remove it some days ago, but they refused to."

The minister said access within Thailand would be reinstated once the film had been removed.

YouTube's head of global communications, Julie Supan, said: "We are disappointed that YouTube has been blocked in Thailand, and we are currently looking into the matter.

"The internet is an international phenomenon and while technology can bring great opportunity and access to information globally, it can also present new and unique cultural challenges."

The profile of the YouTube user who uploaded the movie onto the site lists the US as his location.

The ban follows the jailing for 10 years of a Swiss man after he pleaded guilty to charges of insulting the Thai king.

Oliver Jufer, 57, was arrested last December after drunkenly spray-painting posters of King Bhumibol Adulyadej in the northern city of Chiang Mai

jaidee

The Thais in my office are fully aware of the offending video and the government's resultant block of youtube. They are without exception fully supportive of the action.

regarding the censorship issue , what people here will say and agree to in a group situation might well be very different to what they are thinking inside.

Edited April 5, 2007 by taxexile

[Jai Dee]

I am should be well aware that a lot or even most ALL Thais take offenses against the revered king very seriously.

Edited the above to reflect reality.

[cdnvic]

They understate/mis-report it when they say the video was "critical". It was designed to offend and nothing else. This clown who uploaded the video wanted a reaction and got it. I don't know any Thais that wouldn't be outraged by it so I doubt your insinuation has any legs to stand on Tax.

Edited April 5, 2007 by cdnvic

[andy1308]

I've just came across the offending video embedded in a news site i frequent. It's a disturbing thought that the proliferation of this material may incure more censorship. What would happen if this story reached CNN/BBC tv broadcasts etc ? With a company with such a high profile such as Google, i'm sure it will in time.....

Ps. I refuse to watch the offending material.

PPs. I've got scampy's videos saved locally if anyone needs them.

That would be a worrying development for sure. And it might happen. I would think a few news sites will want to present a fair and balanced report so would include, at the very least, screenshots from the offending video to enable their readers to make up their own minds. I'm sure somewhere in the world there will be newspapers or magazines doing that right now.

[taxexile]

I don't know any Thais that wouldn't be outraged by it so I doubt your insinuation has any legs to stand on Tax.

there are many thais who , whilst being fierce monarchists , put a high value on a free press and free speech, whatever the subject.

the king himself said in a speech a year or so ago that he was not above criticism and people should be able to comment sensibly.

i agree the video is silly and designed only to offend , and google should remove it because it serves no purpose , but without free speech and the ability to speak ones mind we become less than human.

could the thais not just block the offending page rather than the whole site.

let people speak and express themselves how they wish , only then will you know and understand them for what they really are , good or bad.

Edited April 5, 2007 by taxexile

[kmart]

Looks like a great excuse to really crack down on censoring the Internet...?

[Viceroy]

Much of the material found on YouTube is insulting to someone, somewhere. The nature of the thing is such that it could hardly be otherwise. But the reputation of YouTube is well known; those with particular sensitivities would do well to avoid it altogether. And those who favour government censorship of communications media ignore, at their peril, the lessons of history.

[cdnvic]

Much of the material found on YouTube is insulting to someone, somewhere. The nature of the thing is such that it could hardly be otherwise. But the reputation of YouTube is well known; those with particular sensitivities would do well to avoid it altogether. And those who favour government censorship of communications media ignore, at their peril, the lessons of history.

You cannot broadcast (I'm taking free to air) pornography on TV in any western country that I know of. You cannot incite people to riot or join an insurrection. You cannot do many things in most countries due to laws governing communications, so regardless of what you wish to believe, all societies and cultures practise censorship according to their common beliefs, and ethics. The reverence of the Monarchy happens to be part of Thailand's.

Find me a country with no censorship.

Edited April 5, 2007 by cdnvic

[Wolfie]

Just another reminder about forum rules here guys...

Whilst we understand the subject matter at hand is relating to HRH and we are letting this one run, we are watching it carefully and will be removing questionable posts (and members) accordingly. So please be careful with your comparisons and choose your words carefully.

Thanks

The Moderator Team

No disrespect of the King of Thailand or The Thai Royal Family! Discussion of topics concerning the King or other current or deceased members of the Thai Royal Family is forbidden.

[nikster]

I believe that the right to free speech and free expression of one's thoughts is fundamental to the existence of democracy and a basic human right.

We are not discussing whether or not there are censorship laws in Thailand - we all know there are.

We are discussing whether that's good or bad. And many people here come over as finding it rather good, as wintermute pointed out. Which is disturbing - have you not learned anything from history?

[cdnvic]

We are discussing whether that's good or bad. And many people here come over as finding it rather good, as wintermute pointed out. Which is disturbing - have you not learned anything from history?

Ok. Cite one of these lessons, and how censorship pertains to it.

[Wolfie]

Ok I've cleaned up this thread...

I will reopen it now but lets not have a repeat of what happened, this is a touchy subject in more than one way, please keep in mind Thaivisa.com's rules and regulations.

No suspensions have been issued over the tidy up but we, as a moderator team, will issue suspensions if this topic degenerates as it did before.

Regards

Wolfie

On Behalf of the Moderator Team

[sabajja]

I saw the video only cause all the locomotion around it.

If it hadn't become an issue, i'd never see it.

Banning youtube will only make this whole "free speech debate" get to everyone's

attention.

Probably exactly what the video uploader wanted.

The video is un-professional.

This kinda caricaturized stuff we see all the time of western leaders and monarchs.

I think only a Thai could take offense to it.

[gummy]

Much of the material found on YouTube is insulting to someone, somewhere. The nature of the thing is such that it could hardly be otherwise. But the reputation of YouTube is well known; those with particular sensitivities would do well to avoid it altogether. And those who favour government censorship of communications media ignore, at their peril, the lessons of history.

You cannot broadcast (I'm taking free to air) pornography on TV in any western country that I know of. You cannot incite people to riot or join an insurrection. You cannot do many things in most countries due to laws governing communications, so regardless of what you wish to believe, all societies and cultures practise censorship according to their common beliefs, and ethics. The reverence of the Monarchy happens to be part of Thailand's.

Find me a country with no censorship.

Agreed as per my previous post

[sbk]

Please read IJWT's post here before posting again thanks.

[thefusilier]

I saw the video only cause all the locomotion around it.

If it hadn't become an issue, i'd never see it.

Banning youtube will only make this whole "free speech debate" get to everyone's

attention.

Probably exactly what the video uploader wanted.

The video is un-professional.

This kinda caricaturized stuff we see all the time of western leaders and monarchs.

I think only a Thai could take offense to it.

Same. I would never have known about it if they didn't block youtube. Now I've watched it.

[yeti]

Interesting view on how CAT does it: http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=67019

[jetjock]

I wonder what the reaction of the people of Thailand would be if the government did not impose a ban? Politically, the government made a prudent and pragmatic decision. Whilst it may not be in tune with the rights of a free-born Englishman to express himself, the government is probably marching in step with the feelings of the nation.

Regardless of my personal feelings as an American regarding free speech, etc., I now realize that Tilokarat was right on by saying that the government made a prudent decision by imposing the government ban. I reached this conclusion after discussing this situation with my well educated wife so I could understand the situation from the Thai perspective (which I found out is quite different than mine) . My wife reinterated almost exactly what Tilokarat posted. She explained that once knowledge of the video became public, the people would have blamed the government if they had not taken the action that they did. She further explained that Thai's do not make their decisions based on what foreigners think is right but instead on what they think is correct for the Thai people.

[phazey]

Just saw CNN broadcast about the block.....

[Prakanong]

Just saw CNN broadcast about the block.....

Hope they did not show offending vid - they might get blocked!

Seriously though this is getting a wider audience than expected - I bet a certain Yale University Press author wished his book got this much free publicity after being banned.

[65Craig]

Find it funny that people think Thai Laws should apply to an American Company. Agree that Thailand has every right to close down the site and shield its citizens from what they view to be Lese Majeste.

Do I think the piece was in poor taste? Yes!!! It's very offensive to Thai People and those who know about Thai culture. With that said, there’s a lot of poor taste everywhere. I walk down the street and see Thai Citizens all the time wearing George Bush looking like Adolph Hitler shirts. To many that's definitely offensive on many different levels. But to me it’s their right to wear.

Do I think there could have been a better way to solve this rather than banning a whole entire site? Of course!!! Banning this site is just exasperating the situation and will most definitely bring about copycats and more banning of things. This in turn will lead to a bad perception of Thailand throughout the world.

Anyway, as the citizens of Thailand hold certain things to be sacred, so do Americans. And it's called the US Constitution. And the first Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Personally glad that my home country was founded on such principles.