Internet Censorship Bill Set For Passage Through The National Legislative Assembly

[Jai Dee]

Thai censorship bill set for passage

A bill to give the information and communications technology (ICT) minister unrestricted power to shut down pornographic and anti-monarchy Web sites is expected to be tabled in the military appointed National Legislative Assembly (NLA) next month.

IT law expert Paiboon Amonpinyokeat told a seminar on Internet censorship yesterday that the law would equip the ICT minister with the legal muscle to deal with wayward websites.

The government currently has to go through the Council for National Security and seek cooperation from Internet service providers to block Web sites with offensive content.

However, the Cyber Crime Bill would clearly stipulate a procedure for the ICT Ministry to shut down or block Web sites deemed damaging to society and state security, said Mr Paiboon, a partner at Gilberte, Reed & Co law firm.

Under Article 17 of the bill, the ICT minister could seek court approval to shut down undesirable Web sites. It would be the first time that Thailand had a legal tool to deal with the problem, he said.

Mr Paiboon recommended, however, that self-regulation among "netizens" and "net operators" should be promoted along with the new law.

Jittat Fakcharoenphol, a lecturer at Kasetsart University's computer engineering department, suggested that there were ways to deal with issues disturbing to society.

"We should not think only about the law but about applicable technology when we want to block undesirable Web sites to prevent indecent content like pornography from reaching minors," he said.

Proactive measures through sensible technology could be a more effective tool in blocking Web sites, he said.

C.J. Hinke, from Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (Fact), said 1,279 books were banned in Thailand from 1850 to 1998, most in an attempt to suppress communism.

Mr Hinke said the lese majeste law has become a powerful tool for authorities to enforce censorship, despite the fact that books and films with content critical of the monarchy do not change the truth about the good things His Majesty the King has done for the country.

"I think Thai authorities should stop treating people like children and allow discussion among ourselves so we can really debate and become an informed society," he said.

Thanapol Eawsakul, editor of Fah Diew Gan magazine, said Thai society would take a similar path to Singapore's if it was to use self-censorship as a principle.

Source: ZDnet Asia News - 30 April 2007

[sting0001]

With all due respect, and being aware of 'about the good things His Majesty the King has done for the country', I have to ask the following :

Why an magrebhin person living in western europe (Italy or France for exemple) must be not able to watch some satirics videos posted on some californian websites?

As soon as we are spoken about internet, we have to remenber 2 things :

1) local customs apply locally, but not worldwide.

2) what is unacceptable in some places would be considered as some kind of derision (humor showing another face of the reality).

Shocking other feelings, or cultural assets? Well, what about those wonderful thai people who wear daily Tshirt with svatiska (the left one, the nazi one.... not the right one, the indian one)... Does it not hurt feelings of those who lost familly in Daachau, or Bergen-Belsen? .... What about the ladies who wear holly cross but inverted (symbol of anathems)? Does it not hurt feelings of the catholics (there are also thais people who are catholics).

So that law is not about to protect people mind, but simply to close a door .... door that is susceptible to make them awaken, aware of things they should not know.....

I posted with all due respect and being aware ..... So no offense intended, just some thought while I am waiting my plane.

[cdnvic]

Don't they already have these powers under the current laws?

[A_Traveller]

Don't they already have these powers under the current laws?

No not really. The present position is that the ITC and the Royal Thai Police can inform the ISP's that they 'must' block a site, however, there is little or no law except the seditious libel provisions {AKA Lese Majestie} to enforce this. In reality given the leverage provided by the concentration of ownership and licence provision no ISP says no, for fear of losing their ability to run a business.

If the law provided for a defined review process then that would be all to the good, however, my expectation is that it will allow an individual to act as arbiter of 'good taste' and 'family values'. Of course, such an individual might take the view that any discussion of , say the political dynamics within Thailand, might be against the 'public good' and take action.

Regards

/edit typo//

Edited April 30, 2007 by A_Traveller

[Jai Dee]

Shocking other feelings, or cultural assets? Well, what about those wonderful thai people who wear daily Tshirt with svatiska (the left one, the nazi one.... not the right one, the indian one)... Does it not hurt feelings of those who lost familly in Daachau, or Bergen-Belsen? ....

Off-topic but:

The swastika (from Sanskrit svástika स्वास्तिक ) is an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles, in either left-facing (卍) or right-facing (卐) forms. The term is derived from Sanskrit svasti, meaning well-being. The Thai greeting sawasdee is from the same root, carrying the same implication.

It is a widely-used cultic symbol in Dharmic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism). Hindus often decorate the swastika with a dot in each quadrant. In India, it is common enough to be a part of several Devanagari fonts. It is also a symbol in the modern unicode. It is often imprinted on religious texts, marriage invitations, decorations etc. It is used to mark religious flags in Jainism and to mark Buddhist temples in Asia.

From Wikipedia

[cdnvic]

Don't they already have these powers under the current laws?

No not really. The present position is that the ITC and the Royal Thai Police can inform the ISP's that they 'must' block a site, however, there is little or no law except the seditious libel provisions {AKA Lese Majestie} to enforce this. In reality given the leverage provided by the concentration of ownership and licence provision no ISP says no, for fear of losing their ability to run a business.

If the law provided for a defined review process then that would be all to the good, however, my expectation is that it will allow an individual to act as arbiter of 'good taste' and 'family values'. Of course, such an individual might take the view that any discussion of , say the political dynamics within Thailand, might be against the 'public good' and take action.

Regards

/edit typo//

Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense now.

[sting0001]

Shocking other feelings, or cultural assets? Well, what about those wonderful thai people who wear daily Tshirt with svatiska (the left one, the nazi one.... not the right one, the indian one)... Does it not hurt feelings of those who lost familly in Daachau, or Bergen-Belsen? ....

Off-topic but:

The swastika (from Sanskrit svástika स्वास्तिक ) is an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles, in either left-facing (卍) or right-facing (卐) forms. The term is derived from Sanskrit svasti, meaning well-being. The Thai greeting sawasdee is from the same root, carrying the same implication.

It is a widely-used cultic symbol in Dharmic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism). Hindus often decorate the swastika with a dot in each quadrant. In India, it is common enough to be a part of several Devanagari fonts. It is also a symbol in the modern unicode. It is often imprinted on religious texts, marriage invitations, decorations etc. It is used to mark religious flags in Jainism and to mark Buddhist temples in Asia.

From Wikipedia

Well did you READ what I wrote? There is a distinction(difference) btw the left-facing and the right-facing one, I am sorry the 'know all' wiki did not refer to that!!!! To make it simple, right = good luck, left = bad luck. The right one is traditional, as you explain so well, but the left one is not used.

Anyway if you live in Bkk, and walk on the streets you will understand (take a look in MBK, and let me know what you think about the shops selling those Tshirts, replic of german helmets, iron cross, or other like nazi stuffs .... hard to be confuse btw a legitimate religious symbol and something else).

Even in the case I was confuse, I do not think it reduce the value of my comment : that law is another door open on the real world that will be close.

[chingching]

My layman's opinion of Buddhism, was live and let live. Seems that is becoming less so.

[Steely Dan]

Shocking other feelings, or cultural assets? Well, what about those wonderful thai people who wear daily Tshirt with svatiska (the left one, the nazi one.... not the right one, the indian one)... Does it not hurt feelings of those who lost familly in Daachau, or Bergen-Belsen? ....

Off-topic but:

The swastika (from Sanskrit svástika स्वास्तिक ) is an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles, in either left-facing (卍) or right-facing (卐) forms. The term is derived from Sanskrit svasti, meaning well-being. The Thai greeting sawasdee is from the same root, carrying the same implication.

It is a widely-used cultic symbol in Dharmic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism). Hindus often decorate the swastika with a dot in each quadrant. In India, it is common enough to be a part of several Devanagari fonts. It is also a symbol in the modern unicode. It is often imprinted on religious texts, marriage invitations, decorations etc. It is used to mark religious flags in Jainism and to mark Buddhist temples in Asia.

From Wikipedia

Well did you READ what I wrote? There is a distinction(difference) btw the left-facing and the right-facing one, I am sorry the 'know all' wiki did not refer to that!!!! To make it simple, right = good luck, left = bad luck. The right one is traditional, as you explain so well, but the left one is not used.

Anyway if you live in Bkk, and walk on the streets you will understand (take a look in MBK, and let me know what you think about the shops selling those Tshirts, replic of german helmets, iron cross, or other like nazi stuffs .... hard to be confuse btw a legitimate religious symbol and something else).

Even in the case I was confuse, I do not think it reduce the value of my comment : that law is another door open on the real world that will be close.

When the said T-shirts have the word NAZI's printed on them left or right facing becomes a moot point. I still don't think I would take offence as I suspect the average Thai has no idea who the Nazi's were any more than they know what the Punk rock movement stood for. Still sensibilities being offended seems to be a one way street here; - There is a range of janitorial products on sale called 'Black Man' with a logo some may find offensive.

Anyway whatever the law says it will be circumvented as quick as you can say anonymous proxy.