Govt Readies For Lawsuit Against Youtube

[TAWP]

Couldn't find if this was posted already or not

The Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Ministry has set up a committee to proceed with a lawsuit against YouTube.com for running a video clip offending the monarchy. ICT Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom said a court order is needed to force the video-sharing website to censor inappropriate content.

http://bangkokpost.com/News/06May2007_news06.php

They are still running the news like the clip was still there, when the original clip is removed. (It might be re-posted, but chances are it's also on other video-sites. But don't tell them that.)

Edited May 6, 2007 by sbk
post only first two sentences & link to BKK post articles

[cdnvic]

This will result in a hundred new videos that are even worse. For the sake of the subject's dignity I hope they reconsider things and just let the whole controversy die a quiet death.

[Dakhar]

Wow, this from a country where you see T shirts commonly that say F____ You You F_____ 'n

etc etc. Really open minded, folks out here. I really am amazed at the level of free speech.

Land of Logic

[Dakhar]

This will result in a hundred new videos that are even worse. For the sake of the subject's dignity I hope they reconsider things and just let the whole controversy die a quiet death.

Now, that would be the Logical thing to do....

[KhunMarco]

5, 4, 3, 2, 1........... closed

[KhunMarco]

Anyway I've personally seen youtube and google remove no-copyrighted political material. Which means they do whatever it's in their interest (Google China docet).

[kmart]

This will result in a hundred new videos that are even worse. For the sake of the subject's dignity I hope they reconsider things and just let the whole controversy die a quiet death.

Agreed, but its doubtful when you have a govt. that includes a Technology & Communications Minister who doesn't even know how the Internet works. Or even cares... link

They shoot themselves in the foot time and time again. Makes me wonder if the offending vid wasn't uploaded by the government in the first place as an excuse for blanket censorship? There was certainly a lot of youtube content that was also embarrassing for Thailand; scenes Patpong; Soi Cowboy; Pattaya, etc; oh, and a few pesky videos of of the Tak Bai massacre in the South.

[p_brownstone]

This is ridiculous. We all know they're going to lose and they leave the court embarassed, with their tails between their legs. This is for sure some arse kisser's ideea trying to show his loyalty to the royal family. This will be a disaster for Thailand's image.

It's something of a Catch 22 situation.

If the authorities do NOT take action against YouTube they themselves can be pilloried by arch monarchists (or, more likely, opportunists) for allowing the site to host the Videos without taking legal action. The way the Lese Majeste laws are written makes such non-action an offence under the Law.

The fact that any half-competent Computer user in Thailand can bypass the "Blocking" of the site, and the fact that the actions of the Thai Government in protesting the original clip only resulted in dozens more uploads - many far worse than the original - are to a large extent beside the point.

Patrick

Edited May 6, 2007 by p_brownstone

[alexth]

It's childish anyways. Even under those circumstances, that clip is a pointless joke made by a more pointless idiot. An answer to such a videoclip would put anyone in the situation of embarassing themselfs. Thais, again, as they're usually doing, are shooting themselfs in the foot for the 999999999th time.

[OlRedEyes]

This will be a disaster for Thailand's image.

It's Teflon coated. Nothing sticks.

Edited May 6, 2007 by OlRedEyes

[Dakhar]

How are these laws applied? I mean really, is Iran going to sue me because my wife does not wear a tent? I don't follow how I can do something in one country and then have another country try to sue me.

I guess I am just really ignorant about law issues.

Disclaimer, I do not condone what was done. I just do not see how a suit is even possible in such situations.

[pitrevie]

The most sensible take on this came from a letter I read in the Nation on April 8th from George Carroll and I hope he doesnt mind me posting it here.

Government's overreaction to video clip shows everyone how to push their buttons

Published on Apr 8, 2007

While I agree with his sentiment, Information and Communications Technology Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom's decision to block YouTube shows a shortsighted lack of understanding about the nature of the Internet.

"Banning" something on the Internet is virtually impossible, and in fact, only draws more attention to the offensive items and encourages copycats. Firstly, YouTube is still easily accessible from Thailand via proxy servers and anonymisers, so people can still reach it or any other website the government has tried to block. (I've noticed that they have tried to block access to most of the popular proxy servers too. However, it's impossible to block access to them all.)

Secondly, there are plenty of other video/photo-sharing websites out there, including Revver, Google Video, iFilm, Flickr and MySpace. Does the minister plan to block access to every website that hosts these offensive videos? If so, then he is essentially ceding authority to misanthropes and juvenile delinquents. Now these immature people know that they can "control" what Thai people can or cannot see by simply using an offensive video or photo to goad the government into blocking access to that website. What's next? Will everyone in Thailand suddenly lose access to Google or MySpace just because some lone idiot uses one of those websites to post something offensive?

On the Internet, we call this type of person a "troll", because he gets a thrill out of annoying or offending people. The more attention trolls get, the more aggressive and numerous they become. The Thai government has let every troll in the world know that they can be goaded into overreacting. What spoiled 14-year-old American brat could resist the "thrill" of getting some faraway government to ban an entire website? It's the ultimate "denial of service" attack (in hacker-speak), and sure enough, several more copycat videos have already appeared on YouTube and more are certain to come.

The people who control the Internet in this country have a lot to learn about it, and the first thing they should learn is that if they have a particular "button" they don't want people to push, the last thing they should do is paint big red arrows around it and put up a sign saying, "Don't push this button!"

Blocking a very popular website was a big mistake. Trolls crave attention (don't feed the troll), and so things like this are best dealt with quietly. Unfortunately, we now have CNN reporting on this matter - which is a worst-case scenario because now every troll in the world knows exactly how to goad the Thai government. While the offensive video posted on YouTube was certainly very hurtful to Thai people, it was only one video out of millions posted on that site, and probably would have languished in obscurity were it not for Sitthichai's heavy-handed overreaction.

What he fails to understand is that many people on the Internet actually enjoy offending other people, and that the best way to deal with these "trolls" is to ignore them.

George Carroll

Bangkok

[wintermute]

I don't understand how they believe they will have a reason to sue in the U.S. It doesn't violate existing freedom of speech laws, the patriot act ( ), or libel/slander laws in the U.S. They have an empty case from the get go. I bet the only people that make out in this are the U.S. lawyers they will hire to file the case. If they decide to do it themselves that will be more hilarious I can already see the broken english and hundreds of clerical errors that will be made. Thailand is amazing to say the least trying to sue a foreign company for laws that don't apply on its own soil is the stupidest thing i've ever heard of.

[OlRedEyes]

I don't understand how they believe they will have a reason to sue in the U.S. It doesn't violate existing freedom of speech laws, the patriot act ( ), or libel/slander laws in the U.S. They have an empty case from the get go. I bet the only people that make out in this are the U.S. lawyers they will hire to file the case. If they decide to do it themselves that will be more hilarious I can already see the broken english and hundreds of clerical errors that will be made. Thailand is amazing to say the least trying to sue a foreign company for laws that don't apply on its own soil is the stupidest thing i've ever heard of.

Isn't it just...

[sukanyacondo]

Im glad they did not bow to Thailands pressure on what I see as ridiculous in the 22nd century hopefully eventually somewhere Thailand will drag itself into this century wake up and realise they have much much much bigger problems than this and stop wasting their time to focus on its real problems....................... sadly I doubt it though?

[Pepe']

This will result in a hundred new videos that are even worse. For the sake of the subject's dignity I hope they reconsider things and just let the whole controversy die a quiet death.

--------------------------------

I agree loy percent, however as completely offensive I that find the use of Lord Buddha's image to be I think it would be better to state how unfortunate these people are for making such bad karma.

Just a thought...

[Dakhar]

The most sensible take on this came from a letter I read in the Nation on April 8th from George Carroll and I hope he doesnt mind me posting it here.

Government's overreaction to video clip shows everyone how to push their buttons

Published on Apr 8, 2007

While I agree with his sentiment, Information and Communications Technology Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom's decision to block YouTube shows a shortsighted lack of understanding about the nature of the Internet.

"Banning" something on the Internet is virtually impossible, and in fact, only draws more attention to the offensive items and encourages copycats. Firstly, YouTube is still easily accessible from Thailand via proxy servers and anonymisers, so people can still reach it or any other website the government has tried to block. (I've noticed that they have tried to block access to most of the popular proxy servers too. However, it's impossible to block access to them all.)

Secondly, there are plenty of other video/photo-sharing websites out there, including Revver, Google Video, iFilm, Flickr and MySpace. Does the minister plan to block access to every website that hosts these offensive videos? If so, then he is essentially ceding authority to misanthropes and juvenile delinquents. Now these immature people know that they can "control" what Thai people can or cannot see by simply using an offensive video or photo to goad the government into blocking access to that website. What's next? Will everyone in Thailand suddenly lose access to Google or MySpace just because some lone idiot uses one of those websites to post something offensive?

On the Internet, we call this type of person a "troll", because he gets a thrill out of annoying or offending people. The more attention trolls get, the more aggressive and numerous they become. The Thai government has let every troll in the world know that they can be goaded into overreacting. What spoiled 14-year-old American brat could resist the "thrill" of getting some faraway government to ban an entire website? It's the ultimate "denial of service" attack (in hacker-speak), and sure enough, several more copycat videos have already appeared on YouTube and more are certain to come.

The people who control the Internet in this country have a lot to learn about it, and the first thing they should learn is that if they have a particular "button" they don't want people to push, the last thing they should do is paint big red arrows around it and put up a sign saying, "Don't push this button!"

Blocking a very popular website was a big mistake. Trolls crave attention (don't feed the troll), and so things like this are best dealt with quietly. Unfortunately, we now have CNN reporting on this matter - which is a worst-case scenario because now every troll in the world knows exactly how to goad the Thai government. While the offensive video posted on YouTube was certainly very hurtful to Thai people, it was only one video out of millions posted on that site, and probably would have languished in obscurity were it not for Sitthichai's heavy-handed overreaction.

What he fails to understand is that many people on the Internet actually enjoy offending other people, and that the best way to deal with these "trolls" is to ignore them.

George Carroll

Bangkok

BINGO

'This YouTube issue is about a private firm in the US trying to bully a small country like Thailand,' Sittichai told the Bangkok Post newspaper.

It has become more than offense to Royalty, now it also seen as a foreing asault on Thailand. Yep, more zenophobia rhetoric.

Sorry to see all of this happen, just because some pubecent kid posts a dumb video. He is probably laughing right at this moment.

[wasabi]

It is an interesting paradox. Is there anything that Youtube would ban? Yes they would ban porn or killing. I think everyone can agree these things are "offensive" Yet to Thai people those things pale in comparison to defaming the king, it's many multiples more offensive than the items youtube would ban do to the mores and taboos of the USA. So on one hand it does seem hypocritical that youtube bans some types of videos seen as offensive but not other types. Then the original purpose for free speech arises. if you start to censor some things, eventually you censor everything. Because everyone will find something offensive. Basically youtube must decide who they are willing to offend. In the age of the internet, trying to censor does seem to create the opposite of the intended effect. Yet could the Thai gov't legally have ignored something so offensive? What if you tube were playing a beheading video, surely a senator would demand it be removed. If he/she sat by and did nothing their constituents would quickly cry out. So in this sense Thailand is acting no different than we would.

Now does Thailand have any legal recourse to tell us what's offensive? I have no idea but instinctually it seems no. Perhaps someone in the USA is offended by a Thai website, I doubt they can sue Thailand and force them to remove it.

[wintermute]

Yet could the Thai gov't legally have ignored something so offensive? What if you tube were playing a beheading video, surely a senator would demand it be removed. If he/she sat by and did nothing their constituents would quickly cry out. So in this sense Thailand is acting no different than we would.

If Thailand ignored it chances are it would have faded into obscurity. Instead they chose to beat their chests and throw an international tantrum over the whole thing making it a news media spectacle. Now they are threatening to sue a company that operates in a country with far different laws and culture than Thailand. It's a complete farce. I don't expect the U.S. courts to take this seriously and if it hits the domestic press I imagine many Americans will find another country forcing its censorship laws on the U.S. as distasteful to say the least.

[Dakhar]

It is an interesting paradox. Is there anything that Youtube would ban? Yes they would ban porn or killing. I think everyone can agree these things are "offensive" Yet to Thai people those things pale in comparison to defaming the king, it's many multiples more offensive than the items youtube would ban do to the mores and taboos of the USA. So on one hand it does seem hypocritical that youtube bans some types of videos seen as offensive but not other types. Then the original purpose for free speech arises. if you start to censor some things, eventually you censor everything. Because everyone will find something offensive. Basically youtube must decide who they are willing to offend. In the age of the internet, trying to censor does seem to create the opposite of the intended effect. Yet could the Thai gov't legally have ignored something so offensive? What if you tube were playing a beheading video, surely a senator would demand it be removed. If he/she sat by and did nothing their constituents would quickly cry out. So in this sense Thailand is acting no different than we would.

Now does Thailand have any legal recourse to tell us what's offensive? I have no idea but instinctually it seems no. Perhaps someone in the USA is offended by a Thai website, I doubt they can sue Thailand and force them to remove it.

U-tube is a US based co. it does not have to be concerned about what other countries may or may not find offensive. As falangs are told daily about living in Thailand, if you don't like it, then leave. If you don't like what is on U-tube then don't watch it, or even ban it if you think that will accomplish something. But to try to sue?!!! Wow there is no logic for me to find in that concept.

[cdnvic]

Of course the US does like to impose it's draconian copyright laws on other countries so in a way its getting a little of it back here.

I still think this is a stupid idea though.

[chevykanteve]

Wow, this from a country where you see T shirts commonly that say F____ You You F_____ 'n

etc etc. Really open minded, folks out here. I really am amazed at the level of free speech.

Land of Logic

Saw a girl walking around a few weeks ago with hot-pants, on the back of which said Bill's Bang.

[Prakanong]

Thailand need to remember its not the centre of the world!

Its not even a little red dot on the map

We know their only competitive advantages

[Dakhar]

Wow, this from a country where you see T shirts commonly that say F____ You You F_____ 'n

etc etc. Really open minded, folks out here. I really am amazed at the level of free speech.

Land of Logic

Saw a girl walking around a few weeks ago with hot-pants, on the back of which said Bill's Bang.

I hope my wife didn't see her....

[rafval]

I think its wonderful that the government is finaly doing something that will really get the economy going again and help out the average Thai, perhaps their fortune teller deserves a payrise to keep up with the several that the coup leaders have already given themselves

[chevykanteve]

Wow, this from a country where you see T shirts commonly that say F____ You You F_____ 'n

etc etc. Really open minded, folks out here. I really am amazed at the level of free speech.

Land of Logic

Saw a girl walking around a few weeks ago with hot-pants, on the back of which said Bill's Bang.

I hope my wife didn't see her....

Well, there was some subscript there about Dakhar.... or it could have Dakkar (as in Senegal)...

Just kidding.

[stoneman]

Couldn't find if this was posted already or not

The Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Ministry has set up a committee to proceed with a lawsuit against YouTube.com for running a video clip offending the monarchy. ICT Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom said a court order is needed to force the video-sharing website to censor inappropriate content.

http://bangkokpost.com/News/06May2007_news06.php

They are still running the news like the clip was still there, when the original clip is removed. (It might be re-posted, but chances are it's also on other video-sites. But don't tell them that.)

]

I find it most interesting that we can get a lawsuit ready to file in a few weeks against Google, but we have been 7 months trying to file suits concerning the scanner corruption, Mama Toxin's bargain land deal and sale of Shin corp...not to mention any one of a thousandsd other pending cases..

[kmart]

Couldn't find if this was posted already or not

The Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Ministry has set up a committee to proceed with a lawsuit against YouTube.com for running a video clip offending the monarchy. ICT Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom said a court order is needed to force the video-sharing website to censor inappropriate content.

http://bangkokpost.com/News/06May2007_news06.php

They are still running the news like the clip was still there, when the original clip is removed. (It might be re-posted, but chances are it's also on other video-sites. But don't tell them that.)

]

I find it most interesting that we can get a lawsuit ready to file in a few weeks against Google, but we have been 7 months trying to file suits concerning the scanner corruption, Mama Toxin's bargain land deal and sale of Shin corp...not to mention any one of a thousandsd other pending cases..

I think that so far, we've just "set up a committee" to proceed with a lawsuit, Ministers here seem to be really good at this.

[chevykanteve]

Couldn't find if this was posted already or not

The Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Ministry has set up a committee to proceed with a lawsuit against YouTube.com for running a video clip offending the monarchy. ICT Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom said a court order is needed to force the video-sharing website to censor inappropriate content.

http://bangkokpost.com/News/06May2007_news06.php

They are still running the news like the clip was still there, when the original clip is removed. (It might be re-posted, but chances are it's also on other video-sites. But don't tell them that.)

]

I find it most interesting that we can get a lawsuit ready to file in a few weeks against Google, but we have been 7 months trying to file suits concerning the scanner corruption, Mama Toxin's bargain land deal and sale of Shin corp...not to mention any one of a thousandsd other pending cases..

In a few weeks... Do you believe that? The Thai press is full of --statements-- such as soon, is set to, will... etc., all future tense and half the time either not followed up by subsequent reporting or otherwise lost in the morass of ... the Thai reporting tradition.

Edited May 6, 2007 by chevykanteve

[sukanyacondo]

Does anybody posting here have a Thai wife ,g/f or friend who also thinks their country's crazy or is it just mine? She often asks me "why they do this" and does not say "mai pen rai"