Thailand To Build A Firewall To Block 'offensive' Websites

[Crushdepth]

Especially if it's just a smoke screen to cover what these measures really are: an attempt to limit freedom of speech.

I fear you are right about that. But I don't think it's fair to blame one side of politics or another. Both of them would love to be able to censor criticism, and both have long histories of leaning on the media. Without strong oversight, governments of any persuasion will inevitably abuse censorship powers.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Crushdepth

[Bangyai]

Why take such sensitive issue as Thai monarchy and plaster it all over the Internet? What could that possibly achieve? What are they trying to achieve?

A good question seeing as now the toll on banned sites is in the thousands. When Prachatai looked into some of the sites that the Democrats wanted closed before they came to power, it found those sites to be critical of the Democrats rather than having any LM content.

[Plus]

...they should allow posting insults in newspapers and hurting abuse off TV screens - everyone has a "right" not to read it or switch the channel.

Of course they should.

If you start a magazine you can decide to post pictures of horse-manure on each page if you want to. And I can choose not to buy it.

Horse manure and personal insults and libel are two different things, you are open to all kinds of lawsuits for the latter, and so you should be held responisble. Techinically it's not feasible to sue for every website out there, it's easier to simply block clearly offensive material.

So far it's just "keep it to yourself", very Thai solution, imo.

No, it's not. Banning a site isn't 'keep it to yourself' since the visitors cannot reach it...

Huh? You set a website and put up all kinds of stuff there, the govt bans it. It doesn't actively try to sue the hel_l out of you. You got your point of view, keep it to yourself, don't publish it for the whole world to see and they leave you alone.

It has nothing to do with visitors at all.

>>>

I stress again that freedom to insult others is not a god given right, and so is freedom to spread propaganda. Even governments understand that and try to cover their tracks, and get thrashed when caught. Why should the others have unrestricted right to spread their own sort of propaganda?

[chevykanteve]

I have seen some of the content but by no means have a full picture of what is out there.

If they want to debate legitimate issues they should find legitimate channels, even on the Internet. Open public discussions on politics...rarely produce anything else but big fights, even among close friends and families......

Practice what you preach, Khun PAD Plus.

[chevykanteve]

I have seen some of the content but by no means have a full picture of what is out there.

If they want to debate legitimate issues they should find legitimate channels, even on the Internet. Open public discussions on politics...rarely produce anything else but big fights, even among close friends and families......

Practice what you preach, Khun PAD Plus.

[OxfordWill]

bleh

Edited January 24, 2009 by OxfordWill

[Plus]

I have seen some of the content but by no means have a full picture of what is out there.

If they want to debate legitimate issues they should find legitimate channels, even on the Internet. Open public discussions on politics...rarely produce anything else but big fights, even among close friends and families......

Practice what you preach, Khun PAD Plus.

I don't post here with any kind of mission in mind. I don't have a message to deliver.

I don't particularly care if my posts get deleted and I don't raise a stink about freedom of speech when it happens.

Do you think your own posts here have some meaningful and everlasting effect, Chevy?

[Journalist]

^And looking at the pre-moderated content of your post #108, (giving guidance to anti-monarchist groups), you don't particularly care if Thaivisa.com gets barred too.

[TAWP]

...they should allow posting insults in newspapers and hurting abuse off TV screens - everyone has a "right" not to read it or switch the channel.

Of course they should.

If you start a magazine you can decide to post pictures of horse-manure on each page if you want to. And I can choose not to buy it.

Horse manure and personal insults and libel are two different things, you are open to all kinds of lawsuits for the latter, and so you should be held responisble. Techinically it's not feasible to sue for every website out there, it's easier to simply block clearly offensive material.

Yes, it's easier for those with a weak mind.

Technically it is possible to sue every every site out there. Don't excuse weak minded measures with weak arguments. It's just silly.

So far it's just "keep it to yourself", very Thai solution, imo.

No, it's not. Banning a site isn't 'keep it to yourself' since the visitors cannot reach it...

Huh? You set a website and put up all kinds of stuff there, the govt bans it. It doesn't actively try to sue the hel_l out of you. You got your point of view, keep it to yourself, don't publish it for the whole world to see and they leave you alone.

It has nothing to do with visitors at all.

>>>

I stress again that freedom to insult others is not a god given right, and so is freedom to spread propaganda. Even governments understand that and try to cover their tracks, and get thrashed when caught. Why should the others have unrestricted right to spread their own sort of propaganda?

It restricts peoples freedom to view, argue and talk about their chosen topic. Of course it has something to do with visitors. And peoples right to express themselves as they see fit on and in their private property. You are just being silly. If you are gonna argue this, please choose more sensible arguments.

And you are distorting the fact that most of these site's content aren't libel under most countries laws.

Nothing is God given since fairy tales cannot grant rights.

However some of us believe that there should be a very basic set of rights handed out to all humans under all governments and will work for that. And others seemingly work for oppression to win...

[henryalleman]

My point is that there are plenty of examples of low grade insults that deserve to be banned simply for insulting one's intellegence, not to speak of LM laws. If there are babies being thrown out with the water - tough luck, got caught in a bad company.

/../

Should the websites be banned? I don't have an answer, if it's a campaign to unanonimously sneak through a back door, then why not close it? It's not only China and Russia who block the Internet - Americans also don't allow some terrorist or islamist propaganda, you can't broadcast Osama Bin Laden videos, for example.

First of all, it doesn't matter if you think an insult is low grade. And neither should it matter when it comes to freedom of speech and expression. You don't have to visit the site. Exercise that right and don't.

Secondly you are incorrect that it's not allowed to broadcast islamic propaganda or Osama Bin Laden videos to the US. Not saying that the US isn't trying to do the same fascist steps as the EU and outlaw for instance access to foreign gambling sites, but we aren't there yet.

Not saying that the US isn't trying to do the same fascist steps as the EU and outlaw for instance access to foreign gambling sites, but we aren't there yet.

What have outlaw access to foreign gambling sites to do with "Free Speech"

[henryalleman]

Only websites or publications who do call up to use physical violence in the strict sense and websites or publications who publish, preach or are instigators of paedophilia can be banned.

[TAWP]

Not saying that the US isn't trying to do the same fascist steps as the EU and outlaw for instance access to foreign gambling sites, but we aren't there yet.

What have outlaw access to foreign gambling sites to do with "Free Speech"

It's a censorship at its first step. (Under what right does foreign gambling sites get blocked? Surely my right to choose venue to waste my money at is my own choosing? Land of the free and all...)

And soon after the first step is taken the expansion of the censorship becomes so much easier.

In my home-country the practically enforced a censorship-list with all ISPs (threatening ISPs with 'new laws and regulations' to make them comply with 'voluntary' accept each update of the list without questions. The list is 'secret' and not allowed to be published so there is a direct lack of overview. And several mistakes have been made already*) with the aim to 'stop access to CP. They promised this would be the only use. Not much later the expanded the list to include 'foreign escort service sites', hentai-sites (cartoons!) and other things, not even illegal INSIDE the country. And now they will expand it more...

How does one appeal a blacklisting of a site only noted on a secret list you cannot gain access to? And done so without motivation or need for one.

This is where we are heading. Socialist elements Europe loves it. Fascist elements of Europe loves it. Ultra-conservative elements of Europe loves it. Enough for anyone to realize something is wrong.

(*: One site that was, erroneously, banned for over a year in my home country: http://koreabonsai.com/ )

[Steve2UK]

<snip>

Huh? You set a website and put up all kinds of stuff there, the govt bans it. It doesn't actively try to sue the hel_l out of you. You got your point of view, keep it to yourself, don't publish it for the whole world to see and they leave you alone.

It has nothing to do with visitors at all.

>>>

I stress again that freedom to insult others is not a god given right, and so is freedom to spread propaganda. Even governments understand that and try to cover their tracks, and get thrashed when caught. Why should the others have unrestricted right to spread their own sort of propaganda?

[my emphasis above]

uh-uh......... I think I'm getting "deja-vu all over again"........ feels like we're back in village currency territory

Website banned (blocked) = can't visit it. What's not clear?

>>>

I assume you meant to say "neither is freedom to spread propaganda"? Two or more sides each putting their case their own way (as you do - and good luck to you....... just please try to keep speculation distinct from "facts").............. Each version is arguably propaganda (really just a pejorative term for putting one side of an issue) aka PR. Allowing the various parties free (I'll accept "reasonable") rein to put their case their way is called debate, discourse, discussion etc.

Personally, I think you have half a point about stuff that is clearly nothing more than insults - but I struggle to imagine any but the zealots of a cause seeing any value or even significance in it. As many have noted here on ThaiVisa, it invariably says more about the writer than about the subject.

[Crushdepth]

Only websites or publications who do call up to use physical violence in the strict sense and websites or publications who publish, preach or are instigators of paedophilia can be banned.

That's how it *starts* - the government waves a few convenient scarecrows to justify imposing censorship, eg. terrorists, paedophiles, lese majesty, whatever. Once the technology is in place it's relatively easy to expand the scope of the censorship. Thailand doesn't exactly lead the world in 'good governance' so the prospects of this being abused by the government of the day are rather high.

[cmsally]

Seems as though the Economist is not in circulation again within Thailand. Although website hasn't been blocked yet, won't be long before its on the banned list I would imagine. Can't link here of course. Boys and girls will just have to take a look for themselves. Just read and ruminate, no nasty discussions allowed, remember.

[Priceless]

Yesterday I received an e-mail as follows from The Economist:

"Dear Mr Priceless,

This week our distributors in Thailand have decided not to deliver The Economist in light of our coverage relating to the Thai monarchy.

We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused. With our compliments, we will be extending your subscription by a further week to cover this missed issue.

We value your loyalty and appreciate your continued patience. If you have any comments regarding this or any other aspect of your subscription, please contact our customer service hotline at..."

/ Priceless

Edited January 24, 2009 by Priceless

[ourmaninbangers]

complete waste of time/money/energy

so typically from here- all

all this nonsense is so easy to get around

they know this- so why bother?

[jeffer]

all this nonsense is so easy to get around

they know this- so why bother?

You know, I've said that all along myself, but I can tell you they are making it much harder than before to get around for certain sites. There are a couple of political type sites that were previously easy enough to view but aren't any longer. I imagine they must be getting better at blocking and after this week there are now thousands more sites for them to practice on, but then it's something the powers to be have only themselves to blame... talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

[sriracha john]

Seems as though the Economist is not in circulation again within Thailand. Although website hasn't been blocked yet, won't be long before its on the banned list I would imagine. Can't link here of course. Boys and girls will just have to take a look for themselves. Just read and ruminate, no nasty discussions allowed, remember.

Yesterday I received an e-mail as follows from The Economist:

"Dear Mr Priceless,

This week our distributors in Thailand have decided not to deliver The Economist in light of our coverage relating to the Thai monarchy.

We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused. With our compliments, we will be extending your subscription by a further week to cover this missed issue.

We value your loyalty and appreciate your continued patience. If you have any comments regarding this or any other aspect of your subscription, please contact our customer service hotline at..."

So the Economist has published another offensive-to-the-monarchy article and it has nothing to do with with publishing an anti-government article. That's helpful to know.

[Priceless]

Seems as though the Economist is not in circulation again within Thailand. Although website hasn't been blocked yet, won't be long before its on the banned list I would imagine. Can't link here of course. Boys and girls will just have to take a look for themselves. Just read and ruminate, no nasty discussions allowed, remember.

Yesterday I received an e-mail as follows from The Economist:

"Dear Mr Priceless,

This week our distributors in Thailand have decided not to deliver The Economist in light of our coverage relating to the Thai monarchy.

We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused. With our compliments, we will be extending your subscription by a further week to cover this missed issue.

We value your loyalty and appreciate your continued patience. If you have any comments regarding this or any other aspect of your subscription, please contact our customer service hotline at..."

So the Economist has published another offensive-to-the-monarchy article and it has nothing to do with with publishing an anti-government article. That's helpful to know.

I don't know whether there is a new article, or if this refers to the ones published earlier. Anyways, the Thai distributor's decision smacks of a form of self-censorship, something that is really frightening in a long-term perspective.

/ Priceless

[cmsally]

Seems as though the Economist is not in circulation again within Thailand. Although website hasn't been blocked yet, won't be long before its on the banned list I would imagine. Can't link here of course. Boys and girls will just have to take a look for themselves. Just read and ruminate, no nasty discussions allowed, remember.

Yesterday I received an e-mail as follows from The Economist:

"Dear Mr Priceless,

This week our distributors in Thailand have decided not to deliver The Economist in light of our coverage relating to the Thai monarchy.

We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused. With our compliments, we will be extending your subscription by a further week to cover this missed issue.

We value your loyalty and appreciate your continued patience. If you have any comments regarding this or any other aspect of your subscription, please contact our customer service hotline at..."

So the Economist has published another offensive-to-the-monarchy article and it has nothing to do with with publishing an anti-government article. That's helpful to know.

I don't know whether there is a new article, or if this refers to the ones published earlier. Anyways, the Thai distributor's decision smacks of a form of self-censorship, something that is really frightening in a long-term perspective.

/ Priceless

You can read the new article online, it's there for all to see.

I wouldn't say offensive was the word, it is just questioning a rather mediaeval situation.

[sriracha john]

Seems as though the Economist is not in circulation again within Thailand. Although website hasn't been blocked yet, won't be long before its on the banned list I would imagine. Can't link here of course. Boys and girls will just have to take a look for themselves. Just read and ruminate, no nasty discussions allowed, remember.

Yesterday I received an e-mail as follows from The Economist:

"Dear Mr Priceless,

This week our distributors in Thailand have decided not to deliver The Economist in light of our coverage relating to the Thai monarchy.

We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused. With our compliments, we will be extending your subscription by a further week to cover this missed issue.

We value your loyalty and appreciate your continued patience. If you have any comments regarding this or any other aspect of your subscription, please contact our customer service hotline at..."

So the Economist has published another offensive-to-the-monarchy article and it has nothing to do with with publishing an anti-government article. That's helpful to know.

I don't know whether there is a new article, or if this refers to the ones published earlier. Anyways, the Thai distributor's decision smacks of a form of self-censorship, something that is really frightening in a long-term perspective.

/ Priceless

It's a new offensive-to-the-monarchy article to go along with their previous one.

I think the distributor is just being a realist. If something is illegal in this country, then it's illegal and not a wise business decision to try to contravene it.

[ourmaninbangers]

all this nonsense is so easy to get around

they know this- so why bother?

You know, I've said that all along myself, but I can tell you they are making it much harder than before to get around for certain sites. There are a couple of political type sites that were previously easy enough to view but aren't any longer. I imagine they must be getting better at blocking and after this week there are now thousands more sites for them to practice on, but then it's something the powers to be have only themselves to blame... talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

it is truly pathetic , so typical of this joke of a country

so much money wasted upon something which is completely useless for someone who knows what they are doing

they can not block a single thing for anyone who has the know how- the know how is out there

I was blocked from another cite for posting how to dfeat all this bg brother crap

same like the fingerprint scan the Japanese brought in- just been proven to be so easy to defeat

why do they bother?

could not the money be better spent?

[Priceless]

I don't know whether there is a new article, or if this refers to the ones published earlier. Anyways, the Thai distributor's decision smacks of a form of self-censorship, something that is really frightening in a long-term perspective.

/ Priceless

It's a new offensive-to-the-monarchy article to go along with their previous one.

I think the distributor is just being a realist. If something is illegal in this country, then it's illegal and not a wise business decision to try to contravene it.

I was not saying that it wasn't a prudent business decision, it probably was. However, I still think that the situation that caused the decision is frightening for the long-term well being of Thailand, the country where I have chosen to live.

/ Priceless

[on-on]

This will slow the web access even further.

Can someone please explain to these idiots folk what an international standard internet connection is, and how to deliver it to the paying punter.

This is the thing that struck me. The internet infrastructure in Thailand is not horrible for a poor developing country, but you'd expect better at least within central Bangkok and the business districts around the country. Obviously The Philippines has motivating factors (i.e. they're motivated to do business with the rest of the world via telecommunications), but it's still a shock that a sprawling, desperately poor, highly dysfunctional morass like Manila has infinitely better internet infrastructure (as does much of the rest of the country - Cebu, Davao, you name it). Thailand has an oversold domestic infrastructure that gives crap quality because of it and it is truly pathetic - really - in terms of its connectivity to the outside world. So I guess what I mean is that the first thing that came to mind for me was what came to mind for the other guy - the country has internet access so bad that it's actually crippling for business (and I'm talking even at the leased line level), so it seems like spending money on this kind of nonsense (not to mention that ridiculous ICT logging law last year that was a handout to the ICT Minister's company) is just absurd. Most of the political activists trying to access content online probably get stuck buffering forever and eventually give up and go home before they can get fired up and hold a rally.

Then again, if the place worked coherently and efficiently it'd be like home and I wouldn't want to live here. Sabai sabai.

[Plus]

Techinically it's not feasible to sue for every website out there, it's easier to simply block clearly offensive material.

Yes, it's easier for those with a weak mind.

Technically it is possible to sue every every site out there. Don't excuse weak minded measures with weak arguments. It's just silly.

All forms of censorship are meant for protection of those with weak minds, and there are plenty of those in any society, Thailand is no exception, only the subject is different.

Technically it's not possible to sue websites hosted overseas, Thai courts have no jurisdiction there. Not to mention that setting out a new site can be done in minutes while settling down one lawsuit would take months if not years.

Huh? You set a website and put up all kinds of stuff there, the govt bans it. It doesn't actively try to sue the hel_l out of you. You got your point of view, keep it to yourself, don't publish it for the whole world to see and they leave you alone.

It has nothing to do with visitors at all.

>>>

I stress again that freedom to insult others is not a god given right, and so is freedom to spread propaganda. Even governments understand that and try to cover their tracks, and get thrashed when caught. Why should the others have unrestricted right to spread their own sort of propaganda?

It restricts peoples freedom to view, argue and talk about their chosen topic. Of course it has something to do with visitors. And peoples right to express themselves as they see fit on and in their private property.

Websites are not visitors' private property. If the govt shut down Santika in time, would you argue it violated your rights as a customer to drink and dance there?

I assume you meant to say "neither is freedom to spread propaganda"? Two or more sides each putting their case their own way ...

If they want to argue their case they should do it via legitimate channels in a polite and respectful manner, face to face.

Posting insults on underground sites is not going to advance their cause in any way, only recruit unsuspecting "public" on their side so that when they eventually do come out they'll show the force of numbers and not force of arguments.

Similar to what Thaksin does now - he can't win in courts so he asks the reds to show "people power" instead.

He also uses the argument that truth doesn't exist and only might makes it right, in this case who's got more fans. Everything else is just "propaganda", there's no law, only money, status and "democratic mandate".

[Steve2UK]

<snip>

All forms of censorship are meant for protection of those with weak minds.

Patently not true about all - arguably true about some. A lot of censorship is specifically/solely intended to "protect" others' interests (i.e. not those of the readership/audience) and to conceal secrets.

<snip>

Websites are not visitors' private property. If the govt shut down Santika in time, would you argue it violated your rights as a customer to drink and dance there?

What does the first sentence even mean? The second sentence is a ridiculous and spurious comparison.

<snip>

If they want to argue their case they should do it via legitimate channels in a polite and respectful manner, face to face.

"Face to face" ? So, do you now include ThaiVisa in that? Define what you regard as being "legitimate channels".

<snip>

[Plus]

Patently not true about all - arguably true about some. A lot of censorship is specifically/solely intended to "protect" others' interests (i.e. not those of the readership/audience) and to conceal secrets.

I was talking about societies censoring themselves openly and legally, not runaway dictators/corporations secretly protecting their turf.

Children are protected from smut and/or smoking/drinking advertising - same principle, they have weak minds that need to be protected.

>>>

"Websites are not visitors' private property." - that means it's ridiculous to talk about violating visitors rights when websites are banned. The message is to the owners - keep your views to yourself, don't publish them, not to website visitors.

>>>

Define what you regard as being "legitimate channels".

If you think you have a valid academic point of view that needs to be shared and discussed and refined - there are academic chanells for that, things like Thai studies conference, things like academic publications, or ever closed discussion groups on the Net.

If your goal is to thrown insults around, then there are no legitimate channels for that in this country and I don't see why there should be.

>>>

There's a story of Korean blogger who predicted a lot of recent economic developments a few days before they actually happened, like Lehman Brothers collapse or Korean currency movements. He was arrested and thrown in jail for spreading "false rumors". That's censorhip for you, not blocking offensive websites.

[henryalleman]

Not saying that the US isn't trying to do the same fascist steps as the EU and outlaw for instance access to foreign gambling sites, but we aren't there yet.

What have outlaw access to foreign gambling sites to do with "Free Speech"

It's a censorship at its first step. (Under what right does foreign gambling sites get blocked? Surely my right to choose venue to waste my money at is my own choosing? Land of the free and all...)

And soon after the first step is taken the expansion of the censorship becomes so much easier.

In my home-country the practically enforced a censorship-list with all ISPs (threatening ISPs with 'new laws and regulations' to make them comply with 'voluntary' accept each update of the list without questions. The list is 'secret' and not allowed to be published so there is a direct lack of overview. And several mistakes have been made already*) with the aim to 'stop access to CP. They promised this would be the only use. Not much later the expanded the list to include 'foreign escort service sites', hentai-sites (cartoons!) and other things, not even illegal INSIDE the country. And now they will expand it more...

How does one appeal a blacklisting of a site only noted on a secret list you cannot gain access to? And done so without motivation or need for one.

This is where we are heading. Socialist elements Europe loves it. Fascist elements of Europe loves it. Ultra-conservative elements of Europe loves it. Enough for anyone to realize something is wrong.

(*: One site that was, erroneously, banned for over a year in my home country: http://koreabonsai.com/ )

I don't know your home country, but I'm a citizen from Belgium and I suppose this is within the EU. So I took the effort to Google and typed "Gambling on line" I get a few thousand hits from gambling sites worldwide.

I did the same for escort services, Hentai cartoons, all had a thousands of hits, also worldwide.

I did believe when you said that where blocked in Europe, I learned my lesson that you are not well informed or just make some wild accusations.

So I can only regard your following statement as just ranting without any reliability.

This is where we are heading. Socialist elements Europe loves it. Fascist elements of Europe loves it. Ultra-conservative elements of Europe loves it. Enough for anyone to realize something is wrong.

Further more I advise you to open the next link, maybe it can prevent you to write more stupidity's in the future.

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554

so you can see the first 10 in the ranking of countries with the highest press freedom and free speech are all European countries.

[TAWP]

Not saying that the US isn't trying to do the same fascist steps as the EU and outlaw for instance access to foreign gambling sites, but we aren't there yet.

What have outlaw access to foreign gambling sites to do with "Free Speech"

It's a censorship at its first step. (Under what right does foreign gambling sites get blocked? Surely my right to choose venue to waste my money at is my own choosing? Land of the free and all...)

And soon after the first step is taken the expansion of the censorship becomes so much easier.

In my home-country the practically enforced a censorship-list with all ISPs (threatening ISPs with 'new laws and regulations' to make them comply with 'voluntary' accept each update of the list without questions. The list is 'secret' and not allowed to be published so there is a direct lack of overview. And several mistakes have been made already*) with the aim to 'stop access to CP. They promised this would be the only use. Not much later the expanded the list to include 'foreign escort service sites', hentai-sites (cartoons!) and other things, not even illegal INSIDE the country. And now they will expand it more...

How does one appeal a blacklisting of a site only noted on a secret list you cannot gain access to? And done so without motivation or need for one.

This is where we are heading. Socialist elements Europe loves it. Fascist elements of Europe loves it. Ultra-conservative elements of Europe loves it. Enough for anyone to realize something is wrong.

(*: One site that was, erroneously, banned for over a year in my home country: http://koreabonsai.com/ )

I don't know your home country, but I'm a citizen from Belgium and I suppose this is within the EU. So I took the effort to Google and typed "Gambling on line" I get a few thousand hits from gambling sites worldwide.

I did the same for escort services, Hentai cartoons, all had a thousands of hits, also worldwide.

I did believe when you said that where blocked in Europe, I learned my lesson that you are not well informed or just make some wild accusations.

So I can only regard your following statement as just ranting without any reliability.

This is where we are heading. Socialist elements Europe loves it. Fascist elements of Europe loves it. Ultra-conservative elements of Europe loves it. Enough for anyone to realize something is wrong.

Further more I advise you to open the next link, maybe it can prevent you to write more stupidity's in the future.

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554

so you can see the first 10 in the ranking of countries with the highest press freedom and free speech are all European countries.

What on earth are you on about?

Unless you live in my home-country, surprise, the blocking won affect you...

Read my post again and notice what I bold'ed.

My reference to 'EU' in the previous post was on an overall scale, not each and every country, as there is still not a final decision on outlawing foreign gambling sites on an EU-level, only several countries are doing it themselfs.

See here for instance: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number12/dutch-ruling-gambling

Sorry for the confusement, didn't know I had to fully qualify each word written at all times, when the general point wasn't EU and Gambling, but censorship in Thailand.

Edited January 26, 2009 by TAWP