Thailand To Build A Firewall To Block 'offensive' Websites

[TAWP]

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.

Plus, your arguments for censorship is so weak and saddening... and now you put some governments erroneous handling of items in regards to children (and no, you claim they are protected from it, they are not...) as some form of argument for censorship against adults. Is this the old imperialistic English feeling of having to take care of the stupid indigenous people you are expressing? That the population is basically children and needs to be protected against a sensible debate?

Despicable.

And your claim that most of the sites are 'offensive' is just a cheap way out. What is offensive to you might not be to me. Is this really to hard to comprehend?

[Steve2UK]

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.

If anyone out there can see a grain of anything sensible in this - leave alone logical - please let the rest of us know........ I'm happy to admit it's beyond me to join up the dots of this stuff.

Website owners should now keep their views to themselves - have a website but don't say what you think on it?

What's this about "valid academic point of view" suddenly? Are we warping back through time to Arpanet? No discussion outside of "academic channels" - conferences, academic publications (presumably with plenty of footnotes and peer-reviewed?)....... and "closed discussion groups on the Net" ?

Starts to feel rather medieval - discourse only allowed in Latin and only certain people entitled to learn Latin. Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum). Except - we've had the Renaissance and the Reformation since then............

[Journalist]

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.

These are interesting cases. Because it is price sensitive information, spreading malicious rumours about stocks and shares is illegal in many jurisdictions. (Though ironically not falsehoods about exaggerated profits)

Of course, Lehman did collapse. So the rumour was true - as events bore out.

Thaivisa pulled speculation about the CEO of a property company. That was the right thing to do. Would all moderators (or likewise, magazine editors) be as knowledgeable as those on the property sub-forum? Unfortunately media orgs only find that out when something goes pear-shaped and they get a summons! Its not easy to manage.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Journalist

[Plus]

Plus, your arguments for censorship is so weak and saddening... and now you put some governments erroneous handling of items in regards to children (and no, you claim they are protected from it, they are not...) as some form of argument for censorship against adults. Is this the old imperialistic English feeling of having to take care of the stupid indigenous people you are expressing? That the population is basically children and needs to be protected against a sensible debate?

I'm not argying for censorship. I just don't see any other, easy ways to handle this stuff.

EVERY country censors certain topics to take care of the "stupid" people, Thailand is not unique.

Website owners should now keep their views to themselves - have a website but don't say what you think on it?

We are talking about offensive stuff that are clearly illegal in this country in any shape or form. NO, you shoudn't be free to publish them on the Internet just because it's "free". They are not going arresting people like they do in Malaysia, Singapore or Korea anyway. At most they block access to your site from within Thailand, no big deal.

What's this about "valid academic point of view" suddenly?

If these dissidents don't have anything to contribute apart from silly cartoons and low brow insults and rumors it doesn't really come under freedom of speech right but freedom to insult, and you won't have it here. Period.

[TAWP]

You jumped over some segments of the posts...

Btw:

They are not going arresting people like they do in Malaysia, Singapore or Korea anyway. At most they block access to your site from within Thailand, no big deal.

Yes, they will. If any of the owners ever travel here...

Edited January 26, 2009 by TAWP

[Plus]

Well, I don't see the govt doing anything extra for Internet offenders. It would have been a lot worse if they published content of their sites as books or any other printed material.

[TAWP]

Well, I don't see the govt doing anything extra for Internet offenders. It would have been a lot worse if they published content of their sites as books or any other printed material.

Interested in testing this theory of yours?

[Smithson]

EVERY country censors certain topics to take care of the "stupid" people, Thailand is not unique.

Can we have some examples of such censorship from Europe, the UK, US, NZ and Aust?

Edited January 27, 2009 by Smithson

[bangon04]

EVERY country censors certain topics to take care of the "stupid" people, Thailand is not unique.

Can we have some examples of such censorship from Europe, the UK, US, NZ and Aust?

One very obvious example is websites with sexual content - the authorities do not trust the "stupid people" to not access these sites and send their credit card details to them, so they block them or shut them down.

[TAWP]

'Normal' sites with sexual content hasn't been blocked by any [most?] nations in the EU afaik. It might come later.

[henryalleman]

.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.

TAWP: Yesterday, 2009-01-26 13:03:39

There are already too much cowboy stories on TV forum, that's why I reacted.

May I remind you that it was not I who start to go of topic, I only answered to some inaccurate information. And you are doing it again. There was a law suit instigated by the Dutch Lottery against foreign based gambling because they violated the Dutch gambling act. The court ruled that the foreign based gambling websites may not accept a bet from Dutch people. The Gambling websites are not banned in the Netherlands at all, they may only not accept bets from the Dutch at all. So the Dutch government did not block the websites. Laws against foreign gambling websites are implemented worldwide.

In Australia betters risk a fine of 10 000 AUS$ or a 2 years jail sentence. In many countries betting is illegal. I do understand that if you like to gambling you find this all a limitation of your personal freedom, And I'm sure an heroine addict find a ban on drugs feels the same

So it has nothing to do with limitations of free speech, and your conclusions that the socialists are ruling the EU, is again desinformation because in most EU states they are not even in the government. France, Italy, Germany, Spain etc. etc.

BTW the EU is against banning Gambling on line websites

See this website

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/13/eu_online_gambling_probe/

By this I close this subject because indeed

[Pierrot]

EVERY country censors certain topics to take care of the "stupid" people, Thailand is not unique.

If these dissidents don't have anything to contribute apart from silly cartoons and low brow insults and rumors it doesn't really come under freedom of speech right but freedom to insult, and you won't have it here. Period.

As you probably know, again you won't be able to read the last issue of the Economist, a magazine well known for its silly cartoons, low brow insults and rumors, and, as everybody knows, mostly read by "stupid" people ...

[TAWP]

So it has nothing to do with limitations of free speech, and your conclusions that the socialists are ruling the EU, is again desinformation because in most EU states they are not even in the government. France, Italy, Germany, Spain etc. etc.

You are misreading the post. It doesn't say socialists are running Europe, it says the socialist IN Europe (and they are many) like the ideas of censorship. (As do the fascists. As my post says.) I would know, coming from a socialist heaven where they DID enact a police-controlled censorship-scheme under direct threat of legislation if the ISP's didn't 'cooperate'.

And they quickly extended the scope of the censorship from the 'we promise it will only ever be used to filter out CP'.

[sriracha john]

EVERY country censors certain topics to take care of the "stupid" people, Thailand is not unique.

If these dissidents don't have anything to contribute apart from silly cartoons and low brow insults and rumors it doesn't really come under freedom of speech right but freedom to insult, and you won't have it here. Period.

As you probably know, again you won't be able to read the last issue of the Economist, a magazine well known for its silly cartoons, low brow insults and rumors, and, as everybody knows, mostly read by "stupid" people ...

if they stopped writing LM articles, they wouldn't have to worry about their availability on news stands in Thailand.

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

Edited January 27, 2009 by sriracha john

[TAWP]

No-one is questioning IF it is the law...

[Steve2UK]

if they stopped writing LM articles, they wouldn't have to worry about their availability on news stands in Thailand.

Admirable! I guess they should also be sure not to write articles about, say, non-judicial police killings in Brazil, the Russian government going after journalists and whether that includes murdering them, Google playing ball in China, institutional/government corruption and election-rigging just about anywhere........... wow - the list is really endless! Pretty soon they could be assured of not ruffling any feathers on a global basis. What a circulation booster!

And maybe a change of name for the re-launch - how about "The Emasculist"?

As they used to whisper in the former Soviet Union: "There is no Pravda in Izvestia, and there is no Izvestia in Pravda" (or in English "There is no truth in News, and there is no news in Truth.").

Yes, a truly admirable suggestion.........

[sriracha john]

*nevermind

Edited January 27, 2009 by sriracha john

[Plus]

EVERY country censors certain topics to take care of the "stupid" people, Thailand is not unique.

Can we have some examples of such censorship from Europe, the UK, US, NZ and Aust?

I'm not following this kind of stories all around the world.

The US doesn't allow broadacsts of Osama Bin Laden, I mentioned it earlier. They also sued French Yahoo for some Nazi related stuff. It depeneds what is percieved as threat to a society. Be it Nazis, pedophilia, gambling or whatever. There's also a lot of self-censorhip there, if you believe Noam Chomsky.

EVERY country censors certain topics to take care of the "stupid" people, Thailand is not unique.

If these dissidents don't have anything to contribute apart from silly cartoons and low brow insults and rumors it doesn't really come under freedom of speech right but freedom to insult, and you won't have it here. Period.

As you probably know, again you won't be able to read the last issue of the Economist, a magazine well known for its silly cartoons, low brow insults and rumors, and, as everybody knows, mostly read by "stupid" people ...

But the website isn't blocked, is it? Proves my point - Internet offenders have it easy here.

[Pierrot]

All these people who support censorship are like kids who put their hands in front of their eyes. If I don't see it, it doesn't exist. Grow up !

[Plus]

Correction - put hands in front of OTHER people's eyes.

About as old as prostitution.

[TAWP]

The US doesn't allow broadacsts of Osama Bin Laden, I mentioned it earlier.

This isn't true. They asked news-networks not to re-broadcast them in the US out of fear of him saying something that might be true...I mean...fear of him sending encoded messages to embedded terrorist cells.

But sites where his speeches are broadcasted is not blocked. Neither is news-networks that showed them.

[Journalist]

EVERY country censors certain topics to take care of the "stupid" people, Thailand is not unique.

If these dissidents don't have anything to contribute apart from silly cartoons and low brow insults and rumors it doesn't really come under freedom of speech right but freedom to insult, and you won't have it here. Period.

As you probably know, again you won't be able to read the last issue of the Economist, a magazine well known for its silly cartoons, low brow insults and rumors, and, as everybody knows, mostly read by "stupid" people ...

if they stopped writing LM articles, they wouldn't have to worry about their availability on news stands in Thailand.

I doubt the Economist is worried about what Thailand thinks about it - or not being on Bookazine shelves from time to time. Thailand is unlikely to be one of its major markets for distribution.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Journalist

[samgrowth]

We all know that blocking offensive web is just a front. The real and noble intention is to save people (Thai and Farang alike) from going to jail under Thailand's LM law.

Thanks and keep up the good work.

[TAWP]

We all know that blocking offensive web is just a front. The real and noble intention is to save people (Thai and Farang alike) from going to jail under Thailand's LM law.

Thanks and keep up the good work.

Troll-post, but even at that it states the misconception some might have. As visitors would never go to jail in the first place.

[samgrowth]

We all know that blocking offensive web is just a front. The real and noble intention is to save people (Thai and Farang alike) from going to jail under Thailand's LM law.

Thanks and keep up the good work.

Troll-post, but even at that it states the misconception some might have. As visitors would never go to jail in the first place.

Agree that visitors would never go to jail in the first place. However, as visitors see more and more of such web, there is an urged to do sometime, join in the discussion, create own website, etc, which might land them in jail.

[Plus]

They asked news-networks not to re-broadcast them in the US out of fear of him saying something that might be true...I mean...fear of him sending encoded messages to embedded terrorist cells.

But sites where his speeches are broadcasted is not blocked. Neither is news-networks that showed them.

How's that different from suspending an issue of Economist but not blocking their site? Ok, the excuse is different.

"Encoded messages" my ass - as if terrorists can't watch them on the Internet or don't have their own handlers and chain of command.

[TAWP]

They asked news-networks not to re-broadcast them in the US out of fear of him saying something that might be true...I mean...fear of him sending encoded messages to embedded terrorist cells.

But sites where his speeches are broadcasted is not blocked. Neither is news-networks that showed them.

How's that different from suspending an issue of Economist but not blocking their site? Ok, the excuse is different.

"Encoded messages" my ass - as if terrorists can't watch them on the Internet or don't have their own handlers and chain of command.

Uh, what?

Nothing is blocked. So it's a VERY big difference from the government blocking sites, as we have it here.

I would say, what is ALIKE?!

If you want your local tv-station to show the Usama tapes, write to them and ask for it. They are businesses and can choose to broadcast what they want. (Leave their lack of backbone out of this.)

[Plus]

The way the US treats broadcasters of Osama tapes and Thailand treats publishers of "offensive" content is alike.

Actually, afaik, there's no ORDER to suspend this particular issue, it's the same "lack of backbone" on part of the distributor.

In Economist case the perception is that the story and the potential impact is minimal, so the reaction is limited to suspending one issue, apparently not the same as with banned websites.

>>>

Again, I don't think that content of those sites deserves any serious consideration, ie we are not missing much. The downside, the restriction on exchange of ideas, is minimal, there aren't any ideas to exchange. Look at Giles rants on his blog, and he is supposed to be the the academic face of that debate.

If it was for me, he should be banned for insulting the intellegence, not for LM.

[TAWP]

I don't give a rats *ss what you think about the content. It's really without value. Open the door to 'taste police' and you open up a very bad can of worms.

[Pierrot]

All these people who support censorship are like kids who put their hands in front of their eyes. If I don't see it, it doesn't exist. Grow up !

Correction - put hands in front of OTHER people's eyes.

About as old as prostitution.

I stand by what I said, "THEIR EYES". How unpleasant to ear, to read or to watch, the problems discussed by a number of barred web sites are real. They won't go away. It would be more efficient for all parties involved to address them rather than to ignore them.

I don’t know how long the current power will be able to keep Thaksin in the public eye as a convenient scapegoat for everything that goes wrong in Thailand, but one day people will have to learn to leave without him.