Thailand To Build A Firewall To Block 'offensive' Websites

[Plus]

I don't give a rats *ss what you think about the content. It's really without value

There you go - no loss if it gets banned.

Open the door to 'taste police' and you open up a very bad can of worms.

So it's about potential for abuse? Well, they need a transparent and fair system with easily understood rules and opportunities for appeal to deal with that, that's all.

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

Nothing is going wrong with Thailand, look at the PTP pathetic attempts to be an opposition - they really have nothing to complain about. Democrats are pumping money in villages, introducing taxes on super rich, distributing land to the poor.

There's no sign of ideological conflicts of any kind at all. It was Thaksin created boogey man all alone. Sad that lots of people fell for it.

[TAWP]

I don't give a rats *ss what you think about the content. It's really without value

There you go - no loss if it gets banned.

W-T-F?

No loss if it gets banned based on what? Your inability to what I was referring to above as lacking value?

Open the door to 'taste police' and you open up a very bad can of worms.

So it's about potential for abuse? Well, they need a transparent and fair system with easily understood rules and opportunities for appeal to deal with that, that's all.

There can never be a fair and transparent system when it comes to taste. It's like trying to argue which dishes of food that should be allowed and which should be banned for being disgusting.

Can you even comprehend the problem with this setup?

[jasreeve17]

Folks arguing for more censorship are worrying types.

Any group that tries to censor content to the masses in an attempt to benfit their group are dangerous. This whole area of censorship is a disgrace, I can't understand how any sane person would attempt to defend it...

[Bangyai]

And on the subject of crackdowns , the govournment has now decided to have a go at illegal radio stations as well. Many of these illegal stations are....not surprisingly, in the north with Chiang Mai and Lamphun being mentioned in particular.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/13...-radio-stations

According to the article the govournment will be unbiased in the crackdown. It remains to be seen whether their idea of unbiased is the same as everyone elses

[sriracha john]

Are you saying then that Chiang Mai has a propensity for participating in illegal activities?

If these radio stations are operating illegally, eg. without a license, then I think efforts to have them shut down would occur in any other country as well.

Perhaps that is what the government will use to determine if they will be shut down or not and the "unbias" part comes into play as to whether they are illegally operating or not.

Edited January 29, 2009 by sriracha john

[Jai Dee]

And on the subject of crackdowns , the govournment has now decided to have a go at illegal radio stations as well. Many of these illegal stations are....not surprisingly, in the north with Chiang Mai and Lamphun being mentioned in particular.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/13...-radio-stations

According to the article the govournment will be unbiased in the crackdown. It remains to be seen whether their idea of unbiased is the same as everyone elses

This story continues in this thread.

[Plus]

W-T-F?

No loss if it gets banned based on what? Your inability to what I was referring to above as lacking value?

If you don't see any value in content, what's the loss if it gets banned?

Any group that tries to censor content to the masses..

The whole education system censors what children learn about the world, most powerful people in the media are editors who do nothing else but censor stuff submitted by journalists, moderators of Thaivisa are on a 24/7 lookout for posts to cut

People check their ideas and opinions against their peers all the time, it's a natural process in a society.

In case of banned websites, the ones that I saw at least, they are just like flames on discussion boards, need to be deleted to maintain civil and polite atmosphere.

There's no freedom to insult, and I don't think there should be.

[JoeThePoster]

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.

The Economist worldwide circulation 2008 = 1,337,184 copies

Thailand = 6,528 copies (Asia edition)

[TAWP]

W-T-F?

No loss if it gets banned based on what? Your inability to what I was referring to above as lacking value?

If you don't see any value in content, what's the loss if it gets banned?

Ehh...you really DO read posts as the Devil reads the bible.

I clearly pointed to the fact that I found YOUR opinion/taste to be lacking value.

Not the websites.

As that would mean we would have to argue each and every one of the blocked ones and it would probably be against the rules of this site anyway.

[Plus]

I don't see the value of those sites, you don't see the value of those sites, people who check them out don't see their value, they get blocked. It's not too difficult to spot offensive and insulting comments.

Is the process of determining what gets blocked and what not transparent? Not at the moment. Do they have clear cut rules? I'm pretty sure they do, they read the content, compare it to similar sites, and make a decision. Perhaps these rules should be made available to the general publis, and there definitely should be a venue for an appeal. Apart from that - I don't see any alleged "thought control", just "moderating" the Internet, essentially the same job as mods on Thaivisa.

Oh, and I don't understand what this means: "Your inability to what I was referring to above as lacking value?"

Edited January 29, 2009 by Plus

[Steve2UK]

W-T-F?

No loss if it gets banned based on what? Your inability to what I was referring to above as lacking value?

If you don't see any value in content, what's the loss if it gets banned?

Any group that tries to censor content to the masses..

The whole education system censors what children learn about the world, most powerful people in the media are editors who do nothing else but censor stuff submitted by journalists, moderators of Thaivisa are on a 24/7 lookout for posts to cut

People check their ideas and opinions against their peers all the time, it's a natural process in a society.

In case of banned websites, the ones that I saw at least, they are just like flames on discussion boards, need to be deleted to maintain civil and polite atmosphere.

There's no freedom to insult, and I don't think there should be.

Plus, earlier in this thread I said in response to another of your posts that "I'm happy to admit it's beyond me to join up the dots of this stuff." I should, more accurately, have said "beyond me to join up the ever moving dots of this stuff". You make self-evidently wrong sweeping statements over and over again - then, when someone picks you up on them, you switch it to "I didn't mean all - only the ones that are xyz" or "we're only talking about x that only does y" (obviously I'm paraphrasing) - which is way less than you asserted in the first place. Now we've got "editors who do nothing else but censor stuff submitted by journalists"............ like they don't assign journalists to stories, just for example. Small point, sure - but 100% typical of the more significant sweeping statements you're so free with. This is not nit-picking.

Combine this habit with well-known seamless blending of "fact" with your speculation - and really.......... who can tell what part of your postings to take at face value? It really just gets too tedious to keep picking you up on the significant....... what shall we call them?...... "mis-spoke's" to find out several posts later (if ever) what you "really meant to say".

TAWP's point about the devil's reading of the Bible is IMO very accurate - and I would add what looks like an inability to digest anything much that doesn't dovetail with your pre-conceived views. In amongst it all, you frequently make good, well-informed and interesting points (interesting whether I agree with them or not) - but I think all of us reach a limit of just not being willing to bother sorting the wheat from so much chaff.

Believe it or not - I mean the above to be constructive.

[Plus]

Now we've got "editors who do nothing else but censor stuff submitted by journalists"............ like they don't assign journalists to stories, just for example. Small point, sure - but 100% typical of the more significant sweeping statements you're so free with.

Ok, the editors do other stuff apart from cropping people's articles. Does that make you happy?

In principle, though, the editors censor everything that appears in their publications and they can be really ruthless.

I mentioned it only to show that some people think censorship doesn't exist outside of Thailand's ban on websites. It's far more widespread than people think and most of the time it's perfectly acceptable and understandable.

As for the rest of your post - I'm not going to comment on my posting style, I think you are very confused about what you really wanted to say, and most if it is not relevant to this particular topic.

[cmsally]

Isn't the whole issue of internet censorship to do with the fact that it is a medium that cannot be controlled by the normal means of censorship, that you find in TV, press etc.

It is a whole new kettle of fish which the Thai est. sees as being "dam_n inconvenient" as it gives the whole picture. Of course the whole spectrum isn't going to be correct, but people do have the freedom of choice to make up their opinion instead of spoon fed propaganda issued by the normal channels.

The powers that be wish to shift the consensus in their favour by cutting out this diverse source of information.

The situation is maybe slightly akin to what you see happening with western financial institutions and the press at present. People are beginning to question what they are being served up and who is at the bottom of the big mess.

[samgrowth]

Isn't the whole issue of internet censorship to do with the fact that it is a medium that cannot be controlled by the normal means of censorship, that you find in TV, press etc.

It is a whole new kettle of fish which the Thai est. sees as being "dam_n inconvenient" as it gives the whole picture. Of course the whole spectrum isn't going to be correct, but people do have the freedom of choice to make up their opinion instead of spoon fed propaganda issued by the normal channels.

The powers that be wish to shift the consensus in their favour by cutting out this diverse source of information.

The situation is maybe slightly akin to what you see happening with western financial institutions and the press at present. People are beginning to question what they are being served up and who is at the bottom of the big mess.

I agree with you.

However, this is Thailand.

Everything must be control for the common good.

And nothing to offend the Royal families.

So that there will be ever lasting peace in this Land of Free (Thailand = Land of Free in Thai translation)

Edited January 29, 2009 by samgrowth

[Priceless]

I don't see the value of those sites, you don't see the value of those sites, people who check them out don't see their value, they get blocked. It's not too difficult to spot offensive and insulting comments.Is the process of determining what gets blocked and what not transparent? Not at the moment. Do they have clear cut rules? I'm pretty sure they do, they read the content, compare it to similar sites, and make a decision. Perhaps these rules should be made available to the general publis, and there definitely should be a venue for an appeal. Apart from that - I don't see any alleged "thought control", just "moderating" the Internet, essentially the same job as mods on Thaivisa.

Oh, and I don't understand what this means: "Your inability to what I was referring to above as lacking value?"

"Offensive" and "insulting" are subjective concepts and as such cannot be defined. You are right in that you probably have no problem in spotting comments that are "offensive and insulting" to you, but you have no way of knowing whether they are to other people.

This is one of the inherent problems with censorship, what is or is not acceptable varies between people, locations, cultures and over time.

/ Priceless

[cmsally]

Isn't the whole issue of internet censorship to do with the fact that it is a medium that cannot be controlled by the normal means of censorship, that you find in TV, press etc.

It is a whole new kettle of fish which the Thai est. sees as being "dam_n inconvenient" as it gives the whole picture. Of course the whole spectrum isn't going to be correct, but people do have the freedom of choice to make up their opinion instead of spoon fed propaganda issued by the normal channels.

The powers that be wish to shift the consensus in their favour by cutting out this diverse source of information.

The situation is maybe slightly akin to what you see happening with western financial institutions and the press at present. People are beginning to question what they are being served up and who is at the bottom of the big mess.

I agree with you.

However, this is Thailand.

Everything must be control for the common good.

And nothing to offend the Royal families.

So that there will be ever lasting peace in this Land of Free (Thailand = Land of Free in Thai translation)

Ah yes the "common" good and everlasting harmony. Do we all take our cue to hold hands and walk off into the sunset right now.

Sorry excuse me, I feel a "Hello Kitty" moment coming on. Brief deviation from reality, broadcasting back to normal shortly.

[Plus]

"Offensive" and "insulting" are subjective concepts and as such cannot be defined. You are right in that you probably have no problem in spotting comments that are "offensive and insulting" to you, but you have no way of knowing whether they are to other people.

This is one of the inherent problems with censorship, what is or is not acceptable varies between people, locations, cultures and over time.

I think there's a broad agreement on this particular subject of censorship and what is considered insulting, offensive, or even simply disrespectful.

Isn't the whole issue of internet censorship to do with the fact that it is a medium that cannot be controlled by the normal means of censorship, that you find in TV, press etc.

Exactly. Traditional media outlets have laws, licenses, editors, assossiations, committees , watchdogs and what not to control its content to ensure that publishers bear responsibility. I don't see the reason why the Internet should be absolutely free. It's just a different medium.

I repeat that so far Thailand does a decent job - simply blocking inapproprate content. They give a lot of slack already - if one was caught distributing some of that content in printed form he'd be lynched on the spot, long before police cares to invoke LM laws.

I venture to say that there's a broad support for blocking these websites in a Thai society, just like there's support for blocking porn, perhaps even more. It's definitely not just my personal opinion.

[Steve2UK]

I think you are very confused about what you really wanted to say

[TAWP]

Exactly. Traditional media outlets have laws, licenses, editors, assossiations, committees , watchdogs and what not to control its content to ensure that publishers bear responsibility. I don't see the reason why the Internet should be absolutely free. It's just a different medium.

Every server out there has someone responsible too. Someone that can be sued if needed to. The fear isn't to find someone responsible for the content, the fear is that arcane laws doesn't fly well in most countries.

I repeat that so far Thailand does a decent job - simply blocking inapproprate content. They give a lot of slack already - if one was caught distributing some of that content in printed form he'd be lynched on the spot, long before police cares to invoke LM laws.

I venture to say that there's a broad support for blocking these websites in a Thai society, just like there's support for blocking porn, perhaps even more. It's definitely not just my personal opinion.

Simply depriving their citizens of a fair en open debate. Which no doubt has lead to some of the sites having a more pointed language than it would during a proper debate. But if you really think that;

- A properly and kind formulated debate-post regarding the topic wouldn't be subject to the same censorship that these other sites and pages

- A poster doing so under his own name and traveling/living in Thailand wouldn't get arrested for it, even if the site was previously banned/blocked

then I again ask you, are you willing to test your theory?

It will only cost you up to 15 years.

[Plus]

Every server out there has someone responsible too. Someone that can be sued if needed to. The fear isn't to find someone responsible for the content, the fear is that arcane laws doesn't fly well in most countries.

Come on, what does Thai government do about publications that are deemed LM here? Ban them from being distributed inside the country. Handley's book, Anna and the King movie - they didn't sure the writers or producers, they don't have jurisdiction, or intention for doing so.

And they follow exactly the same procedures with Internet offenders - block but don't sue.

So far Internet censorship is a lot more lax than the usual censorship employed here in regards to other forms of media.

This thread is NOT about the merits of the LM law itself, it's about its application on the Internet.

Simply depriving their citizens of a fair en open debate.

There's debate and there's insults. There are plenty of sites available where people are engaged in debates and exchange of opinions, some a very critical, but not insulting.

From my very first contribution to this topic I said that the sites I had a chance to see were simply offensive.

From the very beginning I said that freedom to insult is not equal to freedom of speech, at least where Thailand is concerned.

[samgrowth]

Isn't the whole issue of internet censorship to do with the fact that it is a medium that cannot be controlled by the normal means of censorship, that you find in TV, press etc.

It is a whole new kettle of fish which the Thai est. sees as being "dam_n inconvenient" as it gives the whole picture. Of course the whole spectrum isn't going to be correct, but people do have the freedom of choice to make up their opinion instead of spoon fed propaganda issued by the normal channels.

The powers that be wish to shift the consensus in their favour by cutting out this diverse source of information.

The situation is maybe slightly akin to what you see happening with western financial institutions and the press at present. People are beginning to question what they are being served up and who is at the bottom of the big mess.

I agree with you.

However, this is Thailand.

Everything must be control for the common good.

And nothing to offend the Royal families.

So that there will be ever lasting peace in this Land of Free (Thailand = Land of Free in Thai translation)

Ah yes the "common" good and everlasting harmony. Do we all take our cue to hold hands and walk off into the sunset right now.

Sorry excuse me, I feel a "Hello Kitty" moment coming on. Brief deviation from reality, broadcasting back to normal shortly.

Like if you remains faithful to your wife, it is OK once a while have a brief deviation and sleep with some Pattaya boys.

[cmsally]

Exactly. Traditional media outlets have laws, licenses, editors, assossiations, committees , watchdogs and what not to control its content to ensure that publishers bear responsibility. I don't see the reason why the Internet should be absolutely free. It's just a different medium.

Every server out there has someone responsible too. Someone that can be sued if needed to. The fear isn't to find someone responsible for the content, the fear is that arcane laws doesn't fly well in most countries.

I repeat that so far Thailand does a decent job - simply blocking inapproprate content. They give a lot of slack already - if one was caught distributing some of that content in printed form he'd be lynched on the spot, long before police cares to invoke LM laws.

I venture to say that there's a broad support for blocking these websites in a Thai society, just like there's support for blocking porn, perhaps even more. It's definitely not just my personal opinion.

Simply depriving their citizens of a fair en open debate. Which no doubt has lead to some of the sites having a more pointed language than it would during a proper debate. But if you really think that;

- A properly and kind formulated debate-post regarding the topic wouldn't be subject to the same censorship that these other sites and pages

- A poster doing so under his own name and traveling/living in Thailand wouldn't get arrested for it, even if the site was previously banned/blocked

then I again ask you, are you willing to test your theory?

It will only cost you up to 15 years.

Absolutely the laws forbid debate. There is no debate allowed about cases of where the laws have been broken.

We are not talking about insults we are talking about debate. Debates can be inherently critical; criticism in this country is very often taken as an insult. They are inextricably interwoven.

[TAWP]

There's debate and there's insults. There are plenty of sites available where people are engaged in debates and exchange of opinions, some a very critical, but not insulting.

Since you cut and pasted what to reply to of my post...

Not all sites blocked will be 'insulting' ones. Just wait until this year ends and we shall see what the total count ends at.

And you again jumped over my offer to test your theory about insults vs debate would be the crucial point.

If you are not up to it you only have to say No, instead of trying to sneak around it by 'accidentally' cut it out of every reply.

Edited January 30, 2009 by TAWP

[Steve2UK]

Come on, what does Thai government do about publications that are deemed LM here? Ban them from being distributed inside the country. Handley's book, Anna and the King movie - they didn't sure the writers or producers, they don't have jurisdiction, or intention for doing so.

And they follow exactly the same procedures with Internet offenders - block but don't sue.

So far Internet censorship is a lot more lax than the usual censorship employed here in regards to other forms of media.

National security v democracy

Information and Communication Technology Minister Ranongruk Suwunchwee on censorship and the internet

By: Voranai Vanijaka

Published: 1/02/2009 at 12:00 AM

Newspaper section: News

"Then I have a committee look over the case. If they find that there's a case, they submit a report to me. If I agree, then I pass it on to the police, then the police pass it to the prosecutor, and then on to the court. With a court order, we then ban the website. But we no longer just stop there. We want to find the people behind the website and bring them to justice. Otherwise, they'd just create another website."

[my emphasis]

Full article at:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...ersus-democracy

[Langsuan Man]

Classic answers in the article cited above: TIT

Q: So, does that mean the more than 2,300 websites that were banned were all done so by court order, and that the ICT has not preemptively or illegally banned any website?

Yes. But it takes time to get court orders, so we may delete certain content deemed inappropriate before we go through the process.

We do that too. The priority is different. For example, our IT system is even more outdated that Cambodia's. They have 3G, but we still don't! However, our operators already have the technology ... both AIS and DTAC have the capabilities, but we haven't put it to use yet.

Q: What's the delay?

Well, there are issues.

CODE: We haven't figured the best way to screw the consumer yet.

[Plus]

does that mean the more than 2,300 websites that were banned were all done so by court order

I seriously doubt they used court orders to block any of the sites on their long list.

my offer to test your theory ...

Are you out of your mind????? Do you seriously want to me to try insulting the royal institution on the Internet from inside the country to see if they come after me or not?

We want to find the people behind the website and bring them to justice. Otherwise, they'd just create another website.

Maybe that's how the number ballooned to thousands. Suing depends on their capabilities. If it's one or two offensive groups, they can try and go after them, if they have the jurisdiction.

In fact it would be their duty to enforce LM law within Thailand.

[sriracha john]

The very first question was met with a very welcomed answer....

Q: It has been reported that you requested a 500 million baht budget for your crusade against "inappropriate" websites. Is that true? [After all, it only requires one person and 10 minutes work to ban a website.]

A: No, that's not true. The budget request was made in 2551 [2008, by the previous People Power Party government]. I haven't spent one single salueng [penny]. My strategy is to use the holistic approach.

thus putting end to this portion of the thread sub-title:

ICT Ministry to spend up to 500 Million Baht

from the OP:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=2298989

[Steve2UK]

We want to find the people behind the website and bring them to justice. Otherwise, they'd just create another website.

Maybe that's how the number ballooned to thousands. Suing depends on their capabilities. If it's one or two offensive groups, they can try and go after them, if they have the jurisdiction.

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"

[Plus]

Sorry Steve, it just doesn't follow.

[Steve2UK]

Sorry Steve, it just doesn't follow.

This thread will probably go the way of the "Red shirts threaten to blockade Government House on Saturday" one before long and get closed but, before it does, I'll just refer you back to the contradiction (in blue) in Post #205 - which you have still not addressed........ unless it's the fact that the original "block but don't sue" statement has now morphed into "Suing depends on their capabilities. If it's one or two offensive groups, they can try and go after them, if they have the jurisdiction."

That's why "What have the Romans ever done for us?" does follow.