Information Minister Vowed: Priority To Block Websites Insulting Monarchy

[londonthai]

just in case I have missed a discussion on this subject, but better later than never.

the new technology minister Suwanchawee "has vowed to make it a priority to block websites insulting the monarchy"

29.12.2009

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/econom...-rogue-websites

[mrtoad]

just in case I have missed a discussion on this subject, but better later than never.

the new technology minister Suwanchawee "has vowed to make it a priority to block websites insulting the monarchy"

29.12.2009

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/econom...-rogue-websites

No surprise there, shame we can't discuss it.

[Kf6vci]

The Economist is now a rogue website? Thousands of websites would need to be blocked as certain news articles are re-posted all over the web. To quote the bible, he who searches may find.

[JetsetBkk]

There was a report on Thai TV news last night that stated "2,300 sites blocked in 2008" with a video of a room full of CRT monitors - presumably connected to the Internet - being operated by (mostly) women.

[sriracha john]

meanwhile...

Uproar in Australia over plan to block Web sites

SYDNEY, Australia - A proposed Internet filter dubbed the "Great Aussie Firewall" is promising to make Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among democratic countries.

Consumers, civil-rights activists, engineers, Internet providers and politicians from opposition parties are among the critics of a mandatory Internet filter that would block at least 1,300 Web sites prohibited by the government.

Associated Press / 2008-12-26

[Gravelrash]

meanwhile...

Uproar in Australia over plan to block Web sites

SYDNEY, Australia - A proposed Internet filter dubbed the "Great Aussie Firewall" is promising to make Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among democratic countries.

Consumers, civil-rights activists, engineers, Internet providers and politicians from opposition parties are among the critics of a mandatory Internet filter that would block at least 1,300 Web sites prohibited by the government.

Associated Press / 2008-12-26

Because it was in the small print on the new government's election platform, the dimwit Minister is claiming to have a mandate to introduce this nonsense. There is a protest group setup already fighting it. It will probably get installed, then the outrage and technical problems will cause it to be removed and the Minister quietly reassigned to counting kangaroos in some desolate part of the outback. It would be nice if his Thai counterpart could join him. Seems he has little sense for a long term career in politics.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Gravelrash

[dave9988]

just in case I have missed a discussion on this subject, but better later than never.

the new technology minister Suwanchawee "has vowed to make it a priority to block websites insulting the monarchy"

29.12.2009

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/econom...-rogue-websites

abhisit stated that this was also his number 1 priority for the country, that is, protecting the monarchy.

[dave9988]

The Economist is now a rogue website? Thousands of websites would need to be blocked as certain news articles are re-posted all over the web. To quote the bible, he who searches may find.

If you stay in Thailand you will not understand why The Economist is a rogue website because the contents have been edited. If you are outside Thailand you will definitely understand why The Economist will be blocked.

[DP25]

I just wish they would stop censoring Camfrog.

[Super Hans]

There was a report on Thai TV news last night that stated "2,300 sites blocked in 2008" with a video of a room full of CRT monitors - presumably connected to the Internet - being operated by (mostly) women.

I'm curious as to why they're employing mainly women. Cheaper? Less drunk? More productive? Easier to control?

[SomNamNah]

http://truehits.net/stat.php?login=thaivisa

what do these stats mean from the bottom of the forum:

คนที่เข้า www.thaivisa.com แล้วไปเว็บไหนต่อ (จาก 174 เพจวิว)

1)mfa.go.th 8.62% - Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Thailand

2)nationmultimedia.com 8.05%

3)bangkokpost.com 7.47%

4)tourism.go.th 5.75%

5)thaisecondhand.com

probably a 24/7 task for one of these 'intelligence officers' to watch Thai Visa! haha!

Edited December 31, 2008 by SomNamNah

[britmaveric]

Guess youtube will be gone again.

[torrenova]

It is such a backward step. Do they not have schools here that teach you that the best way to diffuse a situation is to ignore it. Confrontation, such as blocking websites, makes the country appear backward and often only serves to highlight items of news which most people would otherwise never have heard of. Certainly that was the case for me with the last round of "missing pages".

Do you think they will block discussion of our missing lawyer Somchai ?

[sriracha john]

meanwhile...

Uproar in Australia over plan to block Web sites

SYDNEY, Australia - A proposed Internet filter dubbed the "Great Aussie Firewall" is promising to make Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among democratic countries.

Consumers, civil-rights activists, engineers, Internet providers and politicians from opposition parties are among the critics of a mandatory Internet filter that would block at least 1,300 Web sites prohibited by the government.

Associated Press / 2008-12-26

Because it was in the small print on the new government's election platform, the dimwit Minister is claiming to have a mandate to introduce this nonsense. There is a protest group setup already fighting it. It will probably get installed, then the outrage and technical problems will cause it to be removed and the Minister quietly reassigned to counting kangaroos in some desolate part of the outback. It would be nice if his Thai counterpart could join him. Seems he has little sense for a long term career in politics.

It's interesting that the targeted blocking by Australia is for sites that have nothing to do with lese majeste and thus in that regard it seems like the stated reasons are far more tenuous than Thailand's targeting and consequently are much more in line with what what people are complaining about.

[OlRedEyes]

meanwhile...

Uproar in Australia over plan to block Web sites

SYDNEY, Australia - A proposed Internet filter dubbed the "Great Aussie Firewall" is promising to make Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among democratic countries.

Consumers, civil-rights activists, engineers, Internet providers and politicians from opposition parties are among the critics of a mandatory Internet filter that would block at least 1,300 Web sites prohibited by the government.

Associated Press / 2008-12-26

Because it was in the small print on the new government's election platform, the dimwit Minister is claiming to have a mandate to introduce this nonsense. There is a protest group setup already fighting it. It will probably get installed, then the outrage and technical problems will cause it to be removed and the Minister quietly reassigned to counting kangaroos in some desolate part of the outback. It would be nice if his Thai counterpart could join him. Seems he has little sense for a long term career in politics.

It's interesting that the targeted blocking by Australia is for sites that have nothing to do with lese majeste and thus in that regard it seems like the stated reasons are far more tenuous than Thailand's targeting and consequently are much more in line with what what people are complaining about.

It is MOST interesting that a poster who seems to spend an inordinate amount of time bringing us the news, seems to defend, and probably condone, censorship of ANY kind.

But then, it's also been noted that your 'news' postings are 'enhanced' to bring home your personal message. Propaganda?

Edited January 1, 2009 by OlRedEyes

[sriracha john]

meanwhile...

Uproar in Australia over plan to block Web sites

SYDNEY, Australia - A proposed Internet filter dubbed the "Great Aussie Firewall" is promising to make Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among democratic countries.

Consumers, civil-rights activists, engineers, Internet providers and politicians from opposition parties are among the critics of a mandatory Internet filter that would block at least 1,300 Web sites prohibited by the government.

Associated Press / 2008-12-26

Because it was in the small print on the new government's election platform, the dimwit Minister is claiming to have a mandate to introduce this nonsense. There is a protest group setup already fighting it. It will probably get installed, then the outrage and technical problems will cause it to be removed and the Minister quietly reassigned to counting kangaroos in some desolate part of the outback. It would be nice if his Thai counterpart could join him. Seems he has little sense for a long term career in politics.

It's interesting that the targeted blocking by Australia is for sites that have nothing to do with lese majeste and thus in that regard it seems like the stated reasons are far more tenuous than Thailand's targeting and consequently are much more in line with what what people are complaining about.

It is MOST interesting that a poster who seems to spend an inordinate amount of time bringing us the news, seems to defend, and probably condone, censorship of ANY kind.

But then, it's also been noted that your 'news' postings are 'enhanced' to bring home your personal message. Propaganda?

It is the pinnacle of interest that a poster would make unfounded and untrue accusations against someone who is interested in seeing examples of previous posts whereby that someone condones censorship.

I'd be interested as well in seeing examples of news posts that are "enhanced" (whatever that is attempting to imply). Flaming?

Edited January 1, 2009 by sriracha john

[OlRedEyes]

Not flaming SJ. You are well aware of a recent thread where you added old images to a new story to create bias.

Ignoring previous posts on the same subject, just look back to your quoted reply to Gravelrash's post. It is apologetic of censorship in Thailand. And it is far from being an isolated case.

This is your right. You do not profess to be a journalist. Board members should however be aware that what you are posting is coming from a biased viewpoint, not - as I stupidly assumed for so long - to fulfill a need for BM's to be informed of news.

Edited January 1, 2009 by OlRedEyes

[sriracha john]

Not flaming SJ. You are well aware of a recent thread where you added old images to a new story to create bias.

Ignoring previous posts on the same subject, just look back to your quoted reply to Gravelrash's post. It is apologetic of censorship in Thailand. And it is far from isolated.

So you thought that the UDD's daring challenge for MP's to walk through a gauntlet of protesters to enter Parliament was reasonable?

Posting a photo that reflects the absurdity of their statements is hardly bias... it's just pointing out the reality of their insanity.

To point out that other places are also wrong for doing the same thing that Thailand is doing wrong is an apologetic stance for Thailand? Logic?

Any other false examples of my defending censorship you care to point out?

[OlRedEyes]

This is your right. You do not profess to be a journalist. Board members should however be aware that what you are posting is coming from a biased viewpoint, not - as I stupidly assumed for so long - to fulfill a need for BM's to be informed of news.

[sriracha john]

This is your right. You do not profess to be a journalist. Board members should however be aware that what you are posting is coming from a biased viewpoint, not - as I stupidly assumed for so long - to fulfill a need for BM's to be informed of news.

I have a personal viewpoint. That is something that every single member of this forum possesses and is something that everyone is free to present in compliance with forum rules. Every member posting news is exactly the same. You can call it bias if you choose, or... you can just call it a personal opinion. If being a human and not being a robotic newsfeed has disappointed you, then... sorry.

[Roadman]

Moving past the bitch fight

Blocking sites insulting the monarchy? The truth is blocking sites where any discussion on the Monarchy is occurring.

[mrtoad]

Moving past the bitch fight

Blocking sites insulting the monarchy? The truth is blocking sites where any discussion on the Monarchy is occurring.

Which would mean that we can't discuss this topic in reality.

[dominique355]

We discuss only the discussion, not the topic itself.

In its anticipatory obedience, any discussion about the topic would cause the moderators to close the topic and even delete the posts.

It's kind of hard and difficult to understand for any "farang" (or at least for me) that we cannot discuss a specific topic, not even in a civilized way.

[Bangyai]

Moving past the bitch fight

Blocking sites insulting the monarchy? The truth is blocking sites where any discussion on the Monarchy is occurring.

This has been discussed on another thread but just in case anyone missed it here is a link to what prachatai discovered when it checked out sites alleged by the democrats to have LM content :

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=655

Seems that almost none of the sites in question had LM content but were critical of the Democrats. So it looks like this is being pushed to silence anyone critical of the govournment.

[cmsally]

Moving past the bitch fight

Blocking sites insulting the monarchy? The truth is blocking sites where any discussion on the Monarchy is occurring.

This has been discussed on another thread but just in case anyone missed it here is a link to what prachatai discovered when it checked out sites alleged by the democrats to have LM content :

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=655

Seems that almost none of the sites in question had LM content but were critical of the Democrats. So it looks like this is being pushed to silence anyone critical of the govournment.

There is of course a logical deduction that can made from this - a bit like adding 2 + 2

[Bangyai]

Moving past the bitch fight

Blocking sites insulting the monarchy? The truth is blocking sites where any discussion on the Monarchy is occurring.

This has been discussed on another thread but just in case anyone missed it here is a link to what prachatai discovered when it checked out sites alleged by the democrats to have LM content :

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=655

Seems that almost none of the sites in question had LM content but were critical of the Democrats. So it looks like this is being pushed to silence anyone critical of the govournment.

There is of course a logical deduction that can made from this - a bit like adding 2 + 2

More from prachatai on the same theme :

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=921

It does not seem too paranoid to suppose that if one of these 800 battalion commanders with decent English were to read some of the posts on TV they might not be amused about quiet a lot of things over and above LM. Hmmm.... has anything ever been said that might offend General Anupong for instance ?

[cmsally]

I must admit , looking at madam minister's [Ranongrak Suwanchawee] history, with close ties to TRT and then the switch to the Democrats even after being in Samak's govt; I can't help wondering if her debt situation is still as it is stated here. Or whether she has miraculously elevated those figures into the "black".

5 poorest MPs

Maybe she has "seen the light" to financial salvation and is "preaching the gospel" accordingly.

Ranongrak Suwanchawee being the new ICT minister and thus in charge of internet & censorship.

Edited January 2, 2009 by cmsally

[jeffer]

Fascinating opinion article by Wassana nanuam in The Bangkok Post on New Years Day. Maybe soon we will be welcoming new Thai Visa member Kuhn 6080 Ad Hoc Unit...