Forum Website Owner Gets Suspended Jail Term

[seri thai]

Do you actually mean to say that there is now censorship in Thailand? (gasp!). Geez, so you mean a country run by one man can control the entire police force...that's such an outrageous idea I can't even get my farang head around it.

or vice-versa:

police state n. A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people.

merriam webster: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures

Wikipedia: The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.

(not that I condone malicious pornography)

Edited July 24, 2009 by seri thai

[seri thai]

i suspect i may get flamed for my naivety, but if the powers that be in Thailand are so concerned, why havn't forums such as Pattaya Addicts, Secrets, Pattaya live, Barladies etc been shut down, they all contain 000's of images of thai bar girls in sexual scenes, the vast majority posted without the consent of the said ladies, some of the above sites have different 'levels' that basically allow even more harder images and films of ladies posted by 'trusted' members.

It would be very easy for the authorities to check this as they would simply be able to sign up as members, after you have made so many posts you would be elevated to upper levels where you could view the harder stuff and download it as evidence, many of the girls are named and have the names of the gogo bars etc given, hardly rocket science for any official investigation that has some common sense to it!

but there again i may be being naive.

Some foreign language skills required for this. Sounds like a useful undercover job for Pattaya Boys in Black (cyber crime division)

[seri thai]

Just woke up from a nightmare

Soon you will need a license to purchase a computer.

Within a 30d period you will be under consideration if you get granted Internet access or not!

Maybe off topic and... just a nightmare

"With great power comes great responsibility" Should be stringent checks as with firearms controls especially as some would argue the pen is mightier than the sword in this region.

I imagine an internet licence would require more thorough background checks than a firarms one! With a gun you can hurt a handful. A few dramatic keystrokes could start a revolution!

Be Afraid!

[Plus]

police state n. A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people.

merriam webster: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures

Wikipedia: The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.

It fails to mention the democratic legitimacy of such state.

What if the majority of citizens support it?

This is the question that could be asked regarding Thai LM laws, too.

[seri thai]

I would tend to think based on the length the material was posted and the fact that a complaint was made by the woman in the video that she had approached the website owner and found him uncooperative/absent/unsympathetic and unwilling/unavailable to take the material down, and that's why it became a criminal case against the owner.

Ahhh-Fresh air, who opened the window?

[seri thai]

police state n. A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people.

merriam webster: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures

Wikipedia: The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.

It fails to mention the democratic legitimacy of such state.

What if the majority of citizens support it?

This is the question that could be asked regarding Thai LM laws, too.

A fascinating discussion-but we'd be going off topic, perhaps can discuss elsewhere? Then I'd ask about the effect of education and indoctrination on culture and free-thought. The perils of free-thought, the responsibilities of the state to its people. The rights of man. Eastern and Western philosophical development....My rants are those of a western education coming to grips with an eastern perspective. As are most on this site

[Considered Opinion]

This is shamefull, the person serving time should be the person who posted not the forum people...

Lets see, if I buy paper and a pen, then use those to write a book that breaks Thai law, is it me or the pen and paper manufactures that go to jail????

Also why stop at the forum owner? What about the owner of the ISP that allowed him to upload the images, the computer manufactor that built the computer he used, the camera company of the camera he used, and so on?

Taken to the nth degree, the council who allowed sand to be mined on their beaches, from which the chips were eventually made are the most responsible, since they actually made money from it.

What utter rubbish this whole idea is. At the end of the day, responsibility for what goes up, sits with the poster, however, what stays up, after reasonable complaints are made, is then the responsibility of the site.

[DonTron]

Auch... nud_e pics on the internet!!! Ohh my god!!! Thats HORRIBLE!!!

ahh well... I'm off to buy some hardcore porn DVD's at the local dealer RIGHT IN FRONT OF the Pattaya Police station - anyone wanna join?

[Considered Opinion]

Good to see it is not you George....after all the inappropriate comments on the red/vs yellow news in the news section

Oops ...

Yes, I half expected the original post to include a plea from George to have someone drop him off some cigarettes.

So he didn't call anyone else then?

[zzaa09]

It's bad. The individual freedoms are increasingling threatened.

Perhaps. Or not. Depends where you live and how you want to live. Some communities here are quite independent without the watchful eye of the system.

[leemo]

Public prosecutors charged that the crime took place from October 6 to November 30.

Oddly enough, it took them about 8 weeks to be offended.

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

No it did not take them 2 month to be offended! But the siteowner let this go

on for 2 months. That is the real problem !!!

Glegolo

If an offensive item slips under the forum radar and is not then reported by a board member, 2 months or 2 years become meaningless.

In fact, the longer the rule makers do not act the better it is for their agenda, because as implied, "he had it up for 2 months" sounds more heinous and make our guardians appear more tolerant and reasonable (to the unthinking masses, who are the natural target) than "he had it up for 3 days."

[leemo]

A few thoughts:

I have no sympathy for the rat who posted whatever it was that triggered this latest legal farce, but the principles driving this prosecution are set to develop into a frightening catchall if not stopped early, since they can be more inspiring to control freaks, corrupt, and selective or politically expedient prosecutions than even LM.

The decision to prosecute the website owner, naturally the Thai way, which is to ignore the implications, was at least influenced by him being an easier target than the poster. A doddle to locate him, he had more to lose and would therefore be less likely to put up much of a struggle, and of course the bottom line is fiscal tribute, which a website owner is more likely able to afford than a malicious broken heart. It is easier for the prosecutor to present compelling 'arguments' to a cooperative judge who is 'on the same side' and equally isolated from the realities of the real world. And of course, identifying the source computer proves nothing beyond the offensive post arriving from it, since it may have been used by anyone.

Would anyone care to estimate how many people have compromising pics or movies or embarrassing text or inuendo on the www without their knowledge and consent, or other content which they would rather not have in the public domain? Should each of these individuals have legal rights - and against the website owners?

Then, what % of addresses prefixed with http://www. would be immune to criminal or civil prosecution under these terms? I for one would find it difficult to list anything more adult than Disney-type sites on the entire www that could not be deemed offensive to anyone under any conditions. Oops, poor example, because even Disney has strayed into the crosshairs of our new age pc fundamentalists.

What about archives, both internal and those services that trawl the web to store web content for posterity? Archivers should be responsible to ensure they are gathering and archiving only sterile and purely inoffensive content. Also, the authorities should clamp down on them even more ruthlessly, because forums and websites come and go but a primary purpose of these cyber magpies is to store content that may offend or corrupt even future generations?

A hornet's nest has been disturbed, and consolation for the establishment is that it will never need to validate this farcical prosecution under a credible spotlight, because as everyone in the Kingdom knows the world marches in step with the Thai tune of the moment.

The easy way for little people like us as we approach 1984, is to debate or grumble as our guardians determine what we may or may not see, read, or post. Hey, anyone remember the judge that admonished rape victims to lie back and enjoy it?

Edited July 25, 2009 by leemo

[ozzieovaseas]

Not condoning the act of offensive material being posted on the net but the usual double standards here are staggering...

Ok for the print media to plaster pics of poor victims lying dead in the street,blood pouring from every oriface, without a second thought to the victims rights or that of their families for that matter....eg david carradine

I'd sooner see a demeaning pic of myself on a website rather than be dead and on the front page of the thai rath for all the world to see.

Dont get me wrong, i love this country, but IMHO If Thailand is worried about censorship then it should get its priorities right

[walterego]

I am fairly confident that prior to the police getting involved that someone (perhaps the woman in the now famous and in demand video (links pls!!!) would have complained, objected etc for it to have escalated to this. Perhaps the webhost failed to respond to any request to remove the link. Perhaps they never admin'd their site perhaps perhaps perhaps...

Once again we are left with just headlines and not proper/thorough case details to make judgement.

There are videos all over the internet on both websites and P2P of Thai women/men in sex acts a lot being broadcast without their permision. Yet there is no prosecution because these women will never ever know they are there (or so hopes the site owners anyway) thus never ever raising a compalint.

[Seizhin]

Funny.. The terrorism in South Thailand is never solve but the government are doing all kind of things.. Establishing consumer's right law, creating Cyber laws, and the likes..

[wotaplonker]

Auch... nud_e pics on the internet!!! Ohh my god!!! Thats HORRIBLE!!!

ahh well... I'm off to buy some hardcore porn DVD's at the local dealer RIGHT IN FRONT OF the Pattaya Police station - anyone wanna join?

can you get me some Clara Morgane please?

[sbk]

posts have been deleted. Please do not post in large fonts, all caps as this is considered very poor netiquette and frankly, no one is interested in reading it.

[cdnvic]

Before everyone gets too worked up about the way this is handled in Thailand, if you post pornographic photos of someone without their consent in most western countries, the laws can also be severe. The financial implications are actually much worse as the courts do no impose fines or legal settlements in Thai baht, and your chances of making things better with a little "tea money" is practically zero.

The website owner here is not the victim. There's no shortage of adult content websites featuring Thailand, managed by people who live there who never run afoul of the law, but in this case he posted embarrassing/illegal photos of someone and then ignored requests for it's removal. Had he acted a bit more responsibly there would have been no complaint, and no action taken.

[zzaa09]

Dont get me wrong, i love this country, but IMHO If Thailand is worried about censorship then it should get its priorities right

Correctly stated.

[5minutes]

The hypocrisy of it is mind boggling! Chinatown on Saturday morning, there was a fellow shouting "dec dec", "dec dec". On approaching the throng he was openly selling child pornography!!! If I'd only had a Gattling gun!

[colinscarr]

Before everyone gets too worked up about the way this is handled in Thailand, if you post pornographic photos of someone without their consent in most western countries, the laws can also be severe. The financial implications are actually much worse as the courts do no impose fines or legal settlements in Thai baht, and your chances of making things better with a little "tea money" is practically zero.

The website owner here is not the victim. There's no shortage of adult content websites featuring Thailand, managed by people who live there who never run afoul of the law, but in this case he posted embarrassing/illegal photos of someone and then ignored requests for it's removal. Had he acted a bit more responsibly there would have been no complaint, and no action taken.

I'd fully agree that the POSTER should cop it for a spiteful and malicious act. But the WEBSITE OWNER who was prosecuted, was not the poster. The poster seems to have got away with his action.

I'm not clear how long after the post appeared, the site owner became aware (by complaint, moderating the forum or whatever) of the post. If he took it down promptly once he saw it, then IMHO he acted responsibly and should not have been punished for the poster's actions. If he waited a couple of weeks, then he was irresponsible and his sentence seems fair.

Finding the poster is more difficult. Yes, you can trace the offending computer, but we are not yet required to have webcams recording who is at the keyboard. So unless the wronged woman can (and will) say who took the photos, the poster remains unidentified.

Many Falang criticise Thai laws and their application, but in this case the unfair application is no different from what happens in most countries, supposedly democratic or not. The reasons are the same too, the Establishment fears the power of the internet to spread information which they cannot control.

[zzaa09]

The hypocrisy of it is mind boggling! Chinatown on Saturday morning, there was a fellow shouting "dec dec", "dec dec". On approaching the throng he was openly selling child pornography!!! If I'd only had a Gattling gun!

Tough talk would land you missing in Chinatown, my friend.

[DaveYo]

Most forums have a TOS or Rules to follow. For the most part many of us simply just glance over it since much of it is pretty general and accepted around the world.

If you are the owner and have a website outside of Thailand no you are not subject to Thai Law, but can be subject to to Thailands own censorship people and usually it is considered a blocked website if they find it objectionable. You are subject to the law of where you registered your domain and also subject to the terms of your WebHost. If both are out of Thailand, Thailand cannot touch you or charge you or arrest you, since you are subject to another law outside of Thailand.

Pictures usually fall under copyrights, and if the poster put that picture into the website, you cannot charge the poster if that poster is the original joe schmuck who owns the copyright to the pic.

The IP Server cannot control the smut that goes around the internet. So you cannot charge them. You cannot charge the WebHost because they only offer webbing services and have nothing to do with what a forum owner does with their site.

So who gets hit. You got it. The forum owner in some cases. Now Thailand cannot touch this forum owner if the forum domain name is registered outside of Thailand. The worst that can happen is the forum gets blocked in Thailand.

If the forum domain name is registered in Thailand, then the owner is subject to the Laws of Thailand.

George the owner here of this forum knows what I am talking about.

The issue of the problem herein is not that complex. The girl gave the permission for the picture to be taken by the original copyright owner, and she expressly gave that permission with limitations involved. (Most of the time usually it is verbally given etc). She did not give permission to the original copyright owner of the pic to BROADCAST IT thru a medium known as the Internet where everybody can see.

Therefore the Judge was correct here. It hurt the girls reputation because she never approved to go beyond just a Picture, and never approved it to be on the Internet.

The Judge however I am sure looked into all the issues before giving the sack itself.

#1 >>Now if the poster resides in Thailand, and the forum owner and domain name is out of Thailand, then the poster is stuck holding the entire blame, because the girl is in Thailand, the poster is in Thailand, but everybody else is out of Thailand, so the Thai Law will apply only to Thailand residents and in this one it is the POSTER.

#2 >>Now if the poster resides out of Thailand and in some other country, but the forum owner resides and has the domain name in Thailand, and the girl is in Thailand, then the forum owner gets hit with the entire blame under Thai Law and in this case it is FORUM OWNER.

So the Judge is correct as to the liability itself and who is responsible. That is a very good Judge. As to the damages, well a set minimum is required and most of the time it is settled between the families involved. If no agreement then they let the Judge decide the arbitrary amounts in court.

This is a case not requiring any jail time. Jail should be reserved for more serious incidents like robbery, murder etc.

I myself concur with this decision.

[Thai at Heart]

Most forums have a TOS or Rules to follow. For the most part many of us simply just glance over it since much of it is pretty general and accepted around the world.

If you are the owner and have a website outside of Thailand no you are not subject to Thai Law, but can be subject to to Thailands own censorship people and usually it is considered a blocked website if they find it objectionable. You are subject to the law of where you registered your domain and also subject to the terms of your WebHost. If both are out of Thailand, Thailand cannot touch you or charge you or arrest you, since you are subject to another law outside of Thailand.

Pictures usually fall under copyrights, and if the poster put that picture into the website, you cannot charge the poster if that poster is the original joe schmuck who owns the copyright to the pic.

The IP Server cannot control the smut that goes around the internet. So you cannot charge them. You cannot charge the WebHost because they only offer webbing services and have nothing to do with what a forum owner does with their site.

So who gets hit. You got it. The forum owner in some cases. Now Thailand cannot touch this forum owner if the forum domain name is registered outside of Thailand. The worst that can happen is the forum gets blocked in Thailand.

If the forum domain name is registered in Thailand, then the owner is subject to the Laws of Thailand.

George the owner here of this forum knows what I am talking about.

The issue of the problem herein is not that complex. The girl gave the permission for the picture to be taken by the original copyright owner, and she expressly gave that permission with limitations involved. (Most of the time usually it is verbally given etc). She did not give permission to the original copyright owner of the pic to BROADCAST IT thru a medium known as the Internet where everybody can see.

Therefore the Judge was correct here. It hurt the girls reputation because she never approved to go beyond just a Picture, and never approved it to be on the Internet.

The Judge however I am sure looked into all the issues before giving the sack itself.

#1 >>Now if the poster resides in Thailand, and the forum owner and domain name is out of Thailand, then the poster is stuck holding the entire blame, because the girl is in Thailand, the poster is in Thailand, but everybody else is out of Thailand, so the Thai Law will apply only to Thailand residents and in this one it is the POSTER.

#2 >>Now if the poster resides out of Thailand and in some other country, but the forum owner resides and has the domain name in Thailand, and the girl is in Thailand, then the forum owner gets hit with the entire blame under Thai Law and in this case it is FORUM OWNER.

So the Judge is correct as to the liability itself and who is responsible. That is a very good Judge. As to the damages, well a set minimum is required and most of the time it is settled between the families involved. If no agreement then they let the Judge decide the arbitrary amounts in court.

This is a case not requiring any jail time. Jail should be reserved for more serious incidents like robbery, murder etc.

I myself concur with this decision.

I think you are confusing who the Thai system can touch as opposed to who has actually committed an offence.

In a legal sense, simply because the poster may be residing outside Thailand, and the Thai legal system cannot touch him/her, it doesn't mean that the judge should simply look around to see who is in his jurisdiction to find a wronddoer simply to hand out a punishment.

Simply because it may have been legally complicated or difficult to bring a case against the poster, it doesn't increase or place more fault on the forum owner.