Prachatai Shuts Webboard

[animatic]

Or,

she is worried that posters can't/won't control themselves and she has too little staff to monitor every post

and if she is 'seen to allow' insurrection, violent agitation and lese magisty diatribes, before she can remove them,

this is a second count against her and no way out of it. Could be as much a moderation staffing issue.

She knows there are too many wanting to scream their rants through an online source.

Of course it is disturbing that she should be so afraid of a portion of her membership

and what they might say that is clearly illegal.

I'll leave the governmental censorship bashing to those that love that rant...

[animatic]

Democrocy , is such a dirty word.

No, it's just such a messy business in practice.

[nakachalet]

Well, I'm certainly no Red-shirt fan, but this is a disturbing development. However, I will point out that this board was shut down voluntarily by it's owners, not by direct action of the government. I also wonder a bit about the timing. How long has it been since the bank accounts of the 83 Red financial supporters were frozen?

what an observation, indeed.

many cheers to you....

[womble]

can we remind ourselves who it was that made all these laws the government is now using.

[chainarong]

<br><br>

<br><br>Does anybody know if  they give a hoot about political views on Thai Visa.

<div><br></div><div><br></div>

They would if they could, but they can't read english

[Xangsamhua]

If you are on Twitter I recommend following @thanongk the editor of the nation, for an insight into how the Thai establishment think about ideas of free speech and democracy. Here are some of the pearls of wisdom Thanong has shared this week.

"Let's make it clear: Thailand is now suffering from rampant and irresponsible free speech. We don't have enough right speech.

Men are not born equal because each of us has different baramee depending on our accumulated deeds or karma

If we don't understand our strength in Sukhothai, phor phiang model and Buddhist's metta, we'll get confused with Democracy and the like.

Don't be misled by Freedom, Human rights, Democracy, globalisation and other crazy fashionable ideas. They are poisonous and hollow.

I don't believe in free speech. I believe in right speech. And we all should believe in right speech, part of the eight-fold ways."

The principle of free speech is entirely perverted when it has to be modified by "right speech". We would all prefer it if people speak and write responsibly, but it doesn't always happen and we disagree on whether speech is "right" or not. Thanong must congratulate himself that he is editor of a pro-government newspaper in Thailand and not a dissident in China, where the government and the party decide what speech is "right".

Although there must be some constraints on expression in emergency situations, e.g. when it genuinely damages a country's security, safety and prospects in wartime, Thailand is not in that bleak a position, despite the declared "state of emergency" . It is in a state of civil unrest, where measures for safety of citizens are in order, but these do not include repression of views, no matter how hostile they are to the government nor provocative to further civil unrest.

If Thailand's police, military and intelligence services are inadequate to preserve the safety and security of her people, clamping down on dissenting opinion is not going to save them; it just inflames them and provides grounds for criticism and further opposition to the government.

[nakachalet]

If you are on Twitter I recommend following @thanongk the editor of the nation, for an insight into how the Thai establishment think about ideas of free speech and democracy. Here are some of the pearls of wisdom Thanong has shared this week.

"Let's make it clear: Thailand is now suffering from rampant and irresponsible free speech. We don't have enough right speech.

Men are not born equal because each of us has different baramee depending on our accumulated deeds or karma

If we don't understand our strength in Sukhothai, phor phiang model and Buddhist's metta, we'll get confused with Democracy and the like.

Don't be misled by Freedom, Human rights, Democracy, globalisation and other crazy fashionable ideas. They are poisonous and hollow.

I don't believe in free speech. I believe in right speech. And we all should believe in right speech, part of the eight-fold ways."

The principle of free speech is entirely perverted when it has to be modified by "right speech". We would all prefer it if people speak and write responsibly, but it doesn't always happen and we disagree on whether speech is "right" or not. Thanong must congratulate himself that he is editor of a pro-government newspaper in Thailand and not a dissident in China, where the government and the party decide what speech is "right".

Although there must be some constraints on expression in emergency situations, e.g. when it genuinely damages a country's security, safety and prospects in wartime, Thailand is not in that bleak a position, despite the declared "state of emergency" . It is in a state of civil unrest, where measures for safety of citizens are in order, but these do not include repression of views, no matter how hostile they are to the government nor provocative to further civil unrest.

If Thailand's police, military and intelligence services are inadequate to preserve the safety and security of her people, clamping down on dissenting opinion is not going to save them; it just inflames them and provides grounds for criticism and further opposition to the government.

imho, all the components to constrain and restrain unlawful activities are in place....

in addition, the supreme court also bestowed its blessings encouraging the govt to exercise its lawful authority under the constitution to apply the laws, to uphold the constitution and to protect its citizen....

but it is the pm's lone decision.... to act mercifully and compassionately toward the group of law breaking citizen....

[Robby nz]

Those advocating complete freedom of speech should consider just how far this should go.

For instance would you be happy if someone, a leader of a dissadent group for instance, went on tele, radio or wrote in a national publication or popular web site that you should be killed have your house or business burnt or bombed?

Well that is what the reds did, they called for the PM and deputy to be killed, for BKK and the whole country to be burnt.

There are always some idiots who will listen and have a go at actioning these calls, as we saw in with the burning in BKK and elsewhere.

There must be a limit to free speech and that limit has recently been reached in many instances.

There are also many reasons for restrictions, pedophilia, bomb making instructions, a web site advocation kids should kill their parents or commit suicide, those with missinformation that could cause death, drugs and many more.

I would suggest that not all web sites banned in this or any country are politicaly motovated in fact probably a very small percentage.

[mca]

She knows there are too many wanting to scream their rants through an online source.

Ddin't know she was a TVF member.

[Xangsamhua]

Those advocating complete freedom of speech should consider just how far this should go.

For instance would you be happy if someone, a leader of a dissadent group for instance, went on tele, radio or wrote in a national publication or popular web site that you should be killed have your house or business burnt or bombed?

Well that is what the reds did, they called for the PM and deputy to be killed, for BKK and the whole country to be burnt.

There are always some idiots who will listen and have a go at actioning these calls, as we saw in with the burning in BKK and elsewhere.

There must be a limit to free speech and that limit has recently been reached in many instances.

There are also many reasons for restrictions, pedophilia, bomb making instructions, a web site advocation kids should kill their parents or commit suicide, those with missinformation that could cause death, drugs and many more.

I would suggest that not all web sites banned in this or any country are politicaly motovated in fact probably a very small percentage.

Some good points, Robbynz, and the question of free speech might be one of those that are never "resolved". We can only alert each other to the downside of the other's position. In legislation in more genuinely democratic and consensual nations a compromise is reached.

But let's take an example. If anti-government leaders call for the overthrow of the government by disruptive, but essentially non-violent means that will lead to inconvenience, and in some cases possible loss of livelihood, we may deplore their agenda and methods, but to stop them even making the call would send them underground where they would be unaccountable to both the authorities and the public at large. Disruption and probably violence will occur as a result, but without warning and quite possibly controlled to a fair extent by extremists. Censorship is counter-productive in this case.

Another example: If a leader sends instructions to his followers on how to make bombs and encourages them to do so and then go out and use these things in shopping centres, official gatherings and the like, then in an uncensored environment we know what he's done and can send the police to arrest him and conduct searches. If he has to do it clandestinely, then he has to be found by the not always successful methods of security intelligence agencies - "secret police" , an institution that people in democratic societies sometimes find more disturbing than the dangers of free speech.

As I said above, the arguments over freedom of speech on the one hand and the need to protect citizens on the other have been going on for a long time, but the only "resolution" so far has been in the form of compromise. My feeling is that in Thailand at the moment, some of the censorship is unnecessary and possibly counter-productive.

[animatic]

If you are on Twitter I recommend following @thanongk the editor of the nation, for an insight into how the Thai establishment think about ideas of free speech and democracy. Here are some of the pearls of wisdom Thanong has shared this week.

"Let's make it clear: Thailand is now suffering from rampant and irresponsible free speech. We don't have enough right speech.

Men are not born equal because each of us has different baramee depending on our accumulated deeds or karma

If we don't understand our strength in Sukhothai, phor phiang model and Buddhist's metta, we'll get confused with Democracy and the like.

Don't be misled by Freedom, Human rights, Democracy, globalisation and other crazy fashionable ideas. They are poisonous and hollow.

I don't believe in free speech. I believe in right speech. And we all should believe in right speech, part of the eight-fold ways."

The principle of free speech is entirely perverted when it has to be modified by "right speech". We would all prefer it if people speak and write responsibly, but it doesn't always happen and we disagree on whether speech is "right" or not. Thanong must congratulate himself that he is editor of a pro-government newspaper in Thailand and not a dissident in China, where the government and the party decide what speech is "right".

Although there must be some constraints on expression in emergency situations, e.g. when it genuinely damages a country's security, safety and prospects in wartime, Thailand is not in that bleak a position, despite the declared "state of emergency" . It is in a state of civil unrest, where measures for safety of citizens are in order, but these do not include repression of views, no matter how hostile they are to the government nor provocative to further civil unrest.

If Thailand's police, military and intelligence services are inadequate to preserve the safety and security of her people, clamping down on dissenting opinion is not going to save them; it just inflames them and provides grounds for criticism and further opposition to the government.

Xang, I believe you have completely misunderstood the original quote.

Not right in the sense of backing a governments choice of politically correct,

but right as in :

intrinsically right in the big picture of humanity and our parallel existences.

Something that man or a man alone can not adequately judge.

Edited July 11, 2010 by animatic

[sbk]

As I understand this quote, he is talking about right speech in the Buddhist context:

Right speech

Right speech (samyag-vāc • sammā-vācā), deals with the way in which a Buddhist practitioner would best make use of their words. In the Pali Canon, it is explained thus:[27][28][29][30][31]

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

The Samaññaphala Sutta, Kevatta Sutta and Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta elaborate[32][33][34][35]:

Abandoning false speech...He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world...

Abandoning divisive speech...What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here...Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord...

Abandoning abusive speech...He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing and pleasing to people at large...

Abandoning idle chatter...He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, and the Vinaya. He speaks words worth treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the goal...

The Abhaya Sutta elaborates:[36][37]

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings.

wikipedia

[noel2499rk]

intrinsically right in the big picture of humanity and our parallel existences.

Something that man or a man alone can not adequately judge.

So if no man can decide what we are allowed to say, who are we going to leave it up to?

This idea that free speech is contrary to Buddhist ideology is nonsense, further more using religion as a tool to argue against political ideas of freedom and democracy is a very dangerous road. If history has taught us anything it is that the separation of church and state is essential for a free and fair society, as can be evidenced by those in the middle east living under theocratic regimes.

[march]

intrinsically right in the big picture of humanity and our parallel existences.

Something that man or a man alone can not adequately judge.

So if no man can decide what we are allowed to say, who are we going to leave it up to?

This idea that free speech is contrary to Buddhist ideology is nonsense, further more using religion as a tool to argue against political ideas of freedom and democracy is a very dangerous road. If history has taught us anything it is that the separation of church and state is essential for a free and fair society, as can be evidenced by those in the middle east living under theocratic regimes.

Perhaps we could get clarification from one of the Red Shirt monks. He seems to be very well versed in the the tenets of the Buddhist faith:

[otherstuff1957]

Those advocating complete freedom of speech should consider just how far this should go.

For instance would you be happy if someone, a leader of a dissadent group for instance, went on tele, radio or wrote in a national publication or popular web site that you should be killed have your house or business burnt or bombed?

Well that is what the reds did, they called for the PM and deputy to be killed, for BKK and the whole country to be burnt.

There are always some idiots who will listen and have a go at actioning these calls, as we saw in with the burning in BKK and elsewhere.

There must be a limit to free speech and that limit has recently been reached in many instances.

There are also many reasons for restrictions, pedophilia, bomb making instructions, a web site advocation kids should kill their parents or commit suicide, those with missinformation that could cause death, drugs and many more.

I would suggest that not all web sites banned in this or any country are politicaly motovated in fact probably a very small percentage.

Some good points, Robbynz, and the question of free speech might be one of those that are never "resolved". We can only alert each other to the downside of the other's position. In legislation in more genuinely democratic and consensual nations a compromise is reached.

But let's take an example. If anti-government leaders call for the overthrow of the government by disruptive, but essentially non-violent means that will lead to inconvenience, and in some cases possible loss of livelihood, we may deplore their agenda and methods, but to stop them even making the call would send them underground where they would be unaccountable to both the authorities and the public at large. Disruption and probably violence will occur as a result, but without warning and quite possibly controlled to a fair extent by extremists. Censorship is counter-productive in this case.

Another example: If a leader sends instructions to his followers on how to make bombs and encourages them to do so and then go out and use these things in shopping centres, official gatherings and the like, then in an uncensored environment we know what he's done and can send the police to arrest him and conduct searches. If he has to do it clandestinely, then he has to be found by the not always successful methods of security intelligence agencies - "secret police" , an institution that people in democratic societies sometimes find more disturbing than the dangers of free speech.

As I said above, the arguments over freedom of speech on the one hand and the need to protect citizens on the other have been going on for a long time, but the only "resolution" so far has been in the form of compromise. My feeling is that in Thailand at the moment, some of the censorship is unnecessary and possibly counter-productive.

Both of you have made some very good points here. If Xam changed that last sentence from 'some of the censorship' to 'most of the censorship' I would agree with you 100%.

In Thailand today we seem to have two threats to free speech: 1- censorship by the government in the form of legal proceedings and possible imprisonment and 2- intimidation by the redshirts in the form of grenade attacks, mob attacks and arson.

Hopefully we will see less of both in the future.

Edited July 11, 2010 by otherstuff1957

[noel2499rk]

These are not the only threats to free speech in Thai society.

The Thai public are doing a good job of shutting out dissent themselves without any help from the DSI or MICT.

Take the case of Mint Mintita Wattnanakul daughter of an actor Kovit Wattanakul. Kovit walked out of an award ceremony during a speech by Pongpat Wachirabunjong

and Mint was spotted as not being able to sing His Majesty's Song "Kwam Fun Un Soong-Sud (The Highest Dream)" while she was performing the song on the stage with other stars for the ceremony.

As a result of these incidents, Mint has been a subject of hot debates among Thais, and her controversial status already caused her to lose a starring role in two TV dramas. She recently said "if I have lost all my opportunities in the Thai entertainment industry, then I will go back to live my life as a normal student".

Mark Thawkumlue a contestant on academy fantasia made some pro red comments on his facebook page this news was spread through the ASTV-Manager website , and there has been huge pressure on True AF to expel him from the AF7 show.

Other Thai celebrities to be attacked on facebook and astv manager site include Apichatpong Weerasethakul (plamme dor winning director) and Bird Thongchai McIntyre who felt so pressured he had to make the statement that "I have no color, and I am loyal to the King"

[sabaijai]

can we remind ourselves who it was that made all these laws the government is now using.

Bingo.

[Insight]

These are not the only threats to free speech in Thai society.

The Thai public are doing a good job of shutting out dissent themselves without any help from the DSI or MICT.

Take the case of Mint Mintita Wattnanakul daughter of an actor Kovit Wattanakul. Kovit walked out of an award ceremony during a speech by Pongpat Wachirabunjong

and Mint was spotted as not being able to sing His Majesty's Song "Kwam Fun Un Soong-Sud (The Highest Dream)" while she was performing the song on the stage with other stars for the ceremony.

As a result of these incidents, Mint has been a subject of hot debates among Thais, and her controversial status already caused her to lose a starring role in two TV dramas. She recently said "if I have lost all my opportunities in the Thai entertainment industry, then I will go back to live my life as a normal student".

Mark Thawkumlue a contestant on academy fantasia made some pro red comments on his facebook page this news was spread through the ASTV-Manager website , and there has been huge pressure on True AF to expel him from the AF7 show.

Other Thai celebrities to be attacked on facebook and astv manager site include Apichatpong Weerasethakul (plamme dor winning director) and Bird Thongchai McIntyre who felt so pressured he had to make the statement that "I have no color, and I am loyal to the King"

So these people who have previously shown public sympathies with the populist movement are now watching their popularity fall off the face of the earth, along with the opportunities that come with it, to the point where they have to speak out publicly to distance themselves one way or another...? Isn't this just a textbook case of "backing the wrong horse" ?

I know once upon a time Bird couldn't go out in public for getting mobbed by fans everywhere he went. Well at least he's still probably getting mobbed...

[Ned]

Like pus from a lanced boil.......it's all coming out. The society was rotten all along.

[Robby nz]

Those advocating complete freedom of speech should consider just how far this should go.

For instance would you be happy if someone, a leader of a dissadent group for instance, went on tele, radio or wrote in a national publication or popular web site that you should be killed have your house or business burnt or bombed?

Well that is what the reds did, they called for the PM and deputy to be killed, for BKK and the whole country to be burnt.

There are always some idiots who will listen and have a go at actioning these calls, as we saw in with the burning in BKK and elsewhere.

There must be a limit to free speech and that limit has recently been reached in many instances.

There are also many reasons for restrictions, pedophilia, bomb making instructions, a web site advocation kids should kill their parents or commit suicide, those with missinformation that could cause death, drugs and many more.

I would suggest that not all web sites banned in this or any country are politicaly motovated in fact probably a very small percentage.

Some good points, Robbynz, and the question of free speech might be one of those that are never "resolved". We can only alert each other to the downside of the other's position. In legislation in more genuinely democratic and consensual nations a compromise is reached.

But let's take an example. If anti-government leaders call for the overthrow of the government by disruptive, but essentially non-violent means that will lead to inconvenience, and in some cases possible loss of livelihood, we may deplore their agenda and methods, but to stop them even making the call would send them underground where they would be unaccountable to both the authorities and the public at large. Disruption and probably violence will occur as a result, but without warning and quite possibly controlled to a fair extent by extremists. Censorship is counter-productive in this case.

Another example: If a leader sends instructions to his followers on how to make bombs and encourages them to do so and then go out and use these things in shopping centres, official gatherings and the like, then in an uncensored environment we know what he's done and can send the police to arrest him and conduct searches. If he has to do it clandestinely, then he has to be found by the not always successful methods of security intelligence agencies - "secret police" , an institution that people in democratic societies sometimes find more disturbing than the dangers of free speech.

As I said above, the arguments over freedom of speech on the one hand and the need to protect citizens on the other have been going on for a long time, but the only "resolution" so far has been in the form of compromise. My feeling is that in Thailand at the moment, some of the censorship is unnecessary and possibly counter-productive.

In both your examples what would happen is that a greater number of people would have access to the calls to disrupt and therefore a greater disruption would be likely and it would be far more likely that some of those people would be likely to take things to extremes.

Remember that the leaders would have no control over who received the calls to action or bomb making instruction therefor no control over how they interpreted or used them.

In the case of bombs: having instructions for making same readily available means anyone will then have the ability (given the material) to make a bomb so even school kids and others who might think it would be fun to make a bomb could easily kill themselves or others.

Anyway these things need not be political they could be against a company, school, hospital or even you if someone had a greivence.

There does need to be a line drawn somewhere, where that should be is a matter of opinion and there are probably as many opinions as there are people out there, we cant all have our way so have to rely on some authority to do it for us.

That being the case there will always be those who are unhappy either because there is too much blocked or not enough.

There will even be those who are unhappy they cant access a site to hire children for sex. A site most of us would abhore.

As an aside I learn something new all the time I always thought a pedo file was something you cut your toe nails with

[noel2499rk]

can we remind ourselves who it was that made all these laws the government is now using.

Bingo.

The computer crimes act was brought in under Surayud Chulanont, and the LM laws have been around a lot longer than Thaksin.

[TAWP]

If you are on Twitter I recommend following @thanongk the editor of the nation, for an insight into how the Thai establishment think about ideas of free speech and democracy. Here are some of the pearls of wisdom Thanong has shared this week.

"Let's make it clear: Thailand is now suffering from rampant and irresponsible free speech. We don't have enough right speech.

Men are not born equal because each of us has different baramee depending on our accumulated deeds or karma

If we don't understand our strength in Sukhothai, phor phiang model and Buddhist's metta, we'll get confused with Democracy and the like.

Don't be misled by Freedom, Human rights, Democracy, globalisation and other crazy fashionable ideas. They are poisonous and hollow.

I don't believe in free speech. I believe in right speech. And we all should believe in right speech, part of the eight-fold ways."

Via re-tweets I have seen some of this intellectual midgets postings and laughed and cried in unison. When the influental and educated are this shortsighted and absurd, there really isn't a snoballs chance in hel_l things will be alright in the next 25 years - no-matter who is in power.

And No, I don't agree that censorship, even of hateful speaches, are a good and just thing.

I would however like to get a sample of what kind of postings that have been floating on Prachatai, since staff is now awaiting trial for not removing them fast enough and now they closed down the web-board. It cannot only be LM related, can it?

Edited July 11, 2010 by TAWP

[Rinrada]

Abhishit is getting bolder by the day....he is running the country like his own..

Probably thinks it is...

With the support of his dodgy boy scouts and the ones we dont discuss he is behaving exactly as expected...normal aftermath of a 3rd world country with a "gov" developed from a mini grunt coup......Supprised..... ...why?...que sera sera ....but 1 day..... mia lai de pou....

[philw]

If you are on Twitter I recommend following @thanongk the editor of the nation, for an insight into how the Thai establishment think about ideas of free speech and democracy. Here are some of the pearls of wisdom Thanong has shared this week.

"Let's make it clear: Thailand is now suffering from rampant and irresponsible free speech. We don't have enough right speech.

Men are not born equal because each of us has different baramee depending on our accumulated deeds or karma

If we don't understand our strength in Sukhothai, phor phiang model and Buddhist's metta, we'll get confused with Democracy and the like.

Don't be misled by Freedom, Human rights, Democracy, globalisation and other crazy fashionable ideas. They are poisonous and hollow.

I don't believe in free speech. I believe in right speech. And we all should believe in right speech, part of the eight-fold ways."

Via re-tweets I have seen some of this intellectual midgets postings and laughed and cried in unison. When the influental and educated are this shortsighted and absurd, there really isn't a snoballs chance in hel_l things will be alright in the next 25 years - no-matter who is in power.

And No, I don't agree that censorship, even of hateful speaches, are a good and just thing.

I would however like to get a sample of what kind of postings that have been floating on Prachatai, since staff is now awaiting trial for not removing them fast enough and now they closed down the web-board. It cannot only be LM related, can it?

Difficult to get them now, but I think the problem is specifically LM being used as a tool to threaten those who step across whatever that now arbitrary line is.

[march]

I would however like to get a sample of what kind of postings that have been floating on Prachatai, since staff is now awaiting trial for not removing them fast enough and now they closed down the web-board. It cannot only be LM related, can it?

Difficult to get them now, but I think the problem is specifically LM being used as a tool to threaten those who step across whatever that now arbitrary line is.

That's what some of those that committed LM have tried to use as an excuse for their LM.

"It's not LM, it's free speech."

or similarly-worded nonsense.

Prachatai shutting down was an internal decision. Animatic has the firmest grip on the why.

[noel2499rk]

I would however like to get a sample of what kind of postings that have been floating on Prachatai, since staff is now awaiting trial for not removing them fast enough and now they closed down the web-board. It cannot only be LM related, can it?

Difficult to get them now, but I think the problem is specifically LM being used as a tool to threaten those who step across whatever that now arbitrary line is.

That's what some of those that committed LM have tried to use as an excuse for their LM.

"It's not LM, it's free speech."

or similarly-worded nonsense.

Prachatai shutting down was an internal decision. Animatic has the firmest grip on the why.

The LM laws are a violation of peoples rights to freedom of speech, how can you seperate the LM law from free speech they exist to limit discussion. Do you actually believe them to be a reasonable law?

In 1984 by George Orwell, a thoughtcrime is an illegal type of thought.

In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labelling disapproved thought as thoughtcrime

[animatic]

intrinsically right in the big picture of humanity and our parallel existences.

Something that man or a man alone can not adequately judge.

So if no man can decide what we are allowed to say, who are we going to leave it up to?

This idea that free speech is contrary to Buddhist ideology is nonsense, further more using religion as a tool to argue against political ideas of freedom and democracy is a very dangerous road. If history has taught us anything it is that the separation of church and state is essential for a free and fair society, as can be evidenced by those in the middle east living under theocratic regimes.

If we were making that argument, you might have a point,

but you haven't.

[march]

That's what some of those that committed LM have tried to use as an excuse for their LM.

"It's not LM, it's free speech."

or similarly-worded nonsense.

Prachatai shutting down was an internal decision. Animatic has the firmest grip on the why.

The LM laws are a violation of peoples rights to freedom of speech

No, they aren't. They are the law of the land that the people of Thailand have accepted for themselves for centuries. They are laws that 68 million people readily agree with and 99.999% have no difficulty in the slightest to comply with. There is but a very tiny handful of Thais and foreigners that one can count on one hand that choose not to comply.

how can you seperate the LM law from free speech they exist to limit discussion. Do you actually believe them to be a reasonable law?

I believe its reasonable, but more importantly, I believe that the Thais believe it is a reasonable. I also believe that I have no difficulty complying with it. It's very easy to do so.

In 1984 by George Orwell, a thoughtcrime is an illegal type of thought.

In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labelling disapproved thought as thoughtcrime

1984 has come and gone.

Let me know when the government, any government, can read my mind.

[animatic]

March makes good points.

It's easy to do, and only a small minority every compel THEMSELVES to go to this extreme.

Tyranny by the majority, but the majority of Thais, believe protecting the good name of

the monarchy is something important to THEM, not the government of the day.

That some unscrupulous individuals use some of these laws for their own ends is another matter entirely.

It is not the only law bent by the unscrupulous for their personal profit....

Edited July 11, 2010 by animatic

[noel2499rk]

the people of Thailand have accepted for themselves for centuries.

I don't think they had any choice in the matter. Actually during the 1930's and forties discussion about the future of the monarchy was much more open than it is now, with royalty being openly criticized. Even into the fifties the LM laws were there but punishments were light usually just a small fine, the increase in use and severity of the laws has grown since then.

68 million people readily agree with

This is an incredibly large survey you carried out, how long did it take you?