Is Thailand Becoming A Censored Society?

[rubl]

Oh, so it's not censored if you write what they want to write. OK I get it.

Your statement in itself seems logically correct, but covers only a subset of what you can write and what will be published. I might as well say that what is against the rules here will be removed, equally valid. does it help this discussion? No.

Explain again how this forum is not censored, I am sure I don't follow.

No surprise, especially since I didn't say anything about whether this forum is censored or not.

[canuckamuck]

I guess we are talking about two different things then.

[Buchholz]

What motivated my post was your description of Giles Ungpakorn as a "criminal fugitive".

My description is correct. He is a criminal fugitive.

You are obviously on the elitist-right side of the fence and I am sure that nothing will ever change your position, but any opinion, whether you like it or not, deserves to be heard.

For a university professor to be criminally charged for writing a book on politics, history and society regardless of content is unacceptable in any country claiming to be free.

hahaha... I'm neither an elitist nor right wing.

There is a countless number of books written in Thailand on the topic of politics, history, and society, without the authors being issued arrest warrants, so obviously he wrote about more than what you ascribed to him.

For Ungpakorn to be labeled a "criminal" is absurd.

When you break the law, you are accurately labeled a criminal, if you flee from those charges, you are labeled a criminal fugitive.

By-the-way your addition of the thingy lends little maturity or credibility to your statements, but you can do whatever you want even if Giles Ungpakorn can’t.

I added because of the absurdity of his ridiculous claims that the Red Shirts are a peaceful movement. If you fail to see that as humorous, I can understand because the mayhem and strife that they caused is, indeed, a somber event.

Life is all about decisions. Giles made a conscious decision to violate a very well known law. One would think that given his former professor status, he would have been intelligent enough to have known beforehand that there would be repercussions for violating a long-standing law. A law that the over-whelming majority of Thais have no difficulty whatsoever in complying with.

Its less obvious that he didn't seem to care much about others that he had sign off on his Red Manifesto before sending that off at the same time he shamelessly fled the country.

If someone objects to a law, there are legal avenues to pursue to get it changed. Granted, it is not an easy task, but it's also not impossible if enough of the population agrees and so Giles decided to try and shortcut the process by blatantly breaking the law on numerous occasions. That has repercussions.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Buchholz

[rubl]

Life is all about decisions. Giles made a conscious decision to violate a very well known law. One would think that given his former professor status, he would have been intelligent enough to have known beforehand that there would be repercussions for violating a long-standing law. A law that the over-whelming majority of Thais have no difficulty whatsoever in complying with.

The lese-majeste law is a bit restrictive, even H.M. the King has given such indications occasionally. Where long time ago you could be 'hanged, drawn and quartered' in England that has become out of fashion. More over the European countries with a royal as (formal) head of state have seen many moderations in their version of the lese-majeste law. To bring them up-to-date, modernize them as it were. Slow, but steady adaptation to a changing environment is essential for various institutions.

As this is a tricky subject I hope this is within forum rules.

[Groongthep]

You are obviously on the elitist-right side of the fence and I am sure that nothing will ever change your position, but any opinion, whether you like it or not, deserves to be heard.

For a university professor to be criminally charged for writing a book on politics, history and society regardless of content is unacceptable in any country claiming to be free.

hahaha... I'm neither an elitist nor right wing.

hahaha... I'm neither an elitist nor right wing.

OK, perhaps I was wrong. You probably would have come across more credible had you used another smiley thing or maybe "Nyae-nyae-nayae-yae".

[Groongthep]

You are obviously on the elitist-right side of the fence and I am sure that nothing will ever change your position, but any opinion, whether you like it or not, deserves to be heard.

By any opinion, do you really mean any opinion? It's a serious question.

To state the obvious, any covers a wide spectrum.

P.S. Do you think slapping political labels on people helps the debate? It's my belief that the red shirt movement has definite right wing tendencies, but i wouldn't label you as being such because I feel that simply sympathising / supporting a group, doesn't necessarily politically define a person. By the same token, nor does being against a group.

1.) I was speaking in the context of Giles Ungpakorn who Buchholz labeled as a criminal. I believe Giles' opinions deserve to be heard whether or not one likes them.

2.) There are of course, some people who would string together a long list of vulgar obscenities to describe people or ideas they dislike sometimes just for the sheer shock value of it and I would not agree that tasteless diatribes such as those need to be repeated, but that is not to what I was referring.

3.) The phrase "slapping political labels on people" is in itself a somewhat pejorative statement. Clearly, if someone supports a government that would not exist if not for military intervention and has used military snipers to kill their political opponents, then it would not be totally incorrect to refer to them as right-wing or at least right-wing leaning. And when a group openly describe themselves as the traditional guardians of the nation then it would be hard not to describe them as elitist either. I am also aware that in the context of a Public Relations Campaign which most modern political contests involve due to the extremely strong influences of television and the internet, false labeling and name calling can be a very effective tool against ones opposition especially when the labels and accusations are totally false. It puts on us the responsibility to examine all political information carefully in order to try to determine its veracity. There are propaganda experts both public and private whose sole purpose it is to convince the public that their side is good and the other bad. I believe that the current government in Thailand is doing an excellent job of fooling the foreign press and many on this forum that their intentions are much nobler than they really are. Most of the arguments seen on the pages of Thai Visa political threads are between those convinced by the spin masters and those who are not. Other large groups are not so much influenced in their opinions by the media as they are from Thai family members or from co-workers. Regardless, it is only prudent to try to form ones opinions from as much diverse information as possible and the censorship which we see here makes that a very difficult task.

[whybother]

<snip>

3.) The phrase "slapping political labels on people" is in itself a somewhat pejorative statement. Clearly, if someone supports a government that would not exist if not for military intervention and has used military snipers to kill their political opponents, then it would not be totally incorrect to refer to them as right-wing or at least right-wing leaning. And when a group openly describe themselves as the traditional guardians of the nation then it would be hard not to describe them as elitist either. I am also aware that in the context of a Public Relations Campaign which most modern political contests involve due to the extremely strong influences of television and the internet, false labeling and name calling can be a very effective tool against ones opposition especially when the labels and accusations are totally false. It puts on us the responsibility to examine all political information carefully in order to try to determine its veracity. There are propaganda experts both public and private whose sole purpose it is to convince the public that their side is good and the other bad. I believe that the current government in Thailand is doing an excellent job of fooling the foreign press and many on this forum that their intentions are much nobler than they really are. Most of the arguments seen on the pages of Thai Visa political threads are between those convinced by the spin masters and those who are not. Other large groups are not so much influenced in their opinions by the media as they are from Thai family members or from co-workers. Regardless, it is only prudent to try to form ones opinions from as much diverse information as possible and the censorship which we see here makes that a very difficult task.

Thaksin tried to get control of the army, and if he had then his government would only exist because of the military intervention of his supporters, and the red shirts used military snipers to kill their political opponents.

Does that make Thaksin and the red shirts right wing as well?

[rubl]

begin removed

3.) The phrase "slapping political labels on people" is in itself a somewhat pejorative statement. Clearly, if someone supports a government that would not exist if not for military intervention and has used military snipers to kill their political opponents, then it would not be totally incorrect to refer to them as right-wing or at least right-wing leaning. rest removed

With military intervention you probably point to the 2006 coup. In that case the current government is the third since then. As for killing political opponents, may be my memory starts to fail me, but the only I recall is the late, renegade general Seh Daeng. Him I'd call a military opponent, or even militant rebel.

As for right-wing, a frequently mis-used word, like left-wing. In the US being called liberal is an insult to some GOP members, but in the Netherlands they are the right-wing. Personally I'd call this government very conservative with only a few liberal members.

(For me liberal is more like democratic, open-minded)

Edited September 11, 2010 by rubl

[Groongthep]

[Thaksin tried to get control of the army, and if he had then his government would only exist because of the military intervention of his supporters, and the red shirts used military snipers to kill their political opponents.

Does that make Thaksin and the red shirts right wing as well?

Thaksin was and is definitely right wing. I am not or have I ever been a supporter of Thaksin.

The accusations that the red shirts used military snipers to kill their political opponents is exactly the type of unsubstantiated accusations that I was talking about in my previous post concerning the PR campaign. Doesn't it seem strange to you that scores of unarmed red shirts many nurses and women were killed by the army but the mysterious black shirted armed ones got away without one single one of them being either killed or captured? I'm not making any accusations here but it does seem to be a very odd occurance that the very people the army would most want to shoot got away but so many of the regular people from the countryside got shot up pretty bad.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Groongthep

[rixalex]

1.) I was speaking in the context of Giles Ungpakorn who Buchholz labeled as a criminal. I believe Giles' opinions deserve to be heard whether or not one likes them.

2.) There are of course, some people who would string together a long list of vulgar obscenities to describe people or ideas they dislike sometimes just for the sheer shock value of it and I would not agree that tasteless diatribes such as those need to be repeated, but that is not to what I was referring.

You stated: any opinion, whether you like it or not, deserves to be heard

You didn't state: Gile's opinion, whether you like it or not, deserves to be heard

So am i correct in assuming from what you posted above that when you said any you in fact didn't mean any?

[Groongthep]

With military intervention you probably point to the 2006 coup. In that case the current government is the third since then. As for killing political opponents, may be my memory starts to fail me, but the only I recall is the late, renegade general Seh Daeng. Him I'd call a military opponent, or even militant rebel.

Yes, I was referring to the coup of 2006. Whether the current government is the third or the twenty third since then doesn't change the fact that they would not be in power had there not been a military intervention to remove the corrupt but democratically elected government of the time.

[Thai at Heart]

What people talk about now is far far more open than it used to be. Media sources may be censored but you cant stop people thinking and talking about things.

And you cant stop new websites opening up every day

And the big one is you cant change the coming generations into what you want them to be.

And from what I hear from some Thai people recently, they are far more willing to discuss topics that 10 years ago were absolutely off limits.

The efforts that the "system" have made over the last few decades to "control" the message that is pumped out into society are starting to wear off. The internet has beaten them. They cannot stop all of the people all of the time from discussing and reading what they want. Thai society might not be the most free thinking, but in comparison with only 10 years ago, some people's minds are opening up bit by bit. The current crop of 20 year olds in Thailand are very different from their parents.

[Groongthep]

You stated: any opinion, whether you like it or not, deserves to be heard

You didn't state: Gile's opinion, whether you like it or not, deserves to be heard

So am i correct in assuming from what you posted above that when you said any you in fact didn't mean any?

OK, you win. As I said in the other part of the post that you quoted, I don't think vicious attack opinions filled with obscenities need be heard. What that has to do with the censorship of Giles Ungpakorn's book and other legitamate critical literature is beyond me, but if it makes you happy then I will admit that you are correct.

[rixalex]

Yes, I was referring to the coup of 2006. Whether the current government is the third or the twenty third since then doesn't change the fact that they would not be in power had there not been a military intervention to remove the corrupt but democratically elected government of the time.

You are aware i take it that there was military intervention before the democratically elected government you speak of came to power?

[Groongthep]

1.) I was speaking in the context of Giles Ungpakorn who Buchholz labeled as a criminal. I believe Giles' opinions deserve to be heard whether or not one likes them.

2.) There are of course, some people who would string together a long list of vulgar obscenities to describe people or ideas they dislike sometimes just for the sheer shock value of it and I would not agree that tasteless diatribes such as those need to be repeated, but that is not to what I was referring.

You stated: any opinion, whether you like it or not, deserves to be heard

You didn't state: Gile's opinion, whether you like it or not, deserves to be heard

So am i correct in assuming from what you posted above that when you said any you in fact didn't mean any?

OK, you win. As I said in the other part of the post that you quoted but left out, I don't think vicious attack opinions filled with obscenities need be heard. What this has to do with Giles Ungpakorn’s book and other legitimate critical literature is beyond me, but I will admit that you are correct if that’s what you want.

[rubl]

With military intervention you probably point to the 2006 coup. In that case the current government is the third since then. As for killing political opponents, may be my memory starts to fail me, but the only I recall is the late, renegade general Seh Daeng. Him I'd call a military opponent, or even militant rebel.

Yes, I was referring to the coup of 2006. Whether the current government is the third or the twenty third since then doesn't change the fact that they would not be in power had there not been a military intervention to remove the corrupt but democratically elected government of the time.

There was no democratically elected government at that time. K. Thaksin was a 'caretaker PM' at the most and probably not even that. In February 2006 k. Thaksin dissolved the House for quick new elections in April (after less than a year in his 2nd term). Till those elections he could be called catetaker, after I'm not sure. Anyway the election were invalidated, new ones would have been December 2006. In the mean time K. Thaksin started to oppress opponents, put family, relatives and other supporters on important positions, started to heavily censor the press, etc.

To say this government would not be in power but for the military intervention is (almost) the same as saying 'but for the 1997 crisis K. Thaksin would not have come to power.' It wasn't for his BKK traffic problem solving skills for sure.

[Groongthep]

Yes, I was referring to the coup of 2006. Whether the current government is the third or the twenty third since then doesn't change the fact that they would not be in power had there not been a military intervention to remove the corrupt but democratically elected government of the time.

You are aware i take it that there was military intervention before the democratically elected government you speak of came to power?

I'm not sure I follow you. There was the military coup of February 1991 and many before that but they had nothing to do with Thaksin's TRT government.

[rixalex]

OK, you win. As I said in the other part of the post that you quoted, I don't think vicious attack opinions filled with obscenities need be heard. What that has to do with the censorship of Giles Ungpakorn's book and other legitamate critical literature is beyond me, but if it makes you happy then I will admit that you are correct.

It has to do with the fact that in different countries there are different laws about opinions that can be voiced and those that can't. In Thailand you can say things about the holocaust that you can't say in other countries. On the other hand, in those other countries you could say things about the Monarchy that you can't say in Thailand. Point being, all countries have their own laws and if you knowingly break them, as i believe Giles did, well then, whether you like the law or not, you will have to accept the consequences of having broken it... or of course you can run away.

[rixalex]

I'm not sure I follow you. There was the military coup of February 1991 and many before that but they had nothing to do with Thaksin's TRT government.

Your logic is inconsistent. If every government following the 2006 coup exists because of military intervention, the same can be said of every government that followed the 1991 coup.

[Groongthep]

I'm not sure I follow you. There was the military coup of February 1991 and many before that but they had nothing to do with Thaksin's TRT government.

Your logic is inconsistent. If every government following the 2006 coup exists because of military intervention, the same can be said of every government that followed the 1991 coup.

The same cannot be said for every government that followed the 1991 coup. The people rose up and reversed it in March of the same year remember?

Apples and Oranges.

[rixalex]

I'm not sure I follow you. There was the military coup of February 1991 and many before that but they had nothing to do with Thaksin's TRT government.

Your logic is inconsistent. If every government following the 2006 coup exists because of military intervention, the same can be said of every government that followed the 1991 coup.

The same cannot be said for every government that followed the 1991 coup. The people rose up and reversed it in March of the same year remember?

Apples and Oranges.

What you are saying then is that until the 2006 coup is reversed, no government, no matter how many elections are held, can be considered legitimate?

[whybother]

In 2005, there was an election that TRT/Thaksin won.

In 2006, there was another election, which the Democrats boycotted, and the TRT/Thaksin failed to win, and which the Constitution Courts invalidated.

In late 2006, there was a coup, generally due to Thaksin's inability to organise new elections while he was the (resigned and expired) care-taker PM.

In 2007, there was a new election, where the PPP won the most seats, but not enough to form government. They had the help of some smaller parties to form a coalition government.

In 2008, PM Samak was forced to step down as PM for having 2 jobs (PM and TV host) and for lying in court. A PPP and coalition parties elected Somchai as PM.

In 2008, the PPP was disbanded due to electoral fraud, and the party executive were banned. The remaining PPP MPs moved to the PTP or other parties. By-elections were held to replace banned MPs. (ie everyone was represented with elected MPs).

Following the banning of PPP MPs, a new PM had to be elected by the MPs (as happens with all Thai PMs). The PTP failed to keep their coalition together, allowing the Democrats and some smaller parties to elect Abhisit as PM.

Besides the coup to remove a resigned and expired care-taker PM, what did the army have to do with any of this?

[Groongthep]

OK, you win. As I said in the other part of the post that you quoted, I don't think vicious attack opinions filled with obscenities need be heard. What that has to do with the censorship of Giles Ungpakorn's book and other legitamate critical literature is beyond me, but if it makes you happy then I will admit that you are correct.

It has to do with the fact that in different countries there are different laws about opinions that can be voiced and those that can't. In Thailand you can say things about the holocaust that you can't say in other countries. On the other hand, in those other countries you could say things about the Monarchy that you can't say in Thailand. Point being, all countries have their own laws and if you knowingly break them, as i believe Giles did, well then, whether you like the law or not, you will have to accept the consequences of having broken it... or of course you can run away.

Are you high on dope or what? What bearing does this answer have on the question you originally asked me? Yes, I know what you can and cannot put in print or say on the air in Thailand but that doesn't make it right for one political group to use the LM laws as a tool to control others. LM laws were invoked during the events of 1973 and 1976 too. The military government used them to justify the killing of a lot of people then as well. Just because a law is the law doesn't make it right. Slavery was once legal in most western countries too. Giles Ungpakorn should have the right to say anything he wants as long as he can substantiate that it is true.

[Groongthep]

In 2005, there was an election that TRT/Thaksin won.

In 2006, there was another election, which the Democrats boycotted, and the TRT/Thaksin failed to win, and which the Constitution Courts invalidated.

In late 2006, there was a coup, generally due to Thaksin's inability to organise new elections while he was the (resigned and expired) care-taker PM.

In 2007, there was a new election, where the PPP won the most seats, but not enough to form government. They had the help of some smaller parties to form a coalition government.

In 2008, PM Samak was forced to step down as PM for having 2 jobs (PM and TV host) and for lying in court. A PPP and coalition parties elected Somchai as PM.

In 2008, the PPP was disbanded due to electoral fraud, and the party executive were banned. The remaining PPP MPs moved to the PTP or other parties. By-elections were held to replace banned MPs. (ie everyone was represented with elected MPs).

Following the banning of PPP MPs, a new PM had to be elected by the MPs (as happens with all Thai PMs). The PTP failed to keep their coalition together, allowing the Democrats and some smaller parties to elect Abhisit as PM.

Besides the coup to remove a resigned and expired care-taker PM, what did the army have to do with any of this?

You casually mention the coup as if it were a routine ho-hum event. It was a crime. If the opponents of Thaksin wanted to get rid of him they should have done it right and formed a new party or bolstered the existing Democrat Party, put together a real platform of reform and convinced the Thai people that they should vote them into power. Instead they used the gun and forced the very flawed but popular Thaksin and his TRT out. The animosity this caused may never be rectified and the resentment in the countryside continues to fester today. Had there been no coup Thaksin would have returned from New York and organized the new elections where his supporters may not have won a majority but would have certainly won enough seats to form a new government. That would have changed everything in your timeline from 2006 forward. I'm not saying that this would have necessarily been a good thing but at least it would have been democratic. If a democratic framework could have been established at least there would now be a chance, although probably slim, that change could eventually come in a peaceful and orderly fashion. What we have now is a deeply divided Thailand that may be stuck with an aristocratic dictatorship for the unforeseeable future or until it is forcibly overthrown.

[whybother]

You casually mention the coup as if it were a routine ho-hum event. It was a crime. If the opponents of Thaksin wanted to get rid of him they should have done it right and formed a new party or bolstered the existing Democrat Party, put together a real platform of reform and convinced the Thai people that they should vote them into power. Instead they used the gun and forced the very flawed but popular Thaksin and his TRT out. The animosity this caused may never be rectified and the resentment in the countryside continues to fester today. Had there been no coup Thaksin would have returned from New York and organized the new elections where his supporters may not have won a majority but would have certainly won enough seats to form a new government. That would have changed everything in your timeline from 2006 forward. I'm not saying that this would have necessarily been a good thing but at least it would have been democratic. If a democratic framework could have been established at least there would now be a chance, although probably slim, that change could eventually come in a peaceful and orderly fashion. What we have now is a deeply divided Thailand that may be stuck with an aristocratic dictatorship for the unforeseeable future or until it is forcibly overthrown.

In Thailand, a coup is a ho-hum event. I flew into Bangkok less than a week after the coup. I was more worried about the new airport (fully opening the night I flew in) than the coup.

Yes, the coup was a crime. Thaksin had already had more than the 6 months allowed in the constitution to organise new elections. During that time he was doing everything he could to avoid even having new elections. He was putting family and friends into important posts, even while he was care-taker PM, including trying to get someone he controlled to head the army. What's to say he would have even bothered with elections when he returned from New York.

Since the coup, there have been elections. Was there something wrong with these elections? What is it about those elections that the red shirts can't accept? The elections were run under a new constitution. What is it about the constitution that the red shirts can't accept?

Why can't the PTP "put together a real platform of reform and convince the Thai people that they should vote them into power." They could have had elections in November, but at the moment they don't have the support of the majority of Thailand, so maybe they were worried about losing that.

The animosity caused by the coup continues to fester today because of the lies continuously spouted by the red shirt leaders ... the main one being that the coup deposed "the elected PM".

[rubl]

In 2005, there was an election that TRT/Thaksin won.

In 2006, there was another election, which the Democrats boycotted, and the TRT/Thaksin failed to win, and which the Constitution Courts invalidated.

In late 2006, there was a coup, generally due to Thaksin's inability to organise new elections while he was the (resigned and expired) care-taker PM.

In 2007, there was a new election, where the PPP won the most seats, but not enough to form government. They had the help of some smaller parties to form a coalition government.

In 2008, PM Samak was forced to step down as PM for having 2 jobs (PM and TV host) and for lying in court. A PPP and coalition parties elected Somchai as PM.

In 2008, the PPP was disbanded due to electoral fraud, and the party executive were banned. The remaining PPP MPs moved to the PTP or other parties. By-elections were held to replace banned MPs. (ie everyone was represented with elected MPs).

Following the banning of PPP MPs, a new PM had to be elected by the MPs (as happens with all Thai PMs). The PTP failed to keep their coalition together, allowing the Democrats and some smaller parties to elect Abhisit as PM.

Besides the coup to remove a resigned and expired care-taker PM, what did the army have to do with any of this?

You casually mention the coup as if it were a routine ho-hum event. It was a crime. If the opponents of Thaksin wanted to get rid of him they should have done it right and formed a new party or bolstered the existing Democrat Party, put together a real platform of reform and convinced the Thai people that they should vote them into power. Instead they used the gun and forced the very flawed but popular Thaksin and his TRT out. The animosity this caused may never be rectified and the resentment in the countryside continues to fester today. Had there been no coup Thaksin would have returned from New York and organized the new elections where his supporters may not have won a majority but would have certainly won enough seats to form a new government. That would have changed everything in your timeline from 2006 forward. I'm not saying that this would have necessarily been a good thing but at least it would have been democratic. If a democratic framework could have been established at least there would now be a chance, although probably slim, that change could eventually come in a peaceful and orderly fashion. What we have now is a deeply divided Thailand that may be stuck with an aristocratic dictatorship for the unforeseeable future or until it is forcibly overthrown.

Blame K. Thaksin:

New York-based Human Rights Watch was also critical of the coup. "Thaksin's rule had seriously eroded respect for human rights in Thailand, but suspending basic rights under the constitution is not the answer," said Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch.

Still some coups are generally accepted as beneficial to a country, like the Carnation Revolution in Portugal which was a military coup.

To cross from black to white you have to travel lightyears of grey.

Edited September 11, 2010 by rubl

[phetaroi]

Even this forum is censored.

And I thought the whole idea about a forum is, is that you can write what you want, and then others can agree or disagree with you.

But not in Thailand.

Depends what you want to write??? it's the same everywhere, try for example anti Islamic garble in the New York Times and see if it gets published.

Edit: s on gets

But there is a difference between being censored by the government and being censored by the private sector.

[whybother]

But there is a difference between being censored by the government and being censored by the private sector.

When it comes down to it, they're basically the same thing, aren't they?

[schmutzie]

Even this forum is censored.

And I thought the whole idea about a forum is, is that you can write what you want, and then others can agree or disagree with you.

But not in Thailand.

Depends what you want to write??? it's the same everywhere, try for example anti Islamic garble in the New York Times and see if it gets published.

Edit: s on gets

But there is a difference between being censored by the government and being censored by the private sector.

I think the point about TV is interesting. To start by examining what is actually closest to you. Mind you, we're not even supposed to discuss this AFAIK.

My own joke is that Thailand, if anything, is becoming Singapore. My hope is that Thais find their own unique answer to being economically successful yet socially responsible. But it all takes time.

[rubl]

But there is a difference between being censored by the government and being censored by the private sector.

When it comes down to it, they're basically the same thing, aren't they?

The effect may be the same. Censorship by the government should be ruled by law. Private censorship by private companies or persons. The last tend to have more freedom of choice whether they care to use it or not. Pressure by the government may effect that of course. Sometimes companies ae more afraid of being sued for what employees do or say than what the government can tell them. Especially forum's have been had for 'less nice posts'.