Amendment To The Printing Act Of 2007 Will Take Press Freedom In Thailand Back To The Dark Ages

[geriatrickid]

TheNation must be scared to death that they won't be able to post bullsh** anymore...

Correct. I think it is why other newspapers aren't overly concerned.

[whybother]

TheNation must be scared to death that they won't be able to post bullsh** anymore...

Correct. I think it is why other newspapers aren't overly concerned.

It's interesting that the Council of State IS concerned enough to say that it's unconstitutional.

[siampolee]

TheNation must be scared to death that they won't be able to post bullsh** anymore...

Read carefully GK there are some interesting parallels to a lot of content published in this forum.

I am as guilty as others so I can point a finger at others too.

Edited November 7, 2011 by siampolee

[AleG]

"I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

What!?

You give the same link I gave you. It's right there, I bolded the text and here goes again:

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

That's unambiguous, crystal clear; how can you say that "NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

In spite of it seeming crystal clear, It is a question of interpretation - you and Nisa reading the same words and having different conclusions makes that clear.

your reading is reasonable, a publication violates the ban, and the Police chief closes the doors.

Nisa's reading is reasonable, too. The text shown here says "ban the printing ... of any printed media".

so an article is deemed to violate the standards, and the "printing, distribution or import" of that article is banned.

IMO, there is not enough information or informed opinions here to know which would have been closer to the truth.

And in any case, this particular change will not be implemented.

It is more interesting to ask why this was proposed in the first place.

That interpretation is nothing but a flimsy, far fetched attempt at spinning. I suppose people see what they want to see, when the time comes to defend the indefensible it is so much easier to pretend it doesn't exist.

Although you may want to explain how the police chief would go around banning individual articles in printed media without banning the full publication.

...

Articles "which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals" has always been subject to censorship and prosecution. And there is nothing here that hints at shutting down a newspaper but even if you wanted believe this is what is being said, it is only saying this if they continued, after being warned, to stop printing items which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals. Does anybody really believe that this would not happen now, even though the proposal has been shot down? Again, my guess is this was more about clarifying how current laws would be enforced and monitored for violation.

...

Sure things are banned when they violate some law or another, but the courts are involved and give a verdict; the problem that you seem to be intently ignoring is having the Police Chief, appointed by the government in turn, at his own discretion having the power to decide what can be printed or not. Do you see the judicial system as part of the process in the proposed changes?

The difference is so obvious between having a single man, politically appointed, acting at his own discretion and the court system enforcing laws that I just can't understand how you don't see it as a problem. The first is a form of tyranny the second is how a democracy works.

[nurofiend]

Anything that might - no matter how remote the possibility - send democracy down a slippery slope to doom must not be allowed to happen.

Agreed.

[Buchholz]

TheNation must be scared to death that they won't be able to post bullsh** anymore...

Correct. I think it is why other newspapers aren't overly concerned.

It's interesting that the Council of State IS concerned enough to say that it's unconstitutional.

The other newspaper had a long editorial on the issue yesterday which including mentioning the amendment was submitted, in typical Shinawatra fashion, just the day before Thaksin's brother-in-law was made National Police Chief.

.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Buchholz

[longway]

Here is the link to the actual news story (thanks as I did miss this) -- I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication but instead can simply order them to stop distributing an article that is illegal and then arrest any person who ignores that order ... nothing really new here but simply clarification of how things will be administered and accounted for in the future..

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2847

A rating system for printed media will also be introduced in the law because currently newspapers, magazines and journals are found to have violent and pornographic content and pictures which are not appropriate for young readers who might imitate them, she said.

The Ministry of Culture will work out the details of the rating system appropriate to Thai society. The amendments will be vetted by the Council of State before being forwarded to Parliament, the Minister said.

"I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

What!?

You give the same link I gave you. It's right there, I bolded the text and here goes again:

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

That's unambiguous, crystal clear; how can you say that "NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

In spite of it seeming crystal clear, It is a question of interpretation - you and Nisa reading the same words and having different conclusions makes that clear.

your reading is reasonable, a publication violates the ban, and the Police chief closes the doors.

Nisa's reading is reasonable, too. The text shown here says "ban the printing ... of any printed media".

so an article is deemed to violate the standards, and the "printing, distribution or import" of that article is banned.

IMO, there is not enough information or informed opinions here to know which would have been closer to the truth.

And in any case, this particular change will not be implemented.

It is more interesting to ask why this was proposed in the first place.

Good impartial comments. I too wonder why it was proposed and more am curious to know why this newspaper hasn't run an actual news report on this item that their editorial suggests is a huge story of attempts by the government to seize complete control over what the newspapers can and cannot print and allow the police to shut down entire newspapers on a whim if they don't like what the paper is reporting. Had they actually carried a real "news" account of this then it would include statements from those proposing such changes and their reasons for the proposal.

Instead here we are 3-weeks after the proposal was voted on (surely it was written, being passed around and debated about long before this) and we have no clue (only guesses that are mostly paranoid) as to the reason for the proposal. Again, I really don't see anything new here, except the rating system, as there is no new law in terms of what they can and cannot print but simply either clarification or designations of who is responsible for monitoring and how current laws would be enforced.

Articles "which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals" has always been subject to censorship and prosecution. And there is nothing here that hints at shutting down a newspaper but even if you wanted believe this is what is being said, it is only saying this if they continued, after being warned, to stop printing items which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals. Does anybody really believe that this would not happen now, even though the proposal has been shot down? Again, my guess is this was more about clarifying how current laws would be enforced and monitored for violation.

Bottom line is news reporting has gone to sh@t around the globe as it is a for profit venture run by large companies with an interest in public policies. Thailand without a doubt lacks press freedoms that other countries enjoy but the big problem with the media here is not that they are controlled but they simply refuse to do any real investigative journalism but have no problem printing non-fact based info that inflames and divides the public ... one would think they are getting their lessons from Fox.

More to the point of it being proposed and the reaction of The Nation to the proposal, I have a couple of thoughts and I'm pretty sure some of our TVF posters could share their perspectives and information.

First in The Nation's allergic reaction / editorial, they make it sound like the changes regarding censorship in 2007 under the military junta were a dream of freedom of expression. If that struck anyone else as a bit odd, then I'm not alone. I acknowledge not knowing and not having the time at the moment to look for information on how media regulations changed right after the coup. But I never had the impression that the military junta loosened the rules... So I would be interested to know how things changed in 2006/2007 - which is the basis for any changes to be proposed now.

Second, why the change in the first place. I recall rather vividly that the last gov't had no problems closing media outlets. And it certainly seems that Thaksin was able to control the media reasonably well, too. So why do this? Many people could immediate insinuate (as they have already) that it is just to gain more control. Possible - no doubt. But is that perhaps too easy? One of the criticisms of the PTP before the elections and often an implied criticism after they won, is that the PTP would not be a strong supporter of LM and the nation. People here on TV made a big deal out of the LM "war room". It seems at least remotely possible that this gov't is motivated to have an LM "war room" and pass measures like this related to LM in order to appear "strong" on LM. (the added benefit of abusing it for political gain is also present, isn't it?).

I am really curious about other perspectives on this point.

Finally, it "seems" clear why this proposal would have put the power in the police chief - he gets appointed by the government - not only convenient, but keeps the enforcement within the control of the government.

In any case, as long as there are LM laws, there will be no free press/speech. It is a huge hammer to beat political opponents over the head with.

Instead of resorting to this silly nonsense to try and justify their proposal, I suggest that PT supporters just close their eyes, put their hands over their ears and say lalalala until you forget about it.

[tlansford]

- snip -

In spite of it seeming crystal clear, It is a question of interpretation - you and Nisa reading the same words and having different conclusions makes that clear.

your reading is reasonable, a publication violates the ban, and the Police chief closes the doors.

Nisa's reading is reasonable, too. The text shown here says "ban the printing ... of any printed media".

so an article is deemed to violate the standards, and the "printing, distribution or import" of that article is banned.

IMO, there is not enough information or informed opinions here to know which would have been closer to the truth.

And in any case, this particular change will not be implemented.

It is more interesting to ask why this was proposed in the first place.

Good impartial comments. I too wonder why it was proposed and more am curious to know why this newspaper hasn't run an actual news report on this item that their editorial suggests is a huge story of attempts by the government to seize complete control over what the newspapers can and cannot print and allow the police to shut down entire newspapers on a whim if they don't like what the paper is reporting. Had they actually carried a real "news" account of this then it would include statements from those proposing such changes and their reasons for the proposal.

Instead here we are 3-weeks after the proposal was voted on (surely it was written, being passed around and debated about long before this) and we have no clue (only guesses that are mostly paranoid) as to the reason for the proposal. Again, I really don't see anything new here, except the rating system, as there is no new law in terms of what they can and cannot print but simply either clarification or designations of who is responsible for monitoring and how current laws would be enforced.

Articles "which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals" has always been subject to censorship and prosecution. And there is nothing here that hints at shutting down a newspaper but even if you wanted believe this is what is being said, it is only saying this if they continued, after being warned, to stop printing items which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals. Does anybody really believe that this would not happen now, even though the proposal has been shot down? Again, my guess is this was more about clarifying how current laws would be enforced and monitored for violation.

Bottom line is news reporting has gone to sh@t around the globe as it is a for profit venture run by large companies with an interest in public policies. Thailand without a doubt lacks press freedoms that other countries enjoy but the big problem with the media here is not that they are controlled but they simply refuse to do any real investigative journalism but have no problem printing non-fact based info that inflames and divides the public ... one would think they are getting their lessons from Fox.

More to the point of it being proposed and the reaction of The Nation to the proposal, I have a couple of thoughts and I'm pretty sure some of our TVF posters could share their perspectives and information.

First in The Nation's allergic reaction / editorial, they make it sound like the changes regarding censorship in 2007 under the military junta were a dream of freedom of expression. If that struck anyone else as a bit odd, then I'm not alone. I acknowledge not knowing and not having the time at the moment to look for information on how media regulations changed right after the coup. But I never had the impression that the military junta loosened the rules... So I would be interested to know how things changed in 2006/2007 - which is the basis for any changes to be proposed now.

Second, why the change in the first place. I recall rather vividly that the last gov't had no problems closing media outlets. And it certainly seems that Thaksin was able to control the media reasonably well, too. So why do this? Many people could immediate insinuate (as they have already) that it is just to gain more control. Possible - no doubt. But is that perhaps too easy? One of the criticisms of the PTP before the elections and often an implied criticism after they won, is that the PTP would not be a strong supporter of LM and the nation. People here on TV made a big deal out of the LM "war room". It seems at least remotely possible that this gov't is motivated to have an LM "war room" and pass measures like this related to LM in order to appear "strong" on LM. (the added benefit of abusing it for political gain is also present, isn't it?).

I am really curious about other perspectives on this point.

Finally, it "seems" clear why this proposal would have put the power in the police chief - he gets appointed by the government - not only convenient, but keeps the enforcement within the control of the government.

In any case, as long as there are LM laws, there will be no free press/speech. It is a huge hammer to beat political opponents over the head with.

Instead of resorting to this silly nonsense to try and justify their proposal, I suggest that PT supporters just close their eyes, put their hands over their ears and say lalalala until you forget about it.

There is a huge difference between justifying something and questioning why this something was done.

[hammered]

In my mind the yellows, the reds, the loonies, the divided Thai language media and the one sided monopolised English language Thai media, the community radio stations, internet etc should all be able to say what they want as long as it isnt outrageously illegal as determined by a court final decision of a law passed by a democratically elected legislature.

Of course every media outlet in the country is a propaganda organ, but that is the purpose of the media and understanding such shows why a huge variety of opinions is needed to give balance and avoid indoctrination that goes with narrow guided media seen in authoritarian states. Actually the Thai print media has such balance across the political equation as would be expected as does the internet etc. It is really only the very one sided English language Thai media that doesnt represent variety of political opinion even across the main party divide.

All recent Thai governments deserve criticism for their stance on opposing any speech they didnt like.

[otherstuff1957]

This is an interesting debate... not so much regarding the OP, but seeing how desperately the forum Reds are to defend the perception of Redshirts=Socially Progressive Liberals.

While there are Socially Progressive Liberals in the Redshirt movement, they have little influence with the PT and less influence with 'the Family' and, as their usefulness wanes, they are being slowly pushed aside.

Edited to add: I agree 100% with hammered here. The right to freedom of speech, however objectionable that speech may be, should be increased in Thailand, not curbed!

Edited November 7, 2011 by otherstuff1957

[longway]

- snip -

In spite of it seeming crystal clear, It is a question of interpretation - you and Nisa reading the same words and having different conclusions makes that clear.

your reading is reasonable, a publication violates the ban, and the Police chief closes the doors.

Nisa's reading is reasonable, too. The text shown here says "ban the printing ... of any printed media".

so an article is deemed to violate the standards, and the "printing, distribution or import" of that article is banned.

IMO, there is not enough information or informed opinions here to know which would have been closer to the truth.

And in any case, this particular change will not be implemented.

It is more interesting to ask why this was proposed in the first place.

Good impartial comments. I too wonder why it was proposed and more am curious to know why this newspaper hasn't run an actual news report on this item that their editorial suggests is a huge story of attempts by the government to seize complete control over what the newspapers can and cannot print and allow the police to shut down entire newspapers on a whim if they don't like what the paper is reporting. Had they actually carried a real "news" account of this then it would include statements from those proposing such changes and their reasons for the proposal.

Instead here we are 3-weeks after the proposal was voted on (surely it was written, being passed around and debated about long before this) and we have no clue (only guesses that are mostly paranoid) as to the reason for the proposal. Again, I really don't see anything new here, except the rating system, as there is no new law in terms of what they can and cannot print but simply either clarification or designations of who is responsible for monitoring and how current laws would be enforced.

Articles "which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals" has always been subject to censorship and prosecution. And there is nothing here that hints at shutting down a newspaper but even if you wanted believe this is what is being said, it is only saying this if they continued, after being warned, to stop printing items which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals. Does anybody really believe that this would not happen now, even though the proposal has been shot down? Again, my guess is this was more about clarifying how current laws would be enforced and monitored for violation.

Bottom line is news reporting has gone to sh@t around the globe as it is a for profit venture run by large companies with an interest in public policies. Thailand without a doubt lacks press freedoms that other countries enjoy but the big problem with the media here is not that they are controlled but they simply refuse to do any real investigative journalism but have no problem printing non-fact based info that inflames and divides the public ... one would think they are getting their lessons from Fox.

More to the point of it being proposed and the reaction of The Nation to the proposal, I have a couple of thoughts and I'm pretty sure some of our TVF posters could share their perspectives and information.

First in The Nation's allergic reaction / editorial, they make it sound like the changes regarding censorship in 2007 under the military junta were a dream of freedom of expression. If that struck anyone else as a bit odd, then I'm not alone. I acknowledge not knowing and not having the time at the moment to look for information on how media regulations changed right after the coup. But I never had the impression that the military junta loosened the rules... So I would be interested to know how things changed in 2006/2007 - which is the basis for any changes to be proposed now.

Second, why the change in the first place. I recall rather vividly that the last gov't had no problems closing media outlets. And it certainly seems that Thaksin was able to control the media reasonably well, too. So why do this? Many people could immediate insinuate (as they have already) that it is just to gain more control. Possible - no doubt. But is that perhaps too easy? One of the criticisms of the PTP before the elections and often an implied criticism after they won, is that the PTP would not be a strong supporter of LM and the nation. People here on TV made a big deal out of the LM "war room". It seems at least remotely possible that this gov't is motivated to have an LM "war room" and pass measures like this related to LM in order to appear "strong" on LM. (the added benefit of abusing it for political gain is also present, isn't it?).

I am really curious about other perspectives on this point.

Finally, it "seems" clear why this proposal would have put the power in the police chief - he gets appointed by the government - not only convenient, but keeps the enforcement within the control of the government.

In any case, as long as there are LM laws, there will be no free press/speech. It is a huge hammer to beat political opponents over the head with.

Instead of resorting to this silly nonsense to try and justify their proposal, I suggest that PT supporters just close their eyes, put their hands over their ears and say lalalala until you forget about it.

There is a huge difference between justifying something and questioning why this something was done.

More like casting around for lame excuses or go off into tangents. Are you even managing to kid yourself? We all know very well why it was proposed. Its no different from any other government who proposes this kind of legislation.

Edited November 7, 2011 by longway

[bigbamboo]

What's the problem? If you can't trust the Thai Chief of Police who can you trust?

[Nisa]

Sure things are banned when they violate some law or another, but the courts are involved and give a verdict; the problem that you seem to be intently ignoring is having the Police Chief, appointed by the government in turn, at his own discretion having the power to decide what can be printed or not. Do you see the judicial system as part of the process in the proposed changes?

The difference is so obvious between having a single man, politically appointed, acting at his own discretion and the court system enforcing laws that I just can't understand how you don't see it as a problem. The first is a form of tyranny the second is how a democracy works.

I guess that is like saying a cop has the right to say who can drive or not because they can arrest those they suspect of being drunk. It actually says they can be told to stop distributing an illegal article and if they don't then they can be subject to a fine and prison sentence. Even if you want to believe they can be shut down completely by a ban and not just referring to an illegal article, it clearly states if they violate/ignore the ban they are subject to fine and imprisonment. I think one has to be whacky to believe this fine and/or prison sentence is not the result of a court and not simply imposed by a cop.

[AleG]

Sure things are banned when they violate some law or another, but the courts are involved and give a verdict; the problem that you seem to be intently ignoring is having the Police Chief, appointed by the government in turn, at his own discretion having the power to decide what can be printed or not. Do you see the judicial system as part of the process in the proposed changes?

The difference is so obvious between having a single man, politically appointed, acting at his own discretion and the court system enforcing laws that I just can't understand how you don't see it as a problem. The first is a form of tyranny the second is how a democracy works.

I guess that is like saying a cop has the right to say who can drive or not because they can arrest those they suspect of being drunk. It actually says they can be told to stop distributing an illegal article and if they don't then they can be subject to a fine and prison sentence. Even if you want to believe they can be shut down completely by a ban and not just referring to an illegal article, it clearly states if they violate/ignore the ban they are subject to fine and imprisonment. I think one has to be whacky to believe this fine and/or prison sentence is not the result of a court and not simply imposed by a cop.

I'm starting to wondering if you are being intentionally obtuse. THIRD time:

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals

See courts having a said there?

If a banned publication keeps on going then I suppose it gets remitted to a court where it would be decided the punishment for the infraction, the infraction being circumventing a ban imposed by the police chief.

To help understand the process, Police Chief sees something he doesn't like and bans it, media keeps publishing and PC arrest the culprit, sends him to court were the court hears that A) The police chief, on his own decided to impose a ban, The ban was circumvented, so of course the publisher is guilty of going against what the Police Chief wants to impose. In other words media can be made illegal on the say so of the Police Chief.

"It actually says they can be told to stop distributing an illegal article"

ACTUALLY, it says "The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals", authorized to ban (...) printed media. Not just distributing or articles, ban and whole media.

I should add, your example of a cop stopping someone for drunk driving, the analogy is not the same at all. In fact is quite the opposite. Drunk driving is an offense because it was codified in the law books and then the police act on suppressing infractions.

In the case as I have repeatedly quoted the paragraph, the Police Chief would first decide what is an offense and then seek punishment for it. In the case of cops pulling cars it would be as if the Police Chief one day decides that all red cars are committing an offense and should be pulled off of the streets; there's no law that says so, but the Police Chief has the authority to simply declare it.

Edited November 7, 2011 by AleG

[TAWP]

TheNation must be scared to death that they won't be able to post bullsh** anymore...

Correct. I think it is why other newspapers aren't overly concerned.

Prachatai is concerned. You might recognize that name as a site labeled by some as pro-Red Shirts. So this is clearly not a The Nation-only issue. Even if that destroys your attempt to defend this.

[whybother]

I guess that is like saying a cop has the right to say who can drive or not because they can arrest those they suspect of being drunk. It actually says they can be told to stop distributing an illegal article and if they don't then they can be subject to a fine and prison sentence. Even if you want to believe they can be shut down completely by a ban and not just referring to an illegal article, it clearly states if they violate/ignore the ban they are subject to fine and imprisonment. I think one has to be whacky to believe this fine and/or prison sentence is not the result of a court and not simply imposed by a cop.

The police can not ban someone from driving. They can arrest someone for suspicion of drunk driving, but only the courts can ban them.

[Nisa]

I guess that is like saying a cop has the right to say who can drive or not because they can arrest those they suspect of being drunk. It actually says they can be told to stop distributing an illegal article and if they don't then they can be subject to a fine and prison sentence. Even if you want to believe they can be shut down completely by a ban and not just referring to an illegal article, it clearly states if they violate/ignore the ban they are subject to fine and imprisonment. I think one has to be whacky to believe this fine and/or prison sentence is not the result of a court and not simply imposed by a cop.

The police can not ban someone from driving. They can arrest someone for suspicion of drunk driving, but only the courts can ban them.

Nowhere in the proposal did it say the police could shut down a newspaper. It is very clear in stating that it can order it from distributing illegal content but it also says the remedy for not obeying such an order is subject to penalties that clearly could and only would be imposed by a court after a trial. Police Ordering a ban is a different than being able to shut down an entire newspaper or media outlet.

. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals

These things are already illegal to distribute. And what is the remedy if the media outlet continues to distribute illegal material? Well of course have a hearing and be sentenced if found guilty.

Those who violate a banning order by the National Police Chief will be punished with a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to 100,000 baht, or both.

Nowhere at all does it say the Police Chief has any authority to close down any business, pad lock doors, burn printed material or anything else. It simply says he can order a ban of distributing illegal material and if that ban is ignored then the courts get involved.

Why don't you read this article from a year ago and maybe you will realize this proposal was really not much more than a clarification of how registering and enforcement would be handled .... http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/2034

[TAWP]

Nisa>> You are wrong but for some reason to obtuse to admit it. The banning of printing a news paper or magazine doesn't carry a requirement of illegal content. As the highlighted line clearly states. It only has to affect for example public morals.

Unless you now want to deny that the highlighted line, that you quoted, is saying what you quoted and highlighted...

[Nisa]

I guess that is like saying a cop has the right to say who can drive or not because they can arrest those they suspect of being drunk. It actually says they can be told to stop distributing an illegal article and if they don't then they can be subject to a fine and prison sentence. Even if you want to believe they can be shut down completely by a ban and not just referring to an illegal article, it clearly states if they violate/ignore the ban they are subject to fine and imprisonment. I think one has to be whacky to believe this fine and/or prison sentence is not the result of a court and not simply imposed by a cop.

The police can not ban someone from driving. They can arrest someone for suspicion of drunk driving, but only the courts can ban them.

The police can ban somebody from driving if they believe they are under the influence of the alcohol. In what has been posted here, it clearly states the police can order a ban on an entity from distributing illegal material. The difference being is that in this case it appears the police can do nothing but order a ban that can be ignored unlike a "suspected" drunk driver who is arrested and physically prevented from driving. If ignored then the case goes to court .. this seems very clear if you read what is posted here about the proposal. NOTHING here gives the police the right to shut down a business by force ... if it did, it would be pretty hard to ignore the ban.

Press freedom in Thailand is not good and the press in general is worthless but I am just amazed people want to make mountains out of mole hills regarding this proposal that was shot down and that no newspaper has actually done a real report on by explaining current laws, the 2007 laws or interviewing anyone involved in this proposal. Regardless, people should be celebrating the fact that Thailand has prevented a new law from passing that could be viewed as more restrictions on the press.

But I suggest you read this 2010 article and see that this simply appears to be a shuffling of how the 2007 and current laws and registration will be handled and enforced ... http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/2034

On 13 Sept,

(2010)

Wilawan Sapphansan, Director of the National Library of Thailand, notified the Police Special Branch to take legal action against the magazine

for not having been registered under the 2007 Print Registration Act and for its content

...

[Nisa]

Nisa>> You are wrong but for some reason to obtuse to admit it. The banning of printing a news paper or magazine doesn't carry a requirement of illegal content. As the highlighted line clearly states. It only has to affect for example public morals.

Unless you now want to deny that the highlighted line, that you quoted, is saying what you quoted and highlighted...

Why don't you look up the laws regarding public morals and then keep rereading the article until you finally come to the realization it says NOTHING about banning the printing of a newspaper but only mentions banning of printing of specific material and that it gives absolutely no power to the police to enforce such a ban and even goes on to say how it will be handed by the court (sentence & fine) if the ban is ignored.

I know you like to get your panties in a bunch whenever possible but this is just simply silly. The laws have not changed just who would be the one initially deciding if the content runs contrary to law. The police in every country are charged with using their judgement if a laws is broken and have the authority to tell people to stop breaking the law and those who refuse are subject to prosecution.

According to the constitution, censorship may be imposed to preserve national security, maintain public order, preserve the rights of others,

protect public morals

, and prevent criticism of the royal family and insults to Buddhism.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Nisa

[yoshiwara]

TheNation must be scared to death that they won't be able to post bullsh** anymore...

Correct. I think it is why other newspapers aren't overly concerned.

Prachatai is concerned. You might recognize that name as a site labeled by some as pro-Red Shirts. So this is clearly not a The Nation-only issue. Even if that destroys your attempt to defend this.

Looking at some of the comments above, it is transparently clear that the forum red supporters much prior vaunting of supposed freedoms was nothing more than a piece of tattered window dressing. As we said at the time.

Edited November 7, 2011 by yoshiwara

[longway]

I guess that is like saying a cop has the right to say who can drive or not because they can arrest those they suspect of being drunk. It actually says they can be told to stop distributing an illegal article and if they don't then they can be subject to a fine and prison sentence. Even if you want to believe they can be shut down completely by a ban and not just referring to an illegal article, it clearly states if they violate/ignore the ban they are subject to fine and imprisonment. I think one has to be whacky to believe this fine and/or prison sentence is not the result of a court and not simply imposed by a cop.

The police can not ban someone from driving. They can arrest someone for suspicion of drunk driving, but only the courts can ban them.

The police can ban somebody from driving if they believe they are under the influence of the alcohol. In what has been posted here, it clearly states the police can order a ban on an entity from distributing illegal material. The difference being is that in this case it appears the police can do nothing but order a ban that can be ignored unlike a "suspected" drunk driver who is arrested and physically prevented from driving. If ignored then the case goes to court .. this seems very clear if you read what is posted here about the proposal. NOTHING here gives the police the right to shut down a business by force ... if it did, it would be pretty hard to ignore the ban.

Press freedom in Thailand is not good and the press in general is worthless but I am just amazed people want to make mountains out of mole hills regarding this proposal that was shot down and that no newspaper has actually done a real report on by explaining current laws, the 2007 laws or interviewing anyone involved in this proposal. Regardless, people should be celebrating the fact that Thailand has prevented a new law from passing that could be viewed as more restrictions on the press.

But I suggest you read this 2010 article and see that this simply appears to be a shuffling of how the 2007 and current laws and registration will be handled and enforced ... http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/2034

On 13 Sept,

(2010)

Wilawan Sapphansan, Director of the National Library of Thailand, notified the Police Special Branch to take legal action against the magazine

for not having been registered under the 2007 Print Registration Act and for its content

...

[whybother]

Nowhere in the proposal did it say the police could shut down a newspaper. It is very clear in stating that it can order it from distributing illegal content but it also says the remedy for not obeying such an order is subject to penalties that clearly could and only would be imposed by a court after a trial. Police Ordering a ban is a different than being able to shut down an entire newspaper or media outlet.

. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals

These things are already illegal to distribute. And what is the remedy if the media outlet continues to distribute illegal material? Well of course have a hearing and be sentenced if found guilty.

Those who violate a banning order by the National Police Chief will be punished with a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to 100,000 baht, or both.

Nowhere at all does it say the Police Chief has any authority to close down any business, pad lock doors, burn printed material or anything else. It simply says he can order a ban of distributing illegal material and if that ban is ignored then the courts get involved.

Why don't you read this article from a year ago and maybe you will realize this proposal was really not much more than a clarification of how registering and enforcement would be handled .... http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2034

I don't believe it is against the law to print something that "affects ... public order or morals". Banning the printing of a newspaper effectively shuts it down.

The main problem with this proposal is that it is the police chief that decides what is illegal. It is only later that the courts get involved if someone goes against the police chief's order.

The example in the link says that legal action should be taken because the magazine was not registered, and clearly, it was up to the courts to decide whether it broke the law or not.

Edited November 7, 2011 by whybother

[samran]

So the proposed amendment was deemed unconstitutional by the council of state. Big whoop.

Given than this government doesn't have a democratic bone in its body, I'm sure, just like a London bus, a new constitution will be along shortly which will be more amenable.

[Nisa]

If people are upset and want to talk about censorship in Thailand then they should really be talking about the laws created back in 2007 and not be getting themselves worked up about some failed attempt to pass a law dealing with how those 2007 censorship laws will be enforced.

I am not by any means a supporter of anyone associated with Thaksin and believe Abhisit was the right man for Thailand but it is silly to pretend the current powers are infringing more on free speech when this proposal was shot down and it was under Abhisit's Administration that strong censorship laws were passed and media outlets were actually shut down.

One might get the feeling that some people here are against censorship only when it is done by a political party they don't like while ignoring censorship if it removes the speech from those they don't like.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Nisa

[Nisa]

Nowhere in the proposal did it say the police could shut down a newspaper. It is very clear in stating that it can order it from distributing illegal content but it also says the remedy for not obeying such an order is subject to penalties that clearly could and only would be imposed by a court after a trial. Police Ordering a ban is a different than being able to shut down an entire newspaper or media outlet.

. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals

These things are already illegal to distribute. And what is the remedy if the media outlet continues to distribute illegal material? Well of course have a hearing and be sentenced if found guilty.

Those who violate a banning order by the National Police Chief will be punished with a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to 100,000 baht, or both.

Nowhere at all does it say the Police Chief has any authority to close down any business, pad lock doors, burn printed material or anything else. It simply says he can order a ban of distributing illegal material and if that ban is ignored then the courts get involved.

Why don't you read this article from a year ago and maybe you will realize this proposal was really not much more than a clarification of how registering and enforcement would be handled .... http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2034

I don't believe it is against the law to print something that "affects ... public order or morals". Banning the printing of a newspaper effectively shuts it down.

The main problem with this proposal is that it is the police chief that decides what is illegal. It is only later that the courts get involved if someone goes against the police chief's order.

The example in the link says that legal action should be taken because the magazine was not registered, and clearly, it was up to the courts to decide whether it broke the law or not.

Again, I will repeat ..

According to the constitution, censorship may be imposed to preserve national security, maintain public order, preserve the rights of others,protect public morals, and prevent criticism of the royal family and insults to Buddhism.

There is nothing that says a ban of a newspaper. It specifically talks about items being banned that violate the law. Simply removing the offensive material would satisfy the "order" of a ban. The only enforcement of the ban mentioned is done through the courts.

The police ALWAYS decide what is legal. If there was some perfect way to not rely on police judgement then there would be no need for trials.

Actually the article from a year ago states a request for police to take action ... it doesn't say what action. If it was simply a matter of going to court then the agency would not need to involve the police because anyone in Thailand can bring a criminal case to court.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Nisa

[whybother]

If people are upset and want to talk about censorship in Thailand then they should really be talking about the laws created back in 2007 and not be getting themselves worked up about some failed attempt to pass a law dealing with how those 2007 censorship laws will be enforced.

I am not by any means a supporter of anyone associated with Thaksin and believe Abhisit was the right man for Thailand but it is silly to pretend the current powers are infringing more on free speech when this proposal was shot down and it was under Abhisits Administration when strong censorship laws were passed and media outlets were actually shut down.

Under the last government, media outlets were shut down using SOE laws. They were only valid during the SOE.

Some media outlets were shut down because they weren't licenced.

Under these proposed laws, it is at the police chief's discretion as to whether media are allowed to print their newspapers or magazines. His decision, not the court's. If media continue publishing against his decision, then it goes to court to decide on the penalty, but not to decide whether they can publish. That decision would have already been made by the police chief.

[whybother]

Again, I will repeat ..

According to the constitution, censorship may be imposed to preserve national security, maintain public order, preserve the rights of others,protect public morals, and prevent criticism of the royal family and insults to Buddhism.

There is nothing that says a ban of a newspaper. It specifically talks about items being banned that violate the law. Simply removing the offensive material would satisfy the "order" of a ban. The only enforcement of the ban mentioned is done through the courts.

The police ALWAYS decide what is legal. If there was some perfect way to not rely on police judgement then there would be no need for trials.

Actually the article from a year ago states a request for police to take action ... it doesn't say what action. If it was simply a matter of going to court then the agency would not need to involve the police because anyone in Thailand can bring a criminal case to court.

Rather than repeating what wikipedia says, why don't you find the specific laws that apply?

The 2007 constitution states:

Article 36. A person shall enjoy the liberty of communication by lawful means.

The censorship, detention or disclosure of communication between persons including any other act disclosing a statement in the communication between persons shall not be made except by virtue of the provisions of the law specifically enacted for security of the State or maintaining public order or good morals.

What laws are specifically enacted to enforce censorship? LM laws for one. SOE laws also.

Do you know of any law that restricts speech to "maintain public order or good morals"?

If the laws already exist, why is there a need to specifically give the police chief power to censor the media?

[Nisa]

If people are upset and want to talk about censorship in Thailand then they should really be talking about the laws created back in 2007 and not be getting themselves worked up about some failed attempt to pass a law dealing with how those 2007 censorship laws will be enforced.

I am not by any means a supporter of anyone associated with Thaksin and believe Abhisit was the right man for Thailand but it is silly to pretend the current powers are infringing more on free speech when this proposal was shot down and it was under Abhisits Administration when strong censorship laws were passed and media outlets were actually shut down.

Under the last government, media outlets were shut down using SOE laws. They were only valid during the SOE.

Some media outlets were shut down because they weren't licenced.

Under these proposed laws, it is at the police chief's discretion as to whether media are allowed to print their newspapers or magazines. His decision, not the court's. If media continue publishing against his decision, then it goes to court to decide on the penalty, but not to decide whether they can publish. That decision would have already been made by the police chief.

Clearly a very selective memory or proof positive you agree with censorship if you don't like what is being said.

The Computer Crimes Act, The Printing Act, The Film Act, The Internal Security Act , all imposed in 2007

How many opposition media outlets were shut down during the Abhisit administration?

You have lost all credibility with me (and likely others) as somebody who actually cares about freedom of speech and press.

[whybother]

If people are upset and want to talk about censorship in Thailand then they should really be talking about the laws created back in 2007 and not be getting themselves worked up about some failed attempt to pass a law dealing with how those 2007 censorship laws will be enforced.

I am not by any means a supporter of anyone associated with Thaksin and believe Abhisit was the right man for Thailand but it is silly to pretend the current powers are infringing more on free speech when this proposal was shot down and it was under Abhisits Administration when strong censorship laws were passed and media outlets were actually shut down.

Under the last government, media outlets were shut down using SOE laws. They were only valid during the SOE.

Some media outlets were shut down because they weren't licenced.

Under these proposed laws, it is at the police chief's discretion as to whether media are allowed to print their newspapers or magazines. His decision, not the court's. If media continue publishing against his decision, then it goes to court to decide on the penalty, but not to decide whether they can publish. That decision would have already been made by the police chief.

Clearly a very selective memory or proof positive you agree with censorship if you don't like what is being said.

The Computer Crimes Act, The Printing Act, The Film Act, The Internal Security Act , all imposed in 2007

How many opposition media outlets were shut down during the Abhisit administration?

You have lost all credibility with me (and likely others) as somebody who actually cares about freedom of speech and press.

Nisa, there are laws, and the courts are used to enforce those laws. The police are there to bring cases before the courts. Even if you get a speeding ticket, you have the ability to go to the courts.

If you can't tell the difference between one (politically appointed) person being able to decide what is allowed to be printed, and using the courts to decide, then I don't really give a rats a%$# what you think.