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

[longway]

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.

No, no-one should bat an eye lid that the police chief would have wide ranging powers to decide what can or cannot be printed, we should in fact not talk about what this government is trying to do, but keep talking about the previous government.

Sums it all up?

Edited November 7, 2011 by longway

[Nisa]

deleted

Edited November 7, 2011 by Nisa

[whybother]

And you called me obtuse

No, I didn't.

[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.

No, no-one should bat an eye lid that the police chief has wide ranging to decide what can or cannot be printed, we should in fact not talk about what this government is trying to do, but keep talking about the previous government.

Sums it all up?

Actually, the proposed ability to allow the Police Chief to be the one making this decision was shot down but all the censorship laws from 2007 are still in place. Did you read the OP ?

[Nisa]

And you called me obtuse

No, I didn't.

I apologize, I confused you with Tawp.

[longway]

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.

No, no-one should bat an eye lid that the police chief has wide ranging to decide what can or cannot be printed, we should in fact not talk about what this government is trying to do, but keep talking about the previous government.

Sums it all up?

Actually, the proposed ability to allow the Police Chief to be the one making this decision was shot down but all the censorship laws from 2007 are still in place. Did you read the OP ?

I just corrected the error before I saw your reply. So my post in #121 will look a little different to the one you replied to. My aplogies for that.

The issue is that the government attempted this amendment, it shows their interntions quite clearly.

I am not sure if it is correct to say it has been shot down, AKAIK the Council of state has no power to 'shoot down' legislation only give advice on its legal ramifications. Its noteworthy that even under the 2007 constitution which is as you keep stating is draconian in its censorship laws, finds this nasty little amendment unconstitutional.

So hey lets celebrate 2007 constitution.

Edited November 7, 2011 by longway

[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.

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.

It certainly seems an issue for Bangkok Post, as well.

.

[animatic]

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.

Don't bother, Why Bother.

Save the rat rear, some one may need it for dinner in a few weeks or so.

The last thing Thailand needs,

is one appointed person to have the authority to

arbitrarily silence any dissenting press that his whim falls upon.

Edited November 7, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

And you called me obtuse

No, I didn't.

No Whybother didn't. Try and get your indignation properly focused.

Having pissing contests with more than one forumite can lead to 'personal confusion'. In the other hand, AleG said:

" 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 "

What was thought by some might be a different matter.

ob·tuse

adjective

1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.

2. not sharp, acute, or pointed; blunt in form.

3. (of a leaf, petal, etc.) rounded at the extremity.

4. indistinctly felt or perceived, as pain or sound.

It's sometimes useful to be sharp when you are blunt.

As opposed to just 'rounded at the extremity'

Edited November 7, 2011 by animatic

[nurofiend]

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

haha

I'd like to find out exactly who came up with this proposal in PTP and who out of them thought it was a good idea, if this is already obvious or in this thread please excuse me as i've skimmed through a lot of it.

also i find the OP article a bit funny.... especially the first paragraph, since there's still a little something called the lese majeste law.

[longway]

^ Does it matter, the cabinet passed it without a murmur it seems.

[nurofiend]

^ Does it matter, the cabinet passed it without a murmur it seems.

well that's precisely why i asked the question... who's idea it was, who exactly was for it

to find out if "it passed without a murmur"?

[longway]

^ It came from the culture ministry. The cabinet approved it.

[tlansford]

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.

last time I looked, LM was codified in the laws

[tlansford]

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.

depends on your country, I guess. In France, your license is gone on the spot.

Everyone is assuming that there would have been no judicial recourse behind this - but does anyone know that there would not have been anyjudicial recourse behind this ??

And remember, it is all fiction anyway...

[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.

depends on your country, I guess. In France, your license is gone on the spot.

Everyone is assuming that there would have been no judicial recourse behind this - but does anyone know that there would not have been anyjudicial recourse behind this ??

And remember, it is all fiction anyway...

It actually seems very clear that there would be and the only power given is to 'order a ban" of distributing material already banned under 2007 laws. It states if the "order" is ignored then the person faces a sentence of prison and/or fine. There is also nothing that states the police would be empowered to shut down any newspaper it clearly states that they can only order a ban on illegal material. So, if a newspaper carried a LM story on page 6 on Nov 10th then, if ordered, they newspaper would simply have to stop sending out the Nov. 10th paper or remove the item on page 6.

Interesting that the first line states Newspapers are exempt from the whole registration process and the translated listed changes (NOT THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL) deals largely with clarifying registration processes and enforcement. The whole part about what can be banned has not changed.

It is not only similar to drunk driving but how about dealing drugs? A cop can arrest somebody and take them to jail because he believes they were in possession of selling or possessing drugs. AFTER the suspect can go to court and claim innocence and explain he was only selling oregano. Police all over the world use judgement in terms of arrests, seizures, detention and so on. The court settles it later. By the way, in the land of the free (USA), there are states that not only take your license on the spot for drunk driving but also impound your car for 30-days without any trial ... it is immediate upon arrest.

Because no newspaper has actually covered this story properly, we are left to guess but again it seems a matter of clarifying registration process and a change to who initially decides if material is breaking the law.

This article (http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/2034) from a year ago would seem to indicate that it was the Director of the National Library of Thailand who had this responsibility and then would contact the the Police Special Branch for action. Now they (not sure who) seem to have wanted to try to put all these responsibilities under the National Police Chief.

[Nisa]

^ It came from the culture ministry. The cabinet approved it.

If true, that is interesting because they are over the National Library of Thailand.

[whybother]

Interesting that the first line states Newspapers are exempt from the whole registration process and the translated listed changes (NOT THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL) deals largely with clarifying registration processes and enforcement. The whole part about what can be banned has not changed.

How do you get from "excluded from identifying itself by category" to "exempt from the whole registration process"?

Having a second look at the 7 items, one has to wonder if this was even geared at newspapers ...

1. Any print media,

excluding newspapers

, printed in the kingdom must identify itself by category according to criteria set by ministerial regulation;

That ONE rule ("identify itself by category") is the only one that doesn't apply to newspapers. All the other rules apply, given that this one is the only one that says "excluding newspapers".

This article (http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2034) from a year ago would seem to indicate that it was the Director of the National Library of Thailand who had this responsibility and then would contact the the Police Special Branch for action. Now they (not sure who) seem to have wanted to try to put all these responsibilities under the National Police Chief.

The director tells the police to take legal action ... ie to use the COURTS.

And, ONCE AGAIN, it was because they weren't registered, not because of content (except for "possible LM breaches").

[Nisa]

Interesting that the first line states Newspapers are exempt from the whole registration process and the translated listed changes (NOT THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL) deals largely with clarifying registration processes and enforcement. The whole part about what can be banned has not changed.

How do you get from "excluded from identifying itself by category" to "exempt from the whole registration process"?

The director tells the police to take legal action ... ie to use the COURTS.

And, ONCE AGAIN, it was because they weren't registered, not because of content (except for "possible LM breaches").

ahhhh .. if they don't need to identify themselves then it would seem they don't need to register but these 7 amendments we are taking as gold are incredibly vague and highly doubt this was the sum of the proposal. I also believe Newspapers are registered separately than other printed media such as magazines. Did you know the 2007 constitution bans disabled people (among others) from owning a newspaper but this doesn't apply to other print media?

And in Thailand you do not need the police to bring criminal charges. Anyone can file a complaint with the court directly and this is often done with these types of issues such as LM.

LOL, So, if a year ago the police could take action for not being registered then it would seem this proposal actually gave them less power since they can only take action if a publication is printing material that is deemed illegal under the 2007 laws and constitution (as well as the 97 constitution). but LMAO at your throwing in LM breaches as a kind of after thought.

(in 2010) 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

, which might constitute lèse majesté.

My guess would be too that the "2007 Print Registration Act" is a part / section of the "Printing Act of 2007" mentioned in the OP and not the same thing.

Again, I just really find it interesting how worked up people get over this minor proposed change to process and enforcement of laws that were created in 2007. If you care about freedom of press then the outrage should be that the laws contain such broad terms as "affecting public order and morals" and this is not something new no matter how much people want to pretend this was something the current administration is trying pass. It is already law and contained in the 2007 constitution. I am no fan of the current administration but they were not the ones who put these laws on the books that could actually cause someone to be jailed for telling the truth about a public safety issue if the powers to be want to claim it affects public order.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Nisa

[whybother]

How do you get from "excluded from identifying itself by category" to "exempt from the whole registration process"?

...

ahhhh .. if they don't need to register then they don't need to go through the registration process. Not sure why they is hard to understand.

Where does it say that they don't have to register?

What they don't have to do is "identify themselves by category". ie: they don't need to say they are a "sports" newspaper.

How do you get from "excluded from identifying itself by category" to "exempt from the whole registration process"?

The director tells the police to take legal action ... ie to use the COURTS.

And, ONCE AGAIN, it was because they weren't registered, not because of content (except for "possible LM breaches").

And in Thailand you do not need the police to bring criminal charges. Anyone can file a complaint with the court directly and this is often done with these types of issues such as LM.

LOL, So, if a year ago the police could take action for not being registered then it would seem this proposal actually gave them less power since they can only take action if a publication is printing material that is deemed illegal under the 2007 laws and constitution (as well as the 97 constitution). but LMAO at your you through in LM breaches as a kind of after thought.

(in 2010) 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

, which might constitute lèse majesté.

Reading problem: "not because of content (except for "possible LM breaches")."

The difference is that under the new proposal, they don't need the courts to ban media. It's all in the hands of the police chief. Don't you understand the difference?

[Buchholz]

Because no newspaper has actually covered this story properly, we are left to guess

The Bangkok Post's two editorials in the past week can shed light perhaps.

The main change in the amendment to the Printing Act would enable the National Police Chief to arbitrarily shut down newspapers and other publications with impunity and with no review of the order.

.

[jayboy]

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.

Everybody who values a free press in Thailand must be concerned.There can be no compromise on this even if one express aim of the law is to crack down further on alleged cases of LM.The slight irony is that on this forum those who now denounce the government are the same who would have supported the measure if implemented during the last administration.We have learned not to expect intellectual honesty from that quarter.But let's be quite clear.Press freedom has been eroded in Thailand in recent years with the Abhisit regime particularly criticised by independent bodies, but actually not much worse than Thaksin and his proxy regimes.Let's also be clear.There is still freedom and vigour in the Thai press, much better than any other country in the region.So let's keep this in perspective.

[whybother]

<snip>

Again, I just really find it interesting how worked up people get over this minor proposed change to process and enforcement of laws that were created in 2007. If you care about freedom of press then the outrage should be that the laws contain such broad terms as "affecting public order and morals" and this is not something new no matter how much people want to pretend this was something the current administration is trying pass. It is already law and contained in the 2007 constitution. I am no fan of the current administration but they were not the ones who put these laws on the books that could actually cause someone to be jailed for telling the truth about a public safety issue if the powers to be want to claim it affects public order.

Which laws contain "such broad terms as "affecting public order and morals" "? That is a term in the constitution that allows for laws that curtail freedom of speech. But that is NOT the point.

No one here is trying to defend those laws. They are commenting because PT want to give the police chief the ability to ban media at his whim.

And he could just as easily ban the newspaper by telling them that they are not allowed to publish anything. It gives the police chief the ability to say "that article makes the government look bad. Don't publish it". Is that a good thing?

[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.

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.

It certainly seems an issue for Bangkok Post, as well.

.

:cheesy:

Pratchai has been on life support for the past couple of years. It's supporting members gave a whopping 4000 baht this year. I don't care if it's a "redshirt" organ. They represent no one except a couple people's views.

Bangkok Post's commentary has been measured. If Vorani Vanijaka's views are anything to go on, he spent most of his opinion column highlighting former PM Abhisit's censorhip activities and the Democrats quest for curtailing freedom of expression. Yes,some commentators at the BP have expressed opposition, but it has been restrained, and constructive. Has Thai Rath even commented? How about Thai Post? They do have most of the market, and yet, not much anger or stomping of the feet as is demonstrated by one media group.

Surely you can do better. Thai media is a quasi monopoly and if you are that concerned about freedoms, then break the monopoly. Until then, there isn't much to fuss about since Thai media treats us to their particular views influenced by their profit goals and/or ownership interests.

Edited November 8, 2011 by geriatrickid

[longway]

There is still freedom and vigour in the Thai press, much better than any other country in the region.So let's keep this in perspective.

And this government wishes to reduce it.

Edited November 8, 2011 by longway

[Nisa]

Because no newspaper has actually covered this story properly, we are left to guess

The Bangkok Post's two editorials in the past week can shed light perhaps.

The main change in the amendment to the Printing Act would enable the National Police Chief to arbitrarily shut down newspapers and other publications with impunity and with no review of the order.

.

Editorials are biased opinion pieces and not news ... as well as in this case being very political and party based.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Nisa

[whybother]

The OP is basically saying "This proposal will curtail freedom of speech. Why aren't the red shirt / PTP / Thaksin supporting media talking about it?"

[Buchholz]

It certainly seems an issue for Bangkok Post, as well.

Bangkok Post's commentary has been measured. If Vorani Vanijaka's views are anything to go on

Yes,some commentators at the BP have expressed opposition, but it has been restrained, and constructive.

At the time of my post, I was referring to an editorial on the 6th.

If you consider that and today's article as being "measured", you have a different definition of the word than I.

Both editorials were written by Vorani.

Who are these other commentators at BP that you mention and when were their articles written?

.

[Nisa]

There is still freedom and vigour in the Thai press, much better than any other country in the region.So let's keep this in perspective.

And this government wishes to reduce it.

How are they doing that? By trying to take the power to ban illegal material (listed as illegal under the previous administration) from one entity such as the military and putting the responsibility under the police?

Clearly this was probably a political move for the party to have more control over how and when the censorship laws would be enforced but how is this different than the previous administration(s) that shut down media outlets and where charges of LM against went through the roof. This admin as far as I know has passed no laws to increase censorship but the previous administration approved such vague laws to include the ability to go after anyone if the powers to be deemed material, news or information might effect public moral or public order.

I wish with all my heart Abhisit had won the election but just because I am on his side I am not going to pretend the current government is responsible for censorship laws approved under his watch. If Abhisit was still in power now, I am fairly sure he would have declared an SOE and would be going after some of the media who are using this crisis to spread lies, division and decent among the people. Sadly, I would not have much of a problem with his doing this because of how much i distrust the Thai media and because I trust Abhisit always had the country's interest at heart. However, this is wrong if you truly believe in freedom of the press ... but then again maybe not if you cannot trust the press including a situation like this where they do NO real reporting on this proposed amendment but instead use editorials to report their one sided view in order to attack the current administration during such a crisis while claiming the Administration tried to pass this under the cover of the flood back on the 18th ... had they been real reporters they would have known and been able to report on the proposal a month or two before it came up for vote on the 18th. (it would have needed to be written and distributed long before it came up for a vote).

[Buchholz]

Because no newspaper has actually covered this story properly, we are left to guess

The Bangkok Post's two editorials in the past week can shed light perhaps.

The main change in the amendment to the Printing Act would enable the National Police Chief to arbitrarily shut down newspapers and other publications with impunity and with no review of the order.

Editorials are biased opinion pieces and not news ... as well as in this case being very political and party based.

but nonetheless, factually based on the proposed new power bestowed upon the National Police Chief as per above.

.