« Prev Page 8 of 10 6 7 8 9 10 Next 248 replies to this topic

[yeti]

Interesting view on how CAT does it: http://www.asiamedia...?parentid=67019

[jetjock]

Tilokarat, on 2007-04-04 16:46:32, said:

I wonder what the reaction of the people of Thailand would be if the government did not impose a ban? Politically, the government made a prudent and pragmatic decision. Whilst it may not be in tune with the rights of a free-born Englishman to express himself, the government is probably marching in step with the feelings of the nation.

Regardless of my personal feelings as an American regarding free speech, etc., I now realize that Tilokarat was right on by saying that the government made a prudent decision by imposing the government ban.  I reached this conclusion after discussing this situation with my well educated wife so I could understand the situation from the Thai perspective (which I found out is quite different than mine) . My wife reinterated almost exactly what Tilokarat posted. She explained that once knowledge of the video became public, the people would have blamed the government if they had not taken the action that they did. She further explained that Thai's do not make their decisions based on what foreigners think is right but instead on what they think is correct for the Thai people.

[phazey]

Just saw CNN broadcast about the block.....

[Prakanong]

phazey, on 2007-04-05 14:13:23, said:

Just saw CNN broadcast about the block.....

Hope they did not show offending vid - they might get blocked!

Seriously though this is getting a wider audience than expected - I bet a certain Yale University Press author wished his book got this much free publicity after being banned.

[65Craig]

Find it funny that people think Thai Laws should apply to an American Company.  Agree that Thailand has every right to close down the site and shield its citizens from what they view to be Lese Majeste.  

Do I think the piece was in poor taste?  Yes!!!  It's very offensive to Thai People and those who know about Thai culture.  With that said, there’s a lot of poor taste everywhere.  I walk down the street and see Thai Citizens all the time wearing George Bush looking like Adolph Hitler shirts.  To many that's definitely offensive on many different levels.  But to me it’s their right to wear.

Do I think there could have been a better way to solve this rather than banning a whole entire site?  Of course!!!  Banning this site is just exasperating the situation and will most definitely bring about copycats and more banning of things.  This in turn will lead to a bad perception of Thailand throughout the world.

Anyway, as the citizens of Thailand hold certain things to be sacred, so do Americans.  And it's called the US Constitution.  And the first Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Personally glad that my home country was founded on such principles.

[cdnvic]

CNN isn't even mentioning it on their website.

[sbk]

65Craig, on 2007-04-05 13:26:36, said:

Find it funny that people think Thai Laws should apply to an American Company.  Agree that Thailand has every right to close down the site and shield its citizens from what they view to be Lese Majeste.  

Do I think the piece was in poor taste?  Yes!!!  It's very offensive to Thai People and those who know about Thai culture.  With that said, there’s a lot of poor taste everywhere.  I walk down the street and see Thai Citizens all the time wearing George Bush looking like Adolph Hitler shirts.  To many that's definitely offensive on many different levels.  But to me it’s their right to wear.

Do I think there could have been a better way to solve this rather than banning a whole entire site?  Of course!!!  Banning this site is just exasperating the situation and will most definitely bring about copycats and more banning of things.  This in turn will lead to a bad perception of Thailand throughout the world.

Anyway, as the citizens of Thailand hold certain things to be sacred, so do Americans.  And it's called the US Constitution.  And the first Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Personally glad that my home country was founded on such principles.

Well, you aren't in the US anymore so please take care to remember that when posting. The block doesn't affect Americans in the US so not sure what your point is here.

[Grover]

lingyai, on 2007-04-05 03:22:01, said:

Not only that the internet is full of people just trying to get a rise out of others (like the trolls on here). I expect more insulting videos just because of the reaction to this one.

Sad   but true.

[Wolfie]

gummy, on 2007-04-05 13:33:02, said:

They have are more important things to report rather than something that only a effects a minority, and most probably an immature minority at that.

So your saying Thais are immature because of the reaction to this video?

Dont think you'll last long (here or in Thailand) with that kind of attitude

[Insight]

Rights group criticises Thailand for blocking YouTube

(BangkokPost.com, Agencies) - A media rights group criticised the government's decision to ban video-sharing website YouTube over an insulting clip of His Majesty the King, saying that such an act showed a growing crackdown by the military junta against political comment online.

The Southeast Asian Press Alliance said that although the subject of HM the King was culturally sensitive in Thailand, blocking the entire site raised serious concerns.

"Thais are now deprived of a popular and accessible medium that can accommodate alternative and independent voices," it said in a statement.

Bangkok Post - Full Story

[dantilley]

cdnvic, on 2007-04-05 13:30:11, said:

CNN isn't even mentioning it on their website.

Yes they are.

[gummy]

Wolfie, on 2007-04-05 13:35:30, said:

gummy, on 2007-04-05 13:33:02, said:

They have are more important things to report rather than something that only a effects a minority, and most probably an immature minority at that.

So your saying Thais are immature because of the reaction to this video?

Dont think you'll last long (here or in Thailand) with that kind of attitude

Don't be silly,that is not what I am saying, its the morons who dote upon youtube being banned who are the minority. The people who object to youtube are presumably those people who have nothing better to do than contribute to it with their pointless videos etc - they are ones that in my opinion are showing immaturity. And after 20 years living here in Thailand I probably am far more better versed in Thai culture and society expectations and acceptances then you are I suspect, so no way would you hear me saying anything derogatory against the Thais which you would have realised had you read any of my other posts.

Edited by gummy, 2007-04-05 13:44:07.

[Wolfie]

gummy, on 2007-04-05 13:43:19, said:

Don't be silly,that is not what I am saying, its the morons who dote upon youtube being banned who are the minority. The people who object to youtube are presumably those people who have nothing better to do than contribute to it with their pointless videos etc - they are ones that in my opinion are showing immaturity. And after 20 years living here in Thailand I probably am far more better versed in Thai culture and society expectations and acceptances then you are I suspect, so no way would you hear me saying anything derogatory against the Thais which you would have realised had you read any of my other posts.

Point taken, my mistake

[cdnvic]

I don't know if you can blame the junta for this. All over I'm hearing that the site blocking isn't near as bad as in the Thaksin days, and the guy who made the call according to the news story is a civil servant, not a government minister.

[Jai Dee]

Some offensive posts have been deleted from this thread.

We're trying hard to keep this controversial subject open for discussion, but some posters do not seem to want to comply with the forum rules and the multiple requests from moderators in this thread.

Please bear in mind that ThaiVisa is read not only by you, but Thais as well. We have Thai members who regularly post here, and the forum is also read with interest by some Thai government officials.

As a public forum about Thailand, we must and will comply with the laws of the Kingdom of Thailand.

Understood?

[gummy]

Excellant advice JaiDee

note - edited do to dyslexic keyboard

Edited by gummy, 2007-04-05 14:05:02.

[wintermute]

It looks like the original youtube video has been removed but it's probably all for nothing now because the damage has been done. This thing has truly gone international with the mainstream media hubbub and blogs talking about it.

[Grover]

wintermute, on 2007-04-05 14:05:11, said:

It looks like the original youtube video has been removed but it's probably all for nothing now because the damage has been done. This thing has truly gone international with the mainstream media hubbub and blogs talking about it.

removed by the user apparently.

[TAWP]

cdnvic, on 2007-04-05 08:59:29, said:

You cannot broadcast (I'm taking free to air) pornography on TV in any western country that I know of. You cannot incite people to riot or join an insurrection. You cannot do many things in most countries due to laws governing communications, so regardless of what you wish to believe, all societies and cultures practise censorship according to their common beliefs, and ethics. The reverence of the Monarchy happens to be part of Thailand's.

Find me a country with no censorship.

Yes, you can broadcast pornography on TV in many countries. Don't let your ignorance direct the debate.

[sriracha john]

Google just doesn't get it... perhaps they should use their own search engine to find the answer as to why their analogy doesn't hold up:

Information and Communication Technology Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom said he ordered a block of the entire site from Thailand after Google (which owns YouTube) has rejected the minitry's repeated requests to withdraw the clip, and that the ministry has filed to block the offending page last week.

"We have told them how deeply offended Thais were by the clip, but they said there was much worse ridicule of President Bush on the site and they kept that there," Mr Sitthichai told Reuters. "Since Google has rejected our repeated requests to withdraw the clip, we can't help but block the entire site in Thailand," said Mr Sitthichai.

- Reuters

Edited by sriracha john, 2007-04-05 14:24:08.

[TAWP]

And I really don't like the way some posters try to make out that all thais are the same. To go as long as edityed other users posts to alter words from 'most' to 'all' is really low class. No, not all thais are happy about the banning. If you can't find anyone that verifies it you perhaps haven't meet enough thais.

Edited by TAWP, 2007-04-05 14:23:57.

[lingyai]

Grover, on 2007-04-05 14:09:49, said:

wintermute, on 2007-04-05 14:05:11, said:

It looks like the original youtube video has been removed but it's probably all for nothing now because the damage has been done. This thing has truly gone international with the mainstream media hubbub and blogs talking about it.

removed by the user apparently.

Maybe, though maybe not as is shows the user who put up the video last logged in on March 25th.

[Prudent_rabbit]

Just in case you thought it was a TIT moment

"Last month, Turkey cut off access to the site for several days to block a video deemed insulting to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. Insulting Ataturk is a criminal offense in Turkey.

A court in Brazil ordered access to YouTube blocked for several days in January after clips of a prominent model cavorting in the sea with her lover kept reappearing on the site"

So not the first country or the last

[bangkokrick]

sriracha john, on 2007-04-05 14:22:45, said:

Google just doesn't get it... perhaps they should use their own search engine to find the answer as to why their analogy doesn't hold up:

Information and Communication Technology Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom said he ordered a block of the entire site from Thailand after Google (which owns YouTube) has rejected the minitry's repeated requests to withdraw the clip, and that the ministry has filed to block the offending page last week.

"We have told them how deeply offended Thais were by the clip, but they said there was much worse ridicule of President Bush on the site and they kept that there," Mr Sitthichai told Reuters. "Since Google has rejected our repeated requests to withdraw the clip, we can't help but block the entire site in Thailand," said Mr Sitthichai.

- Reuters

With all due respect i can not imagine that many US citizens revere Mr Bush on anything like the same level as the Thais revere their King. This is not an argument or excuse for allowing the video to remain on line. In my opinion it was right that the entire site was blocked as it was the only available solution at the time.

[robert2]

Prudent_rabbit, on 2007-04-05 14:31:27, said:

Just in case you thought it was a TIT moment

"Last month, Turkey cut off access to the site for several days to block a video deemed insulting to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. Insulting Ataturk is a criminal offense in Turkey.

A court in Brazil ordered access to YouTube blocked for several days in January after clips of a prominent model cavorting in the sea with her lover kept reappearing on the site"

So not the first country or the last

You tube is full of fun and entertaining clips but also neo nazi propaganda and all sorts of things.
Built on the ideal of the internet as a totally unregulated media, realities are that this does not fly in the real world.

I can live without youtube. I typed in "Thailand King" on youtube to see how many links there were, around 8-900. I didn't browse through the actual list as I won't lower myself to spectate, and thus indirectly support, any insults to the King. (If I did, it would probably make me write comments which could be perceived threatening towards to the clip poster. I think he already would have received some threats by now.)

This story is not nessesarily bad for Thailand as the rules of law concerning insulting the Thai Monarchy may reach some unaware who doesn't know about these. So hopefully this will help avoid future insults to the King.

Edited by robert2, 2007-04-05 14:54:25.