backtop

Internet Thailand Bans Access to 2,000 Web Sites
Michael Barkoviak - January 6, 2009 6:00 AM
Print 29 comment(s) - last by stuberto.. on Jan 8 at 5:40 PM
Government officials in Thailand confirm the government banned numerous web sites in 2008

A government official in Bangkok confirmed the Thai government has banned access to more than 2,300 web sites throughout 2008, citing multiple reasons why internet users can't view them.

Most of the web sites banned allegedly offend the Thai monarchy, with web sites hosting pornographic content and national security threats also recently banned.  Most of the banned web sites -- around 90 percent -- were registered overseas, and weren't based in Thailand.

Insulting the monarchy in Thailand, described as "lese majeste," has a prison sentence up to 15 years according to Thai officials.  The penalty is especially important now as the country undergoes political tensions as Thais supporting ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra continue to seek general elections in the nation.

The list of banned web sites in Thailand has been leaked online, with content including YouTube videos, cartoons, blogs and articles published online.

Several nations are notorious for blocking Internet access to certain web sites, which usually involve politics or defamation of a country's president or leader.  The Communist-led Chinese government is best known for blocking access to web sites deemed inappropriate for citizens.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
dailytech banned?
By Dreifort on 1/6/2009 1:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
Wonder if dailytech is banned? I guess we could get PLAYSTATIONTHREE to post some hate comment about their gov't and it would get this website banned in Thailand...

wait, he already did didn't he? guess that answers my own question.




RE: dailytech banned?
By Dark Legion on 1/6/2009 2:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
Even though I'm sure you were joking, it is not. The Thai gov't couldn't care less about the dumba$$ that is PLAYSTATIONTHREE, especially when we don't listen to him anyway.


RE: dailytech banned?
By Dreifort on 1/6/2009 2:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
how do they target their banned sites then if not by keywords?


RE: dailytech banned?
By Dark Legion on 1/6/2009 3:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
No idea, but however they did it they didn't do a very good job. For example, they left a good torrent site that I use untouched, which has illegal torrents like GTA IV (if you remember there was a DT article about it being banned here a few months ago) and pr0n. My guess would be that they filtered by keywords, than chose a few of the more radical websites and blocked them.


RE: dailytech banned?
By Lifted on 1/6/2009 4:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
Why would they bother with torrents? I bought GTA IV here in bkk a month ago from the only store that sells originals.

Believe it or not, there are not THAT many sites saying derogatory things about the Thai king, so it really isn't all that hard to do.


RE: dailytech banned?
By Dark Legion on 1/7/2009 9:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well considering they don't bother with much else that is illegal, good point. I don't know about down in BKK but up here in CM stores gotta give bribes to keep GTA IV on the shelves (no real ones as far as I saw either, unfortunately).

quote:
Believe it or not, there are not THAT many sites saying derogatory things about the Thai king, so it really isn't all that hard to do.


True, but do you honestly think that is the real reason they did this?


Just makes me laugh
By HighWing on 1/6/2009 12:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
So I'm guessing the thought process goes something like this....

These websites are bad, let's block them and ignore/forget they exist.

Ignorance is bliss!!

This, like with china, just makes me laugh. Because in the grand scheme of things, actions like this eventually cause more harm then the good they think they are doing. It's pretty much a fact that in most cases it is better to teach/educate a person/people why something is bad then to just pretend it does not exist and beat around the bush.




RE: Just makes me laugh
By Spectator on 1/6/2009 2:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
It could also be considered/argued.

If you want to sensor us then we can do the same..

Yes it may be a "p.issing" contest. but in the end we see who is serious/stronger. would you like to see who thinks they are stronger?.

If they dont care as they are not loosing anything. then what have you lost?


RE: Just makes me laugh
By Dark Legion on 1/6/2009 2:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
... in the grand scheme of things, actions like this eventually cause more harm then the good they think they are doing.


In a lot of cases, I would say you are right. However, these are sites that 99.9% of Thais would not visit anyway. Those that do for the most part know enough to go through a proxy. In the end, this measure is pointless and only serves to make the government look good.


By MikeBurtner on 1/8/2009 10:16:23 AM , Rating: 2
I Googled the list of banned sites. While I am familiar with the usual pr0n sources (BT, ED, Anderson Cooper's AC360 blog), I'm thrilled to have such a prodigious list of perversion. And if the Thais think it's dirty, it's gotta be feeelthy!




By Myrandex on 1/6/2009 10:10:49 AM , Rating: 3
And how does pr0n disrespect the King?


By bigjaicher on 1/6/2009 10:51:39 AM , Rating: 5
As a person who has half their family in the Phatum Thani area of Thailand (I'm half Thai, half American), I think their banning of pornography is separate from things that insult the King. There are laws against the distribution of pornography in Thailand, and U.S./U.K. allowances of it for people over 18 do not apply. This is legal, and not even a small minority of people consider this against their rights.

And with the issue of banning the websites offensive to the king? This has been the recent political weapon of the two political parties. "What you said was offensive to the king!" "Saying that the King is not generous is offensive to the king!" This article is taken out of context with not enough facts, attempting to make it look as if it was this great big evil king trying to ban the internet.

Fact: the King of Thailand has absolutely zero power in government except to veto laws (well, he does have the ability to influence actions because of the fact that the entire country is enamored with him with national pride, meaning that if he really wants a law passed, he'll say it and then the population of Thailand will pressure the Parliament to make the law).

What this really is is an attempt to make it so that all the people will love the current house majority for being patriotic, ignoring the fact that the current house majority unlawfully removed the prior party (Thaksin Shinawatra's party; Thaksin was corrupt, but his party was extremely popular because they weren't as much of a corrupt bureaucracy). Any people remember the trouble in the news about those PAD riots by the Thai airport?

If you know Thai politics the article will seem like horsesh*t to you. It's not about the sites that are being blocked, but the fact that they are doing it for the king so that they can gain popularity. The king really doesn't have any power over this, his power is comparable to the King of England.

However, this new unlawful party (People's Alliance for Democracy my *ss, more like People Against Democracy) is really putting Thailand down the drain.

Reading over it again here's a great quote that isn't easily seen: "The penalty is especially important now as the country undergoes political tensions as Thais supporting ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra continue to seek general elections in the nation." That is the reason that they are doing this.


By Lifted on 1/6/2009 4:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of what you said.

But, the PAD is not a political party.


By Samus on 1/7/2009 2:26:04 AM , Rating: 2
Do you really need pr0n in Thailand? I mean...most of it is filmed there...just get some front row seats or something.


By stuberto on 1/6/2009 3:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
Bhumibol is an age-addled apologist who coddles the military dictators in Myanmar. That's sick enough.

But he can't even keep his own civilian government under control. Any leader who "protects themselves" from INSULTS by draconian speech laws is a dog-faced coward.

Screw Bhumibol and his leste-majeste laws. May he rot in hell with his cronies, the Myanmar Generals.


By Lifted on 1/6/2009 4:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
Any evidence to back up these claims? The Thai military is friendly with Burmese Junta, but Bhumibol? I find that VERY hard to believe as the man has absolutely no reason to be friends with those clowns, and it would be way out of character for him.


By stuberto on 1/6/2009 6:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
Is Bhumibol the king of Thailand, or not?

The king allows his military's friendship with illegitimate dictatorial neighbors -- so, by extension, he is guilty. Guilty of supporting crimes against humanity by NOT speaking out against the daily atrocities in Myanmar. Someone in Bhumibol's position has both the influence and responsibility to at LEAST speak out if nothing else.

Show me ONE QUOTE where Bhumibol has publicly condemned Than Shwe and his ilk, or even demonstrated the slightest support for Myanmar's imprisoned democratically-elected government.

Inaction == complicity

Bhumibol is the epitome of a coward. For not speaking out against Myanmar, and for imprisoning people who "insult" him.

There I go --- 15 years in prison for me, huh?


By Lifted on 1/7/2009 11:07:19 AM , Rating: 2
Because I've never spoken out against a ton of things, I'm guilty of supporting them all? Your logic is lacking my friend.

And if you think Bhumibol has power over the military, you are sadly mistaken. The military does what it wants for the most part, with respect towards the Kings wishes when they don't contradict their own desires.


By stuberto on 1/8/2009 5:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
Lifted -- no, your logic is flawed. You are comparing your actions to a king's actions. You are not the leader of a nation. Kings and leaders have a very different level of responsibility and accountability to humanity than citizens do.

If Bhumibol won't say a SINGLE WORD the atrocities next door -- he is not a man, he is lower than a street dog. He lives in lush opulence while his country's legislatures engage in fist-fights and his military supports the neighboring country's crimes against humanity.

I won't even bother addressing Bhumibol's cowardice during the reign of Pol Pot.

Listen well, my friend. Thailand has a gutless "king" with no political power. A civilian government that can't sustain a stable administration for more than 2-3 years, endemic political corruption, and a military who answers to no authority but their own.

Bhumibol is aged and not long for this earth. Do not be naive and assume Thailand will never experience the same political madness and oppression that its direct neighbors have suffered. What will the Thai citizens do then? Cry to the UN?


By Screwballl on 1/6/2009 11:34:22 AM , Rating: 1
Yet another view of the direction Obama is taking us.


By Spectator on 1/6/2009 1:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
WE should have a counter measure and follow the same logic..

you ban our sites and we will ban all your sites its totally fair and logical.

All the main hardware producers have US/EU sites. So just block all the Thialand sites from rest of us western ppls.

US learned about Gorilla warfare?. you take "Others" resources and use them against them, yes.

While others in the world are using your/our resources. and we are not getting sht..fookem. pull the plug now. We all need to take a stand.

To the common folk; it looks like all the west are easy targets from all walks of life from a country to live in.

We should not be so liberal and start laying down some rules ourselves.

OR MY PERSONAL FAVORITE. invest in your own country first.

Or you can keep buying all the cheaper goods from others until xx years later you have given enough wealth away they can mess with your way life?

WE may spend billions on conflict now. but you can believe that others are just watching us get weaker while they gain strength. Its time to consolidate.

Others are taking all and giving nothing. why should WE waste effort on this subject.

Just Ban them all and see how that affects thier manufacturing/selling market.


By comc49 on 1/6/2009 2:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
OMG FINALLY THIS GUY DIDN'T GET -1 RATING !!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT IS HAPPENING!??!?!?!?


By Dark Legion on 1/6/2009 2:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well if I knew nothing about Thai politics too, I would think he had a point.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki