Censorship Vs security

[PattayaMale]

Here is a link to an article in the Bangkok Post about internet Censorship in Thailand. Very good reading about cyber crime law which cam into effect in 2007

 

Thailand's Cyper Crime Law

[Guest GaySacGuy]

I posted a story about Thaialnd blocking WikiLeaks. I guess it was done because of something posted in the Thailand section of the website. There was major discussion of the topic on ThaiVisa.com.

 

There doens't seem to be anything stopping Thailand from invoking censorship whenever they feel like it!

[Guest]

I hate censorship in any form. I did enjoy reading that article PattayaMale. Thanks for the link.

 

The only site I can think of that really should be censored is Fox news. Is there a way we can work to have that censored in the USA and abroad? That is perhaps the only campaign I would get behind for censorship.

[Guest MonkeySee]

I hate censorship in any form. The only site I can think of that really should be censored is Fox news.

 

I know you are just kidding in wanting to censor Fox news. I am a middle of the road liberal. I enjoy hearing both views, MSNBC and Fox. I don't agree with the Fox view but would not like to see it censored.

[Guest travelerjim]

I know you are just kidding in wanting to censor Fox news. I am a middle of the road liberal. I enjoy hearing both views, MSNBC and Fox. I don't agree with the Fox view but would not like to see it censored.

 

Thai censorship is getting worse and worse, per reports.

Not good for TH...IMHO.

 

Fox is a good resource for info..as is BBC and AlJazeera.

as long as you know what the direction of the presenter is..

as you watch..especially when you watch FOX.

 

Hannity is a loon...the Fox news is OK...Greta is OK too...

and O'Reilly is ....for the most part....to be respected as he does

try to present fair & balanced discussions...

as for Glenn Beck - he is crazy!

 

tj

[Guest buckeroo2]

I hate censorship in any form. I did enjoy reading that article PattayaMale. Thanks for the link.

 

The only site I can think of that really should be censored is Fox news. Is there a way we can work to have that censored in the USA and abroad? That is perhaps the only campaign I would get behind for censorship.

Niem

[Guest]

Do I still get a free drink at the "meet and greet"?

 

Hell No.

 

JK. Absolutely. Just don't ask Ya to put Fox News on their big TV. I might throw up.

[Guest]

The only site I can think of that really should be censored is Fox news.

 

If you censor that, then we should also censor the BBC.

Alternatively, it is better to allow people to watch both and form a middle of the road view which is likely to lie somewhere between the two extremes.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

I totally believe in censorship. Censorship by me. I am quite capable of deciding what I want to watch or read; no need for anyone to decide for me.

[KhorTose]

If you censor that, then we should also censor the BBC.

Alternatively, it is better to allow people to watch both and form a middle of the road view which is likely to lie somewhere between the two extremes.

 

I agree with no censorship of anything, but calling BBC one end of the extreme seems extreme. Fox news deliberately slants and distorts it news , and while BBC may get it wrong at times they do try to be fair and balanced. I find Fox makes no attempt at all to fairly report the news. It sounds like during WWII you would be calling BBC one end of the extreme and Joseph Goebbels the other extreme. Both Fox and Goebbels like to use the tactic call the "Big Lie" in that the truth does not matter, just repeat the lie often enough and enough people will believe it to make it true.

 

Is is kind of ironic right now that at this time the worlds best news network is now from the Middle East. Al Jazeera is by far a better news network then either BBC or CNN.

[Guest travelerjim]

 

Is is kind of ironic right now that at this time the worlds best news network is now from the Middle East. Al Jazeera is by far a better news network then either BBC or CNN.

 

I agree...and enjoy Al Jazeera...indeed the best now in news...

BBC is OK and Fox gets mixed reviews from me.

 

tj

[Guest beachlover]

Al Jazeera won a lot of respect from me from the way they covered the Bangkok riots.

 

Their coverage was head and shoulders above CNN and BBC... it was less biased and balanced and much closer to the action.

 

Their reporter Wayne Hay was standing right there doing a live broadcast as the Thai Army suddenly moved forward to enter the red shirts camp for the first time:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXikF0n3UMo

[Guest fountainhall]

I agree entirely with the comments about Al Jazeera.

 

Re censorship, whilst part of me feels that censorship should be totally abolished, a small part remains concerned about some possible effects on some parts of society if censorship does not exist. For example, I think there has to be some sort of censorship of television programming which can be accessed by young children. Given the amount of physical violence that all children are exposed to throughout Asia - not just in Thailand - that may sound strange. But I just feel some subject matter has to be restricted to hours when younger children should be in bed. It does not matter that pre-programme warnings can be aired (perhaps the parents are not watching) or that parents should ultimately decide what their children watch. The same can perhaps be said of the elderly in a society which is culturally far more restrictive than in the west. Free-to-air public television cannot be uncontrolled.

 

I remember when I saw a video of the first episode of the British version of Queer as Folk. I was amazed that this could go out on public television, even though it had to be around midnight (it was not aired on cable in the UK). Just as I am amazed that Asian cultures seem happy for blood and guts to be aired nightly, whereas anything remotely to do with love involving nudity is "against Asian morality!"

 

But having said that, I fully accept that the real problem with censorship is who imposes the rules and who carries them out? The idea that the Ministry of Culture assumes much of this role in Thailand is farcical in my book. I can still recall the days when the Lord Chamberlain (whoever he happened to be) was responsible for censoring stage plays in the UK. Some of the cuts imposed were not only outright idiotic, they completely ruined the flow of the drama.

 

One who was dead against censorship was the late Joe Orton (whose Loot was presented recently by the Pattaya Players). As irreverent as they came, Orton was determined to undermine the traditions and authority of the rapidly changing Britain in the 'Swinging 60s'. His first major, fiercely funny, play Entertaining Mr Sloane, was considered by the Lord Chamberlain to be

[Guest fountainhall]

If we are unhappy about the censorship situation in Thailand and elsewhere, this article from fridae.com highlights the idiocy of the system in Singapore where dissent and deviation from the norm of almost any kind is frowned upon by the authorities.The article concerns a film entered for the recent IndigNation Film Festival which had to be withdrawn after it was classified by censors as "Not Allowed for All Ratings". Jun Zubillaga-Pow, director of the festival, says such decisions only drives would-be viewers to seek other means to view the disallowed films and explains the background to the censorship process in Singapore.

 

My intention was sincere: to introduce international GLBT films to local audiences. Unfortunately, negotiating with the bureaucracy was a painstaking manoeuvre. The initiative is challenging not only for the organiser who is concerned primarily with covering the overheads, but it is also a political dilemma for the Board of Film Censors (BFC), the state organ which controls the population’s accessibility to mass media. After all, the filmgoers are the ultimate stakeholders in this arbiter of social open-mindedness.

 

If we remember from last year’s Pride Season, the film Devotee by Remi Lange was given a R21 rating after cuts in two scenes (one with male frontal nudity and another with rear penetration).

 

This year, the film Eating Out 3 by Glenn Gaylord was classified as “Not Allowed for All Ratings” at IndigNation 2010 as justified by the following statement from the BFC:

 

“[Eating Out 3] promotes the homosexual lifestyle and features explicit homosexual sex sequences which have exceeded the film classification guidelines.”

 

I want to present this episode as objective as possible and inform our readers of the classification process. After a film has been submitted, the BFC will deliberate on its classification. If the BFC is unable to come to a reasonable rating among her officers, the film is brought to the Film Consultative Panel, which is made up of people selected by the Media Development Authority. The current 2-year panel is chaired by Mr Vijay Chandran, the Director of Elasticity. The panel’s vice-chairs are Dr Christine Yap, Consultant, Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, IVF Clinician, Women’s Health and Fertility Centre Pte Ltd and Dr Jasbir Singh, Research Scientist and Deputy Director of the Science and Engineering Research Council at A*STAR. All three are selected from the scientific sectors, while half of the other 60 members (including the law professor Ms Yvonne CL Lee) already belong to the public and/or education sectors

I believe the R21 classification of A Single Man went through this chain of command before being submitted to the Film Appeal Committee, whose decision to retain the rating remains final. The representative constituents of the Film Appeal Committee are no different from that of the Film Consultative Panel, with 60% of its 15 members drawn from government agencies, bearing the tendency to toe the line and not rock the boat.

 

Every ten years or so, a Censorship Review Committee (CRC) is set up to look into governmental policies and make recommendations to the Media Development Authority (MDA). The Ministry of Information, Communications, and the Arts (MICA) will issue a report in response to the recommendations suggested by the CRC. MICA’s response to the 2003 CRC report was an ‘agreement in principle’ with respect to the following clauses concerning homosexual content:

 

- Take a more flexible and contextual approach when dealing with homosexual themes and scenes in content.

- Allow greater leeway for adults, through suitable channels, to access such content provided it is not exploitative.

 

Now, even though MICA has agreed to these recommendations in principle, MDA continues to deny Singaporeans the right to watch films with positive portrayal of homosexuality. This includes Singaporeans aged 21 and above. In 2010, as we await the new recommendations from the fourth CRC, the speculation hovers along conservative lines against social diversity.

http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2010/08/25/10247.the-irony-of-censorship

 

And as the author later points out, such films are relatively easily downloaded from the internet - so what is the point of such social order censorship? As I said in my earlier post, the real problem is "who imposes the rules and who carries them out"!