More Internet Censorship on the Way

[Guest fountainhall]

Internet censorship in this country is increasing at a staggering rate. Prior to the Emergency Decree issued by the government on 7 April 2010 during the red shirt occupation in Bangkok, a total of 65,000 sites were blocked. Just two months later, several internet watchdogs were reporting that the number of banned sites was up to 113,000 (the first country to reach six digits, according to wikipedia. I suspect it had forgotten about China, but even then, Thailand still bans more sites on a head for head basis than China!), and the rate was increasing at 500 per day. In part this was no doubt because the Decree allowed the government to block sites at a whim, without the need to apply for a court order. Based on the government’s own media releases, that number then more than doubled by November 2010 when it stood at a whopping 277,610.

 

http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2010/11/08/thailand-now-blocking-256110-websites/

 

And it’s not just websites, Several thousand YouTube sites are blocked here in Thailand. In fact, according to a Bangkok Post article on 8 March 2011 -

 

The massive, expensive programme has made Thailand one of the world’s most censored nations. This policy should be examined and vastly reduced in scope, or better still, binned entirely. The vast, constantly growing list of tens of thousands of banned websites needs review by an informed and independent group. Censorship has gone out of hand without oversight and accountability, and needs to be changed . . .

 

Many agencies are involved in censoring the internet. All have highly questionable authority under a constitution where the government is charged with protecting freedom of information, not stifling it. As far back as the Thaksin governments, the chief internet censor has been the minister of information and communications technology . . .

 

At no step in internet censorship is there oversight, accountability or responsibility . . . no one ever has managed to breach the veil of secrecy of who selects sites to censor, or what are the criteria for censorship. For certain, no one has been able to appeal a decision to close or block an internet site.

http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/thailand-is-an-enemy-of-the-internet-bangkok-post/

 

Just a few days after that Bangkok Post article, a paper issued by the UNHCR Refugee Agency estimated that the number of blocked sites could be as high as “400,000”. It also gave information about the “Cyber Scouts” recruited by the Ministry of Justice (i.e. spies), a group of

 

volunteers who monitor the internet and denounce activities which, according to the authorities, should not occur there. The authorities plan to train several hundred Cyber Scouts.

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,RSF,,THA,4d8226858,0.html

 

As we know from the media, a large percentage of sites are blocked because they are considered to contravene the country’s lese majeste laws. Yet, not content with the existing system, the government is now proposing to spend another Bt. 400 million on a more stringent “lawful interception LI system.” This, it is claimed, will tighten monitoring “to counter anti-monarchy messages on the internet.”

 

Pol Col Siripong Timula, deputy commander of Technology Crime Suppression Division, assured that the LI system would not be used extensively, but would be allowed by a court order.

 

"To curb anxiety, I'd like to stress that the system must be applied under the law, which means it must be approved by a court. So there is no need to fear violations of rights," he said.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/security/270812/web-censor-system-hits-protest-firewall

 

And this at a time when all government departments have been ordered to slash budgets by 10% in order to provide the funds for the flood clean up!

 

One problem with the existing system surely is: where does it end? Monitoring the law on lese majeste is one thing, but increasingly gay sites are being targeted – more, in my opinion, than ‘straight’ sites. If this was targeted at underage pornography, then I would fully support it. But the bans are becoming far more wide ranging, with even a chat site like SGT having already been banned for years in certain parts of Bangkok (but not elsewhere which seems an idiotic and cavalier interpretation of the law!)

[TotallyOz]

I don't think you were a member of this site many years back when we were shut down by the censors. We filed a complaint, had to send them information about ourselves, edit a banner image on the homepage and we were turned back on. They were targeting gay sites. It was obvious to all. That was under Thaskin and it was pretty bad. IMHO. I thought it would return under his family and I think my assumptions may be true.

[Guest]

Free speech is an essential part of democracy, so all this censorship should weaken the red shirts democratic credentials.

 

Are the opposition saying anything about this?

[TotallyOz]

Free speech is an essential part of democracy, so all this censorship should weaken the red shirts democratic credentials.

 

Are the opposition saying anything about this?

 

Do you really see any difference in the two of them with regards to censorship? They both seem to love it.

[Guest fountainhall]

Do you really see any difference in the two of them with regards to censorship? They both seem to love it.

I agree. In Thaksin's day, it was all part of his "social order" campaign to remove 'unhealthy' influences for Thai youth and clean up Thailand's image. Today the focus may be on the lese majeste law, but it seems to spread to absolutely anything individual government civil servants and ministers want rid of. As the Bangkok Post article I quoted earlier makes clear, almost anyone in government can do what they like, despite their "authority" to do so being "highly questionable" under the constitution.

 

I think it might be useful for readers to look back at a couple of posts I made last year in the Gay Thailand Forum under the thread “What is a House of Prostitution?” Specifically posts #19 and #25 in which I quote from a quite excellent book by Alex Kerr titled, Bangkok Found. Kerr lives in Thailand and, unlike many expats here, has totally immersed himself in Thai culture in all its many guises. He has many Thai friends up and down the social scale, and his insights into Thailand and Thai society are as perseptive as they were about Japan in his award-winning book, Lost Japan.

 

Kerr suggests that the current nightlife ‘scene’ can not continue, and makes a rather startling assumption as to why the authorities are concerned about recent developments. To save you checking back the threads, here is part of what he writes -

 

In time, the more outrageous forms that prostitution takes in Bangkok (sex shows, go-go bars with half naked boys or girls with numbers on their panties gyrating on tables) will disappear. For those things, Bangkok stands far out on the scale of what most cities in the world see as acceptable. I don’t believe it will last. Slowly but surely we are seeing a clampdown, and it’s a matter of time before the ‘sinful’ Bangkok we see today fades into legend, just as 1920s Berlin did . . .

 

This doesn’t mean that commercial sex will disappear . . . it does mean that we’re seeing a steady shift in the balance between prostitution and non-commercial venues. . . Meanwhile there’s a new open sexuality among the youth, which also alarms conservative elements in government and society. Back in the 80s and 90s, Rome Club on Silom Soi 4 was one of the few places where young urban professionals hung out. Since then nightlife has exploded into a wide range of venues across town. Youngsters dance the night away at huge discos at RCA or the clubs in the Ratchada area; gays go to Silom Soi 2 or to dozens of venues clustered in entertainment districts around the city . . . Sophisticated venues like Bed Supperclub or the fancy nightclubs on Soi Thonglor attract a well-heeled clientele.

 

As late as the mid-90s, boys and girls rarely held hand in public. Handholding was mostly a boy-boy or girl-girl thing. Outside their homes, people shunned physical contact in general. Now this is all changing, and dance in the discos has a lot to do with it. Politicians and bureaucrats therefore see dance as dangerous and have done their best to restrict it, by granting few licenses, tightening the zoning for entertainment districts, and requiring clubs to close earlier and earlier. Bangkok is already far more restrictive than Singapore or Tokyo when it comes to officially mandated closing times and permitted age limits for entry. Of course, this being Bangkok, the restrictions have plenty of holes in them. Somehow, certain clubs manage to evade the rules and stay open till morning.

Bangkok Found by Alex Kerr, published by River Boks and available at Asia Books and amazon.com