Talk:Censorship in Thailand

message: This article is one-sided and quite misleading:
*The article has no historical context.  Was Thailand a haven for the free press, only to descend to censorship in the government of Thaksin Shinawatra?  What about the governments of Sarit, Thanom, Prapat?  What about the era when every single television channel was owned by the government or the military?  When community radio simply did not exist? This article has one purpose, and that is as a platform to attack Thaksin Shinawatra.  Which is a shame, because this article addresses an issue that has been and will be a serious issue in the Thai media. Patiwat 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One-sided and misleading article?

message: The cabinet has revoked the military junta's order for the Information and Communications Technology Ministry to block websites deemed harmful to the military council and to the national security. In practice I'm personally seeing sites previously blocked now freely accessible (eg. references to "The King Never Smiles", pro-Taksin...).
Rendler 09:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed, I can access YouTube and Newgrounds now! (IMO, you might want to move your message to the top. You might want to add it!
-HuBmaN!!!! 09:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to web censorship rules: 

message: I thought that PULO website was always censored. At least, before 2006. Could anyone confirm this? underexpose 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PULO Website

message: The article notes: "Numerous libel law suits have been filed against critics of the government in what the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) called “Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s continued use of criminal defamation charges to silence media criticism of his government”".  This is an article on Censorship in Thailand, not Censorship by Thaksin.  As such, it should show the historical context of censorship, which for a long time has been used to silence government critics.  Focusing exclusively on Thaksin (like much of the article) makes it biased and reduces its credibility. Patiwat 16:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libel suits restrict press freedom 

message: I'm transfering the info about Sondhi's TV show being cancelled from the "Further ways of censorship" section to the "Broadcast media" section.  It fits better there. Patiwat 17:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship being undermined by technology 

message: I don't see why these 2 paragraphs were reverted: "Currently, domestic publications present a wide range of political and social commentary, with many publications (e.g., Phoochatkarn Daily, The Nation) openly critical of the government. Unless critical of the royal family or the monarchy, foreign and domestic books normally are not censored and circulate freely....    However, threats to press freedom still remain. In April 2000, during the Chuan-government, the Editor in Chief of the Chiang Mai daily newspaper Pak Nua was shot and seriously wounded in an attempted murder, but recovered. The editor believed that his repeated critical reporting on the government led to the assault."  Basically, this is saying that the press isn't explicitely censored, except for some rare and troubling occassions.  Or maybe I should make this more explicit? Patiwat 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder isn't censorship? 

message: I've added some clarifying details about the newspaper editors incidents.  The BKK Post guy wasn't just fired for criticizing the government - he was fired for publishing an article claiming that the new BKK airport runway had cracks.  An article that later had to be retracted when it turns out that the new runway did not have cracks.  That the government put pressure on him is unquestionable - whether it should be called censorship or justice is up to the reader to decide.  The second incident with the Siam Rath editor was much uglier, really shameful for the Thai government. Patiwat 17:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The editor incidents 

message: I will revert the whole article to its original version, if you don't mind.
You've shown some decent efforts in contributing. It doesn't help at all, 
however, to obstruct attempts to post an article by expressing your "feelings"
, "believes" etc. Please help supporting the article by keeping up the good
approach you've show in adding the historic background of censorship in Thailand, e.g.!
And would you please be so kind and spare me phrases like "Basically, this is saying that the press isn't explicitely censored, except for some rare and troubling occassions.  Or maybe I should make this more explicit?" Be civil! But, yes, you should get more explicit - but with regards to your contributions! Those blurred "truths" you present appear of little value.
I start to understand that you are emotionally involved in this topic. In so far, please forgive me if you feel discomforted by being criticized. 
alpha60
And, please check your reverences:  by 
the "the fool on the dune" is not precisely a verifiable source, is he? No,
you call it a blog. In doubt, check out Verifiability on that please. alpha60
*Yes, alpha60, I do mind when you call edits made in good will, with citations and discussion "vandalism".  Let's keep this constructive, OK?
**The blog citation was made because the article in The Economist is only available by paying a fee.  The blog author printed the sentences that made the royal reference, and gave a link to the pay site of The Economist.  I think that primary sources are much preferable to secondary sources (e.g., The Guardian article).  After reading The Guardian article, I still have no idea whether censorship of the The Economist article was reasonable or not, e.g., did it slander the Royalty?  After reading the blog, it is possible to interpret The Economist article and then pay a fee if I want to double check that the blogger accurately reprinted the article text. In conclusion, I think that particular bullet-point should be reverted, with the addition of The Guardian article if you like. 24.193.105.76 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: *alpha60, please explain yourself.  Why was the entire section on community radio censorship deleted, without any discussion?  Community radio is a broadcast media (even if it only have a 15km broadcast radius).  There have been several public accussations that the government is trying to censor it.  The topic is controversial.  Multiple perspectives (the government and the broadcasters) are represented. Several citations are given.  I really don't see why this section was deleted... 24.193.105.76 14:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Community radio censorship section deleted; why?

message: *A case example of political censorship have been deleted without any discussion as to the merit of the example.  Let me explain myself and hope that the example will be reverted.  The leader of the opposition party publically accused the government leader of tax evasion, which seems like a typical excercise in free speech.  However, previous investigations had revealed that the government leader was innocent of tax evasion.  The opposition leader was sued for libel with massive damages, damages that could very well render him bankrupt.  He bravely refuses to be silenced.  The government leader claims he was defending his good name - others claim he was trying to silence political expression.  A citation is given which explains both perspectives.  Links were given to other articles which give background to the issue.  The language includes no weasel words or loaded words.  Yet this example was deleted.  Please explain why. 24.193.105.76 14:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of censorship via lawsuit and political censorship; why? 

message: One case of censorship that I definitely think deserves mention is "Fah Diao Kan" magazine.  "Fah Diao Kan" is the only publication that I know of that prints articles concerning the King that do not worship the royal institution.  The Oct/Dec 2005 issue dealt with the institution of monarchy, and Jan/March 2006 issue brought out the problem of the Crown Property, talking about how the CPB is exploiting from the poor and how it is linked with the government and Thaksin Shinawatra's Shin Corp.  The Oct/Dec issue was banned under the pretext that "it may upset public order or morality". And afterwards,the publisher and editor of the magazine, Thanapol Eawsakul, was charged with lese majeste - the case has yet to be concluded.  I'll right up some short sentences describing the situation later. 24.193.105.76 17:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship of "Fah Diao Kan" journal 

message: You are vandalising the article with your attempts to remove "the POV"!
I explained my self and refuse to respond to your recently posted threats since
they are beyond the point and in importance not equal with what has been
altered or answered earlier, repectively. 
If every instant of censorship in Thailand (remember that's what the article is about!)was documented in this article, it would be a wee bit longer and sure
exceed the standard scope for wikipedia articles.
I thought we had agreed that the historic dimension needed elaborated upon?
Why don't you focus on that?
As far as the rest of the article is concerned:
I do not know what it is that makes you try to flaw that article with your
opinion of what is important and what is not. 
The original article I had posted was well researched with verifiable sources however, I concede, the historic dimension was neglected; pls. see discussion above); most of them are independent NGOs.
You are merely adding what you consider important. Plus, your sources are less
verifiable.
Vandalism is defined as "addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."
Hence I call your edits vandalism.
alpha60
Look, lets just chill out a bit, alright?  I'll try to respond to your issues point by point.
*I assure you that any changes I have made have not been in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the article.  I've assumed good faith on your part and hope you do the same for me.  I stand by my edit history and believe that a reasonable third person, viewing my edit history, would agree with me.
**I was never excited, really. But take a deep breath if you want! And then explain how you could not
assume good faith on my part? alpha60
***Its easy to misunderstand people in Wikipedia... and if you misunderstood me, then I apologize.  I was responding to a post made where you said an edit I made "can therefore hardly be used in good faith."​Patiwat 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stay focused, please! 

message: After going through your arguments again carefully I felt urged to add the following:
You repeatedly opposed the results of surveys by Reporters without Frontiers,
the International Federation of Journalists etc., which are reliable in the sense required for an objective article on wikipedia, by your “interpretations” and called the topic controversial.
What are you implying there? That those reports on Freedom of Speech are aimed 
at compromising the Thaksin administration?  The aspect which is disputable is you adding  “facts” which you think are important based on your intuition and/or
your ideological gusto. 
Those estimations, press reports like the one from Time magazine or the ones just mentioned, obviously oppose your own point of view. Just because you don’t like them, does not make them wrong. Still, they are more suitable than what you consider should be in here for the reason being that they were published by independent bodies (which sure have little interest in fueling a controversy). 
According them, freedom of speech in Thailand has come under increasing pressure due to the monopolized control of media outlets by the present government. That is precisely what this article is founded upon.
It is, as I noticed during my research on this issue, impossible to find any serious source which claims the opposite. Changes like the you proposed (“urrently (sic), domestic publications are not explicitely (sic) censored, and present a wide range of political and social commentary, with many publications (e.g., Phoochatkarn Daily, The Nation) openly critical of the government.” can therefore hardly be used in good faith.
In sum, my intention in writing this article the way I did was to cover “Censorship in Thailand”. Period. Unfortunately, I could not manage to match your perception of the issue for reasons whatsoever. Besides, I don’t understand your excessive editing on this one. 
After refuting several of your suggestions on solid grounds, as I would say, you keep presenting more and more  “important” points that were allegedly omitted. I suspect we could go on like that infinitely. The benefit for the quality would be none.
alpha60
*For the record, it is quite incorrect to refer to "monopolized control of media outlets by the present government".  Never before in Thai history has the government had less monopolized control of media outlets.  Don't forget: up to the 90s, MCOT was a government organization, there were no cable television providers, and all radio was licensed.  Today: MCOT is owned by thousands of shareholders, ITV has been sold by Thaksin, Sondhi has 8 channels of satellite TV, Nation Group has over a dozen channels, anybody can get cheap pirated cable and satellite TV, and there are thousands of unlicensed community radio stations.  More should be done - MCOT should be fully privatized and the Army should get out of the TV business (but I don't think anybody has the guts to tell that to tell that to them, including Thaksin).  Regardless, the myth of a government monopoly over the media is just plain wrong. Patiwat 13:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective editing 

message: I can’t help but think that you have a hidden agenda there! How about stop editing for a bunch of weeks? I, of course, will do the same. 
I don’t see how we can reach any agreement; particularly with regard to your last posting.
I’m convinced it will go a lot more swimmingly afterwards. Do you agree?
alpha60
*Its tempting, but I don't think I'll agree to that.  Censorship is occuring on a daily basis, with movies blurred, community radio stations raided, and websites blocked out.  Handley's controversial biography of the King is just being published, and is already banned.  Heck, there's been recent attempted murders that have been effective in censoring people.  This is a timely topic, and quite controversial as you can see.  Lets try hard to work this out.  Wikipedia has seen worse disagreements between editors and has still survived, and thrived.  As for a hidden agenda; sorry, I don't work for anybody.  Not that it matters.... It would be great if we could get other editors to give their perspective to this article. Patiwat 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time out 

message: I reported Patiwat for vandalism and asked the page to be protected after he had shown no willingness to stop diminishing the quality of this page and refused a time-out. alpha60
*I deny this charge of vandalism.  I stand by my actions - all of my edits have been in good faith, as can be determined by any users or admins with an examination of both my Edit record and my Discussion record.  Patiwat 13:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism report Patiwat 

message: The current article seems to be exclusively focused on censorship of mass media in Thailand.  I think this goes against the spirit of the article title (if it were to be exclusively about mass media, it would be called "Censorship of mass media in Thailand").  The scope of the article should also include censorship and restrictions of individual speech.  Although this is guaranteed by the Constitution, it is also limited by several laws.  The King may not be slandered, and neither may the courts.  I'd suggest a short new section titled Individual Speech: "The judgement of Thai courts may not be criticized.  After a controversial ruling in July 2006 in which the Criminal Court jailed three Election Commissioners, the court worked with the police to identify 16 individuals who were captured on TV news footage criticizing the judgement.  The maximum punishment for criticizing the court is a jail sentence of up to seven years."
:: yes, i agree that this article should include censorship of individual in Thailand. However, if we to use critism of  the EC ruling case as an example, i suggest if all wait until action has been taken against those critics. wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's better to wait until any situation is finalized before we immortalized it here. underexpose 17:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, nothing is ever "immortal" on Wikipedia :-)  That being said, my thoughts here are the same as in the above section on censorship of web boards:  The public threat of criminal investigation is in itself an act of censorship, even if there is yet no finalized judgement to the case.  The current courts have made very clear that they are advocates of judicial activism (see http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/07/30/opinion/opinion_30009908.php) and will aggressively punish those who go against their will.  But again, I have no problem with "wait and see". Patiwat 18:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your patient Patiwat. underexpose 18:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Latest news regarding this can be found here: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/08/02/headlines/headlines_30010209.php  The 16 protestors have been found, and a verdict is due on Thursday. Patiwat 15:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Criminal Court has made an "unprecedented" ruling: it found all 15 defendants guilty, and ordered 4 of them jailed. I think this certainly as censorship and warrants mention in the article. Patiwat 15:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The verdict is clear. I have no objection against placing this example in the article. underexpose 22:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On a different note, the other institution that is above criticism in Thailand is the King.  There are 5 cases in recent memory where this have restricted freedom of speech. Each of these examples illustrates a different perspective on the issue of the King and censorship. 1) Politician Veera Musikapong in 1986 (Dep. Interior Minister at the time) was convicted and imprisoned for offending the King, and also banned from politics for some time.  He had noted in a public speech that if were born the Crown Prince he "would be drinking whisky instead of standing here getting pains in my knees."​  This is the last time in Thai history that a Thai was ever imprisoned for lese majesty.  2) Sulak Sivaraksa was charged with lese majesty, but he bravely refused to be censored.  He was later charged with new charges of lese majesty, and had to flee the country.  The courts later rejected all the charges.  3) The multiple charges filed by Thaksin & Co. against Sondhi & Co., and the charges filed by Sondhi & Co. against Thaksin & Co. This hasn't stopped any of them from invoking the King in their political debate. 4) The deportation of 2 reporters from the Far Eastern Economic Review for writing an article noting the business connections between Thaksin and the Crown Prince. On the other hand, this might be more appropriate under the section on Press censorship. 5) The British Military Attache went crazy  on an international flight and started screaming "F*** this country! F*** the king! F*** the Buddha!"  He was banned from entering Thailand. I think each of these examples would be useful, depending on the needs of the reader.  Your inputs would be appreciated. Patiwat 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no wonder why my sarcastic joke seems dull. it should have read as "it's better to wait until any situation is finalized before we immortalized it here." =) Concerning the issue you have raised, I do not have enough knowledge on this particular incidents; therefore I couldn't appropriately give you such input. However, after reading your cited source, it seems to me that lese majasty law is being used as a political tool rather than else. If the census here agree that such example(s) should be included in this article, I feel that we should word it appropriately and carefully. A censorship is censorship. But its intention does matter too. I donot want to give readers with false impression. underexpose 00:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cases 3) and 4) are most probably politically motivated uses of the lese majesty laws for censorship purposes.  Case 2) might have been, while 1) was, to my understanding, not politically motivated (Veera was a government minister at the time).  I'll suggest an edit in the Disc. page before I put it up to the main article. Patiwat 07:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  #5 sounds believable, but do you have a source? (even if it's not worth putting in the article...) AADM3 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should censorship of individual speech be included in article? 

message: Sorry about your parents! Take a bow ( and relaxx!); and start making sense. alpha60
Patiwat, I think I should make myself clear: The article was part of an academic project. 
I do not have any particular perspective on the issue. Therefore I reject the repeatedly used remark about the controversy etc. of this article. 
Having read your claim on your user page that you have a strong adversity against former Thai administrations for personal reasons, I understand and respect your line of argumentation. As an outsider I still feel a bit surprised by your angled and smug tone on the matter.
Lastly, I’d like to add that, in the light of completion of the project, I will not
continue editing this article any further. Thanks for your “help”! Regards alpha60
:Fine.  However, I'd still appreciate your inputs on the issues noted above.  Although academic projects may be completed, Wikipedia never will be.  Also, should your thesis be cited as a reference for the article? Patiwat 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hold your breath!

message: Press Conference and Public Forum on Internet Censorship
Wednesday, November 15
1:30 pm, October 14 Memorial Hall, Ratchadamnoen
(in Thai and English, translation available)
Filing our petition to the National Human Rights Commission
Wednesday, November 15
5:00 pm, National Human Rights Commission, Anti-Money Laundering
Office Bldg, Ratchawithi, opposite Siam Discovery Centre
----
(THAI TEXT FOLLOWS)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FREEDOM AGAINST CENSORSHIP THAILAND--NOW!
A distinguished group of academics, journalists, publishers, business
owners and parents today formed the Freedom Against Censorship
Thailand (FACT) to file a formal petition before the Thai Human Rights
Commission asking for a complete ban on Internet censorship in
Thailand.
Since 2002 when Internet censorship was initiated by the Thai
government, more than 35,000 websites have been blocked.  The Ministry
of Information and Communications Technology (MICT) blocks 2,500
websites; the Royal Thai Police, 32,500; and the Communications
Authority of Thailand (CAT) an unspecified further number.
There is no Thai law which permits such blocking, all of which is done
in secret.  In fact, the 1997 Thai Constitution guarantees unfettered
access to all communication, as does the Thai Telecommunications Act.
MICT has funded a study from Sukhothai Thammathirat University's legal
faculty to determine how current laws can be used to enforce Internet
blocking in order to subvert and undermine the foundation of law
enshrined in the Thai Constitution.
The Thai Government conceals a hidden agenda by targeting pornographic
websites, the majority of those blocked.  At least 11% of websites
blocked are critical of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, his
Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party, government handling of the violence in
southern Thailand and the September 19 coup d'etat.
In addition to keeping this blocklist secret, Thai government agencies
also will not disclose their criteria for blocking websites or who, in
fact, is making these decisions.  Nor will they define what is
considered "a threat to national security".  This lack of public
transparency is in direct contravention of the Information of
Government Act 2540.
Since September 19, MICT is also blocking public discussions in which
comments and replies from the public are posted to moderated and
unmoderated webboards such as Prachatai, Pantip and Midnight
University.  Midnight University has already brought their case before
the Human Rights Commission and the Administrative Court and was
granted an interim injunction to unblock their website pending the
Court's final determination.
MICT has also blocked anonymous proxy servers through which Thai
Internet users can access a blocked webpage.  The Ministry has also
requested Google Thailand and Google USA to block access to its cached
web pages in Thailand by which blocked pages can be accessed, as well
as to block by keyword search.  Both these methods are used as tools
used for political repression in China.
As of October 13, 2006, websites from BBC 1, BBC 2, CNN, Yahoo News,
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Age, Amazon.com, Amazon UK and Yale
University Press containing articles about His Majesty King Bhumibhol
and Thaksin are also being blocked by MICT.
The blocking of websites or, in fact, any government censorship of
freedom of expression, is most often used by an insecure government in
a feeble attempt at control of its citizens.  Usually the censorship
is directed against views government deems unconventional or
unorthodox, if not an outright threat to power, as in Burma or China
or North Korea or, in fact, in the USA using its PATRIOT Act. Thailand
is not Burma or China or North Korea (yet).  Perhaps Aung San Suu Kyi
said it best: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
There are an estimated more than two billion distinct websites,
including at least ten million pornographic sites.  Is blocking
millions of sites A) within the Thai government's capabilities; B)
worth the huge expenditure necessary; or C) just a smokescreen for a
far more sinister political agenda?
Internet censorship impacts on academic research, business
competition, media freedom, and family education, among many other
fundamental rights and freedoms.
We estimate that at least 40% of Thai graduate students will be unable
to complete thorough, effective theses or dissertations due to blocked
websites.  This means these Thai graduates will never be able to
compete with international graduates.
It should also be noted that we have a dearth of libraries available
in Thailand, especially in the provinces;  the Internet is, for many,
the only source for research and information.
The Internet is presently the only forum in which all opinions are
equal, neutral and non-commercial.  Should not any person judge the
validity of those opinions for themselves?  We do not believe the
World Wide Web should be in any manner curtailed, censored or managed
anywhere.
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand is a partner in the Global
Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC) and has received statements of
support from more than 70 international organisations including
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) whose website is blocked by
MICT).
The world is watching.  Internet censorship is improper, obscene and
illegal in a democratic Thailand.
Contact details:
CJ Hinke <facthai@gmail.com> tel. 087-976-1880 (English)
Supinya Klangnarong (<freemediafreepeople@gmail.com>) โทร 086-788-9322 (ภาษาไทย)
----
สำหรับเผยแพร่
FREEDOM FROM CENSORSHIP THAILAND--NOW!
ในวันนี้กลุ่มคณะของเหล่านักวิชาการ สื่อมวลชน สื่อสิ่งพิมพ์
เจ้าของธุรกิจ และผู้่ปกครองได้รวมกันจัดตั้งกลุ่มเสรีภาพต่อต้านการเซ็นเซอร์แห่งประเทศไทย
(Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)
เพื่อที่จะนำเรื่องเรียกร้องต่อคณะกรรมการสิทธิมนุษยชนแห่งประเทศไทย
เพื่อให้ยุติการเซ็นเซอร์อย่างสิ้นเชิงในไทย
ตั้งแต่ปี พ.ศ.2545 หลังจากที่รัฐบาลได้เริ่มการเซ็นเซอร์อินเตอร์เน็ต
เว็บไซต์มากกว่า 35,000 เว็บไซต์ได้ถูกบล็อก
โดยทางกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสารได้ทำการบล็อกเว็บไซต์กว่า
2,500 เว็บไซต์ และทางสำนักงานตำรวจแห่งชาติได้ทำการบล็อกอีก 32,500
เว็บไซต์ และยังมีอีกจำนวนมากที่ไม่สามารถรู้ได้จากการบล็อกของการสื่อสารแห่งประเทศไทย
เนื่องจากไม่มีกฎหมายไทยฉบับใดที่อนุญาตให้สามารถทำการบล็อกอินเตอร์เน็ต
การกระทำเหล่านี้จึงทำในลักษณะเชิงที่เป็นความลับ จริงๆแล้วรัฐธรรมนูญปี
พ.ศ.2540 ได้รับรองเสรีภาพในการติดต่อสื่อสาร
ทางกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสารได้ให้ทุนวิจัยแก่คณะนิติศาสตร์
มหาวิทยาลัยสุโขทัยธรรมาธิราช
เพื่อที่จะทำการศึกษาหากฎหมายที่มีอยู่ในขณะนี้ที่สามารถรองรับการใช้อำนาจอันขัดต่อหลักกฎหมายที่รัฐธรรมนูญรองรับ
รัฐบาลได้ปกปิดภาวะซ่อนเร้นโดยอ้างการปิดเว็บไซต์ลามก
ซึ่งเป็นเว็บไซต์ส่วนใหญ่ที่ถูกบล็อก โดยอย่างน้อยร้อยละ 11
ของเว็บไซต์ที่ถูกบล็อกนั้นเกี่ยวข้องกับการวิพากษ์วิจารณ์อดีตนายกรัฐมนตรี
ทักษิณ ชินวัตร และพรรคไทยรักไทยของเขา
รวมถึงเรื่องมาตรการของรัฐที่เกี่ยวกับปัญหาภาคใต้และเรื่องรัฐประหารเมื่อวันที่
19 กันยายน
ในการที่จะปิดรายชื่อเว็บไซต์ที่ถูกบล็อกเป็นความลับ
หน่วยงานของรัฐบาลไทยจึงไม่ยอมเปิดเผยเกณฑ์ที่ใช้ในการบล็อกเว็บไซต์
หรือบอกว่าบุคคลใดมีอำนาจในการตัดสิน
อีกทั้งยังไม่อธิบายหรือให้คำจำกัดความคำว่า
"มีผลกระทบต่อความมั่นคงของชาติ"
การไร้ซึ่งความโปร่งใสต่อสาธารณะถือว่าเป็นการขัดต่อพระราชบัญญัติข้อมูลข่าวสารของรัฐ
พ.ศ. 2540
ตั้งแต่วันที่ 19 กันยายน ทางกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร
ยังได้ทำการบล็อกกระดานแสดงความคิดเห็นที่มีความเห็นและความเห็นตอบจากสาธารณะแสดงอยู่
ไม่ว่ากระดานแสดงความคิดเห็นเหล่านั้นจะมีการตรวจสอบเบื้องต้นหรือไม่ก็ตาม
เช่น ประชาไทย พันธุ์ทิพย์ และมหาวิทยาลัยเที่ยงคืน
โดยทางมหาวิทยาลัยเที่ยงคืนได้นำเรื่องนี้สู่คณะกรรมการสิทธิมนุษยชนเรียบร้อยแล้ว
เฉกเช่นเดียวกับการนำเรื่องสู่ศาลปกครอง
โดยทางศาลปกครองได้ออกมาตรการคุ้มครองชั่วคราวโดยให้ทำการปลดการบล็อกเว็บไซต์ดังกล่าวก่อนในช่วงขณะที่คดียังอยู่ในระหว่างการพิจารณาขั้นสุดท้ายของศาล
ทางกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสารยังได้ทำการบล็อก Anonymous
proxy server ที่ผู้ใช้อินเตอร์เน็ตในไทยใช้ในการเข้าสู่เว็บไซต์ที่ถูกบล็อก
ทางกระทรวงฯยังร้องขอต่อ Google Thailand และ Google USA
ให้ทำการบล็อกการเข้าชม Cached web page
ในไทยที่ทำให้สามารถเข้าชมหน้าของเว็บไซต์ที่ถูกบล็อกไว้
เช่นเดียวกับกรณีการบล็อกการค้นหาโดยการใช้คำที่สำคัญ (Keyword)
วิธีการทั้งสองวิธีนี้เป็นวิธีการที่ใช้ในการที่จะปราบปรามการแสดงความคิดเห็นทางการเมืองในประเทศจีน
ตั้งแต่วันที่ 13 ตุลาคม พ.ศ. 2549 เว็บไซต์ของ BBC1, BBC2, CNN, Yahoo
News, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Age, Amazon.com, Amazon UK และ
Yale University Press
ที่มีบทความเกี่ยวกับพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวภูมิพลอดุลยเดชฯ
และทักษิณ ต่างถูกบล็อกโดยกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร
การบล็อกเว็บไซต์ หรือแท้ที่จริงแล้วคือ
การเซ็นเซอร์เสรีภาพในการแสดงความคิดเห็น
โดยปกติแล้วเป็นวิธีการที่รัฐบาลที่รู้สึกไม่มั่นคงจนต้องพยายามที่จะครอบงำและควบคุมประชาชนของตน
โดยปกติการเซ็นเซอร์จะใช้กับความคิดเห็นที่รัฐบาลเห็นว่าเป็นการต่อต้านและไม่เหมาะสมสมควร
หรือก็อาจจะส่งผลต่อฐานอำนาจของตน ดังที่ใช้กันในประเทศพม่า หรือจีน
หรือเกาหลีเหนือ หรือแม้แต่ในสหรัฐอเมริกา
แต่ในรูปแบบของพระราชบัญญัติรักชาติ (PATRIOT Act) ประเทศไทยไม่ใช่พม่า
หรือจีน หรือเกาหลีเหนือ (อย่างน้อยก็ในขณะนี้)
บางทีคำพูดของอองซานซูจี
ที่เคยกล่าวไว้น่าจะเหมาะสมที่สุดในการอธิบายสถานการณ์นี้
 "เราไม่มีสิ่งใดที่ต้องกลัว เว้นแต่ตัวความกลัวเอง" ("We have nothing
to fear but fear itself.")
มีการประเมินแล้วว่ามีเว็บไซต์ในโลกมากกว่าสองพันล้านเว็บไซต์
ซึ่งในนี้มีเว็บไซต์ภาพลามกอย่างต่ำกว่าสิบล้านเว็บไซต์
แต่การที่จะบล็อกเว็บไซต์นับล้านนั้นอยู่ในความสามารถที่จะทำได้ของรัฐบาลไทยหรือ
และค่าใช้จ่ายจำนวนมหาศาลที่จะต้องใช้ในการนี้มันคุ้มค่าจริงๆหรือ
หรือว่านี่เป็นแค่การสร้างกระแสเพื่อกลบเกลื่อนภาระซ่อนเร้นอันชั่วร้ายของรัฐบาลต่างหาก
การเซ็นเซอร์อินเตอร์เน็ตส่งผลกระทบต่อการศึกษาวิจัย การแข่งขันทางธุรกิจ
เสรีภาพสื่อ และการศึกษาของแต่ละครอบครัว
และยังรวมถึงสิทธิและเสรีภาพขั้นพื้นฐานอื่นๆ
เราประเมินพบว่าอย่างน้อยร้อยละ 40
ของบัณฑิตไทยจะไม่สามารถพัฒนาความคิดได้อย่างสมบูรณ์เต็มที่
ส่งผลกระทบต่อการทำวิทยานิพนธ์และรายงานทางวิชาการเพราะผลจากการบล็อกเว็บไซต์
นี่หมายความว่าบัณฑิตของไทยจะไม่สามารถที่จะไปแข่งขันกับบัณฑิตในต่างประเทศ
เราควรที่จะรับรู้ว่าประเทศของเรานั้น
ห้องสมุดขาดแคลนเป็นอย่างมากโดยเฉพาะในต่างจังหวัด
สำหรับหลายคนนั้นอินเตอร์เน็ตเป็นหนทางเดียวสำหรับการค้นหาข้อมูลและข่าวสาร
อินเตอร์เน็ตในปัจจุบันเป็นที่เดียวที่ความเห็นต่างๆนั้นเท่าเทียวกัน
เป็นกลาง และปราศจากผลประโยชน์เชิงธุรกิจ
จึงเป็นการสมควรแล้วหรือที่จะให้บุคคลใดบุคคลหนึ่งมาตัดสินว่าความคิดเห็นไหนไม่สมควรเพื่อประโยชน์ของพวกเขา
ดังนั้นทางเราจึงไม่เชื่อว่าอินเตอร์เน็ตนั้นสมควรที่จะถูกควบคุม ตรวจสอบ
หรือถูกจัดการในทุกรูปแบบ
ทางกลุ่มเสรีภาพต่อต้านการเซ็นเซอร์แห่งประเทศไทยเป็นภาคีของกลุ่มสนับสนุนเสรีภาพบนอินเตอร์เน็ตของโลก
(Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC)
และได้รับแถลงการณ์สนับสนุนจากองค์กรระหว่างประเทศมากกว่า 70 องค์กร
ซึ่งรวมถึงมูลนิธิ Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
ที่เว็บไซต์ของมูลนิธิเองก็ถูกบล็อกโดยกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร
ขณะนี้โลกกำลังจับตามองประเทศไทยอยู่
การเซ็นเซอร์อินเตอร์เน็ตนั้นเป็นสิ่งที่ไม่สมควร น่ารังเกียจ
และผิดกฎหมายในประเทศไทยอันเป็นรัฐประชาธิปไตย
ติดต่อ
Supinya Klangnarong (<freemediafreepeople@gmail.com>) โทร 086-788-9322 (ภาษาไทย)
CJ Hinke (<facthai@gmail.com>) โทร 087-976-1880    (ภาษาอังกฤษ)
----
Contact details:
CJ Hinke  email: <facthai@gmail.com> tel. 07-976-1880  (English)
Supinya Klangnarong  <freemediafreepeople@gmail.com>  tel. 086-788-9322 (Thai)
----
=== The King never smiles ===
The description of the book by Handley is rather POV. In particular the judgement made about the scholarship quality of the book and the insignificance of the mistakes it contains. A more neutral description would be more suitable. And as mentionned on The King Never Smiles the websites of yteh YUP is accessible as is the Amazon webpage Roger jg 10:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Press Release from FACT

message: The description of the book by Handley is rather POV. In particular the judgement made about the scholarship quality of the book and the insignificance of the mistakes it contains. A more neutral description would be more suitable. And as mentionned on The King Never Smiles the websites of yteh YUP is accessible as is the Amazon webpage Roger jg 10:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The King never smiles 

message: This paragraph has been deleted:
Following the 2006 Thailand coup d'état that took place on 19 September 2006, further restrictions have been put on the Thai media and freedom of speech.
Thai media is more free now (post Coup) than it has ever been.  
When still in power, Thaksin could not be criticised on normal Thai TV, today any one can criticise the government on TV.
----
Roger, my friend, having worked nearly full-time on this issue for more than a year, you could not be more wrong.  Immediately post-coup, the military occupied all media outlets for some weeks; if that's not called intimidation, what is?  MICT Web-blocking increased 500% between October & January--free, you say?  Enormous self-censorship is going on in every media; a good recent example is that the YouTube controversy went completely unreported in the Thai-language press. --FACThai 06:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect information

message: Websites are blocked by Uniform Resource Locator (URL) and/or IP address. However, only about 20% of blocked sites are identified by IP; the remaining 80% are unable to be identified at a physical location. If these sites could be identified as being located in Thailand, legal action could be taken against their operators. Thus, lack of IP is a major oversight.
:Is it just that I'm tired, or am I missing something. Identifying an IP address is totally different from identifying a physical location. All websites have the IP addresses publicly available or you wouldn't be able to see them. This passage doesn't make sense to me, or maybe i'm just really tired Bawolff 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  internet censorship passage in article 

message: :Image:Thailand-internet-redirect.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Thailand-internet-redirect.jpg

message: Comments by 113.53.107.150 made on 22:52, 6 August 2010.
Summa sumarum this shows that Thailand is NOT a democracy, and they are still a long way from be`s ieing so.
A country in need of this sensorship dont trust on their population, but the population is not ther for the country, it`s opposite. And I think some day some of the corrupt owners of Thailand will experience what I just said.
I`m not able to write this trough Freegate or Hidemyass, but anyway It`s important to telle everybody about the sensorship the governmet are abusing. I do not think any former government has been better, but it can change in the future:-)
Moved here from the article space.
--Atlantima (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments moved from the article 

message: The flip side is what is not being censored.
*
--Pawyilee (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The new Minister for Communication and Technology (MICT) Captain Anudith Nakornthap of the Pheu Thai Party has gone on record by declaring  (in translation) "...from now on, the ministry’s officials and staff members of every level have been urged to be more stringent in the pursuing of violations against the Computer Crimes Act and lèse majesté on websites, by enforcing the law to the fullest."
--Pawyilee (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flipside 

message: It should be noted that International websites regularly voluntarily censor sensitive Thai topics in order to keep their access to the nation. You will find that most all expat and travel sites connected to Thailand aggressively censor topics that could result in their websites being blocked or their webmasters being arrested by Thai authorities. In addition, Yahoo itself has censors non-threatening sensitive posts willingly and has specifically designed its Yahoo Answers section to avoid political or social discussion of foreign nations in the US. It offers Yahoo Thailand but that too is aggressively censored by users and site managers. Twitter accounts which post even slightly critical posts about the monarchy or Buddhism are often quickly closed. The Internet has brought limited freedom to most nations including Thailand due to its business first policy. 110.168.34.16 (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliance by International Websites 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Censorship in Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070220174428/http://sivaraksa.com:80/january-25th-letter-to-the-prime-minister to http://sivaraksa.com/january-25th-letter-to-the-prime-minister
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928081113/http://205.188.238.181/time/archive/preview/0,10987,962326,00.html to http://205.188.238.181/time/archive/preview/0,10987,962326,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Censorship in Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214120404/http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php to http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There probably should be a section on the various Expat forums which have thousands of members and censoring. ThaiVisa is mention in the article as making a statement that it was being censored in 2010 but that website and others like Teakdoor have done massive amounts of censoring and deleting of accounts of posters arguing the case against the Thai junta since then. Most expat forums have pages which comment on the situation but their censoring goes much further at times than seems necessary as the Mods on the forums have different opinions on what should be censored. Early on before and during the coup, many expat websites were extremely hard on anti-coup/junta opposition. Posts and users accounts were deleted continuously up to the day of the coup. This seemed to be for several reasons. The first reasons were in order to protect their business opportunities as they feared the imminent junta control over the nation. Another reasons was the already aggressive censoring and charges that were being placed on the Thai media. Finally, some of the Mods in the various forums took sides in the political story going on in Thailand. This censoring in expat forums crushed the voices of the English language opposition in these internationally-popular websites. To those looking at Thailand from abroad, with Thai media mostly censored  and foreign media and these expat forums censoring, the truth and other side of the story was mostly lost.Every Thai and longterm expat knows that in Thailand what the media holds is missing truth or often the other side of the story. Since the takeover, these expat forums played a role in the junta's media control and in is pushing of its propaganda. Without free and open discussion much truth was lost and the junta was even more empowered. Since that time the junta has settled in. The moderation on forums has continued to censor but there have been moments of 'fairer' discussion. The expat forums still do not allow comments that go against the junta or royal family so what readers get from a forum is a reflection of their own understanding of what 'freedom of information' means to that forum and Thailand. Someone who knows nothing about the history or reality of Thailand is today, would read a forum post and miss the truth about it. This is for the record. I hope that this large discussion community is not left out of the censorship in Thailand story.  NaturalEquality (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thai Expat Forums and Voluntary Censoring 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Censorship in Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207202418/http://www.ect.go.th/english/files/2007-constitution-english%5B1%5D.pdf to http://www.ect.go.th/english/files/2007-constitution-english%5B1%5D.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.sarakadee.com/web/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=612
*Added  tag to http://www.sarakadee.com/web/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=610
*Added  tag to http://www.sarakadee.com/web/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=611
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141127105625/http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1415857431§ion=00 to http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1415857431§ion=00
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050507090137/http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/print.asp?parentid=8230 to http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/print.asp?parentid=8230
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129031737/http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1416032341§ion=00 to http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1416032341§ion=00
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://205.188.238.181/time/archive/preview/0%2C10987%2C962326%2C00.html
*Added  tag to http://archive.waccglobal.org/wacc/layout/set/print/regions/asia/asian_articles/free_speech_in_thailand_wacc_scholar_takes_on_prime_minister_and_media_giant_in_freedom_of_speech_case
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060513073633/http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=42112 to http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=42112
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130414223635/http://freedombarometer.org/ranking/thailand/2011 to http://freedombarometer.org/ranking/thailand/2011
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Censorship in Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207171520/http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=550 to http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=550
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119202408/http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=549 to http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=549
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131012309/http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1043 to http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1043
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110307183608/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-21/world/thailand.emergency_1_emergency-decree-thai-cabinet-abhisit?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-21/world/thailand.emergency_1_emergency-decree-thai-cabinet-abhisit?_s=PM%3AWORLD
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070121184910/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/02/headlines/headlines_30017813.php to http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/02/headlines/headlines_30017813.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522030836/http://en.rsf.org/thailand.html to http://en.rsf.org/thailand.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noticed that there is a delay of about 5 minutes for some foreign TV Channels (I don't know all channels, but CNN and BBC-WOrld belong to them). My guess is that the cable companies create this delay, to be able to blank the channel in time for censoring. Is this information that could/should be included in the article? --FredTC (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not. It's been covered by Prachatai and Khaosod English, though they don't go in-depth into the exact nature of the delay. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign TV Channels