Thailand Sues YouTube

eldavojohn writes "Thailand is hitting YouTube with charges of lese majeste (up to 15 years in prison) regarding the recent videos on YouTube showing the king next to feet, something extremely offensive in Thailand. 'Since the first clip, more new videos mocking the king have appeared on YouTube, including pictures of the monarch that had been digitally altered to make him resemble a monkey. Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais, is the world's longest-reigning monarch, and one of the few who is still protected by tough laws that prohibit any insult against the royal family.'"

"loved by all"

[Anonymous Coward]

Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais, is the world's longest-reigning monarch, and one of the few who is still protected by tough laws that prohibit any insult against the royal family

Nearly every story I see on this subject restates this 'fact'. One should keep in mind that many dictators have had this sort of law in place, and it does seem to work. That is until the law is ended, and people are free to speak their mind. Sure some will maintain their support, if only because of how they were raised. Of course as many of them see nothing wrong with selling their daughters into prostitution (and often AIDS) [msmagazine.com]...

...including pictures of the monarch that had been digitally altered to make him resemble a monkey

Perhaps instead they should photo-shop him into the pictures of the child prostitutes for which his country is infamous (not X-rated would get the most press, just standing among the lineups, and next to the AIDS ridden ones who are dying would be appropriate). Maybe his loving subjects might reconsider selling their daughters into a life of misery.

posted AC as I am a coward, more reading on the king and Thailand [speroforum.com]

Nice...

[Moridineas]

"Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais"

To paraphrase the Simpsons, this story was brought to you by one B. Adulyadej. No no, that's too obvious, let's say Bhumibol A. [wikipedia.org]

OP, RTFA.

[Samurai Cat!]

Submitted title: "Thailand *sues* YouTube"

Actual article title: "Thailand *to sue* YouTube over king clips"

First line in article: "We are *considering* taking legal action against the website," said Vissanu Meeyo, a spokesman for the information ministry."

Teeensy bit of difference, there.

Re:What goes around...

[gstoddart]

Well, if Australians can be charged with breaking the DMCA then Americans should be able to be charged with breaking lese majeste.

The difference here, is that the US pressured every trading partner to make their absurd DMCA law apply to everyone else on the planet.

The US, on the other hand, has never signed up to participate with anyone else's laws except those they championed in the first place.

However, the French have managed to ensure that Yahoo, E-bay, etc aren't allowing anything to do with Nazi paraphernalia to enter their country. So, at a minimum, they might be forced to block such stuff in Thailand.

Cheers

Mocking the Royal Family

[zoomshorts]

This is the worst thing to do. Despite the kingdom being a constitutional monarchy,
King Bhumibol is a great person. I met him in the 1969 timeframe, my father was a
military advisor. His Majesty is both humble and knowledgeable. He was born in the
U.S.. He loves his people, as do the entire family.

IF anyone needed to have a constitutional monarch, you would be hard pressed to find
a better one !!!!! These are quality people. ignore the military, they take turns
running the country.

I'll get this in

[dave_boo]

before there's too many idiots reguritating their nonsensical rhetoric concerning Thailand.

I'm a resident of Thailand, let's get that out of the way right now.

Firstly, all those who insist that the lese majeste laws are there because the majority of Thais would suddenly rise up and start doing what those without respect for anything would do are seriously disillusioned. And/or they've never traveled to Thailand. There's a deep reverence for the King here which arises from all that he has done. The fact that he has mostly remained out of politics has been a bonus, but the attention that he pays to his people weighs significantly in his favour. And the link that another poster put in that suggest that he had a personal dislike for Thaskin, and that is what forced him out of the country is laughable. As anyone who follows the politics knows, the situation had been brewing for quite some time. The fact that Thaskin was guilty of doing exactly what people hate Bush Inc for is conveniently either glossed over or omitted.

And to the inevitable "What do you expect from a country of pedophiles?" comments: There's absolutely nothing of the sort in your country?

Re:Hrm...

[Opportunist]

Because the horse would have a hard time figuring out whether she's to mount him or he's to mount her.

It helps to know what she looks like [t-online.ch].

Re:Hrm...

[morgan_greywolf]

Thailand's 79-year-old king, almost universally adored by Thais, is the world's longest-reigning monarch, and one of the few who is still protected by tough laws that prohibit any insult against the royal family.'

And this, my friends, is why we we have the 1st Amendment to the Constitution in the U.S. ... to protect offensive speech. Because offensive speech (particularly involving the monarch) was punishable by imprisonment in Imperial England.

Your lesson in American History and Civics brought to you today by the King of Thailand -- Universally Adored by Thais everywhere!

Re:Well,

[gravesb]

Its amazing how many people don't understand how this works. There is a treaty, of which the United States, GB, and Australia are all signatories, that creates certain baselines for cybercrime. Since the treaty process was started by the Council of Europe, its rather disingenious to blame all of the resulting statutory implementations on the US. Yes, we did have a large part in the writing, but we were not the only ones who did, and the statutes that each country wrote as a result were their own doing. Yes, the US doesn't always play well with others (WTO, anyone), but the cybercrime treaty is good law, and in accordance with traditional common law principles. If you stand in Canada, and shoot a man in Michigan, you can be extradited to Michigan, if Canada decides that's the most effective method. Same thing here. If you hack a US server, even if you are in the UK, the UK can send you to the US for trial. Jurisdiction is commonly based on the effect of the crime, not just the origin. In this case, I doubt there is an applicable treaty, as the US Supreme Court would frown on restrictions of parody, and likely strike down Congressional implementation of any statute. Likewise, the Thai government could attempt a civil suit in US court, but I doubt that is going to carry much weight. Its also perfectly acceptable for Thailand to ban YouTube from doing business in Thailand absent a representative in Thailand for just this purpose, but if YouTube merely posts the videos, and Thais come to the videos, it will be difficult for Thailand to respond.

Re:Here we go again

[ruiner13]

You mean how the US made online gambling illegal? Or is trying to push to make AllOfMp3.com illegal? Seems like other countries are doing this too.

Public Policy Exception

[ubuwalker31]

I do not think that anyone in a Western Style democracy will be handed over to the Thai authorities to be prosecuted for this type of thought crime, because it goes against numerous public policies, such as freedom of speech. Egad, the USA was founded on the concept of being able to criticize and make fun of royalty.

I am surprised that the usual smart people on slashdot can't get their heads around the concept that "physical presence" in a country is only one of many ways to subject yourselves to that countries laws. Doing business with a country's citizens, through the mail or over the telephone, or over the internet is enough of a contact. And even if there are extensive contacts, there are very strong overriding public policies which would prohibit such an extradition.

That being said, If I was a YouTube executive or employee, I wouldn't travel to Thailand, because then they could arrest you physically there, and there would be very little that your government could do about your prosecution.

Re:Expression

[Slashdot Parent]

Find a Thai person in your home country other than Thailand and ask him, given that he is not at the moment subject to the laws of Thailand, how he really feels about King Rama IX.

I can answer that for you. He will tell you that King Rama IX brought democracy to Thailand, uses his vast wealth to help poor, rural parts of the country, and is just generally a great guy. He also has gone on record stating that the laws against criticizing the monarch are stupid, and often pardons those convicted of criticizing him.

And no, I am not Thai by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:Protected by law?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have lived in Thailand for six months. Last year, a guy was arrested and charged with this same crime for spray-painting graffiti on public portraits of the King. He was convicted about a month ago and sentenced to many years in prison. The king pardoned him about a week after his conviction. I read some newspaper articles here that said that the King has pardoned everybody that was convicted of this crime during his reign.

Still, sitting in Thai prison while waiting for trial and sentencing is one of the harshest punishments one can receive. Please read this article in the Chiang Mai Citylife magazine to get a small taste of how horrible it would be:

http://www.chiangmainews.com/indepth/details.php?i d=1718 [chiangmainews.com]

If the King really disapproved of the way that the government handles this law, all he would have to do is say so, and the government would never charge anybody again during his lifetime; for a prosecutor to do so would be to commit the same crime himself.

Re:I'll get this in

[dave_boo]

As far as taboos go, it's not that far out there. Since the head is considered the "holiest" part of the body in Buddhism (in fact, it's almost as bad to touch some people's head as it is to point your feet at them in Thailand, and even going so far as to put the feet next to someone's head is absolutely the worst thing you can do), it's not that much of a stretch to see that the opposite end is the "dirtiest" part. Add in the fact that this area was/is built on agriculture, where all sorts of wastes are used as fertiliser, including human, it becomes even more clear. I'm not clear about your question in regards to sandals and flip-flops though.

Re:Universally adored?

[jaiyen]

If he's universally adored, then why are people making fun of him on the Internet?

Or is he universally adored in Thailand because it's illegal not to?

I live in Thailand, and there's no doubting the King is genuinely universally adored. For example, to celebrate his 60th year on the throne the royal family asked people to wear yellow shirts (the royal colour) on Mondays. That was months ago, but still in Bangkok now every Monday at least 50% of the people you see about are voluntarily wearing yellow shirts with "We live the King" written in Thai on them. No one has a bad word to say about the King even in private, and just about every household has a picture of the King and Queen too.

There's no doubt in my mind the affection is genuine and not legally mandated (after all, the Crown Prince is protected by the same law but much less venerated), although to what extent it's caused by "brainwashing" and propaganda is somewhat arguable. After all, if you're only ever told how wonderful your King is and all the good things he's done for the country and never hear a word of criticism, then who wouldn't love him ?

(Damn, I wish I could have people thrown in prison for making fun of me on the Internet. Wow.)

Interestingly, the King himself actually told people him and his ideas shouldn't be above criticism in one of his birthday speeches - though he's probably the only person in Thailand who could publically make such a statement! He also pardoned the Swiss guy jailed for lese majesty very quickly, so he doesn't seem to be the instigator to me.

As to why people put the videos on youtube, well who knows, but Thais I know who have seen the video are very angry about it - much more so about that than the fact that youtube is blocked. I've seen quite a few "boycott youtube" messages on Thai websites, so whatever else the failings of the junta government they do seem to be in touch with the feelings of the population on this issue, and they could have faced a bigger problem if they'd done nothing. It seems strange to me Google accommodate China's censorship and oppression but are unwilling to work with Thailand on this issue.

Personally I find the block very frustrating though, I didn't realise how often I went to youtube following some link or other before this!

Re:Well,

[gravesb]

Please cite caselaw. Its most certainly not. See, for instance, Dog the Bounty Hunter to Mexico for a pop-culture example. I thought you were asking for references under the COE Cybercrime Conventions.

Re:Well,

[EraseEraseMe]

He usually pardons them relatively quick, within a week or so of him finding out about it. The thing is, he can't change the law, he can only retroactively unenforce it. Such is the life of a King.

Re:I'll get this in

[Anonymous Coward]

There seems to be some sort of idea that being a resident of Thailand makes one an authority. That's just silly.
What you feel about the king depends upon your politics and experience. There are not a few who remember his role in 1976, both contributing to the atmosphere that led to the lynchings at Bangkok's Thammasat University, and then never denouncing the vicious killings that took place. You'll find that the king's supporters don't like to mention what happened in 1976. Look it up. For a well-informed, critical but not unsympathetic account of the king and his work, read the biography that was published last year, "The King Never Smiles," by Paul Handley. It's banned in Thailand, but circulates widely there anyway.