Thailand Sues YouTube 435
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.'"
Universally adored? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or is he universally adored in Thailand because it's illegal not to?
(Damn, I wish I could have people thrown in prison for making fun of me on the Internet. Wow.)
Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, since this story has come out in the open now, you are sure to see even more pictures of the king in all sorts of not-so-pleasant-for-him ways.
I guess they have to try until they learn....
Queue the viral news stories with funny pictures of the king in 3... 2... 1..
Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
He is a KING. A KING. He should be able to deal with (oh horror) FEET!. I am aware of the cultural implications (I am friends with a few people from Thailand), but I expect people to be able to get over jackasses giving them the finger. I expect more of a guy who is a king.
The laws are lame. Tough shit Thailand.
Re:Royal Family (Score:5, Insightful)
Expression (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe there is a relationship between this universal adoration and the tough laws that prevent Thais from expressing opinions to the contrary.
Re:Hrm... (Score:5, Insightful)
No more Duke of Ears jokes, no more Hakenkreuz-Harry, no "why can't Camilla ride a horse" jokes... the world would be poorer
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm thinking that it's not the King who wants to sue, but some officials who feel insulted or wants to ingratiate themselves or whatever. Remember that Thailand is under military rule and the monarch is just the "head of state".
In fact, it was the king who pardoned the swiss man who defaced his portrait. For all we know the king doesn't give a hoot about this issue but it's not in his power to change the law or to keep people from trying to enforce it.
In any case, I don't think this will amount to anything. I think they just want their displeasure to be heard but they are fully aware that a lawsuit of this kind will not do a thing.
Re:Universally adored? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, this will quietly eliminate the mocking. (Score:5, Insightful)
A) While the number aware of the offending material is still few, you can choose to just let it go.
Or...
B) You sue one of the largest Internet entities around, assuring that your embarrassment will achieve far reaching exposure previously impossible. People who don't even know where your country is (i.e. Americans ) will mock you and, if you're real lucky, late night TV hosts will broadcast the images so that even those who don't know YouTube from BoobTube can share in your mortification.
You choose B? Really? Good luck with that.
Re:Universally adored? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's so funny? (Score:1, Insightful)
I was taught (and it never hurts to repeat this) that the Bill of Rights was written "to protect the minority from the majority". We can be thankful for the Bill of Rights - if we can keep fascists in our goverment (and sadly ignorant supports of same) from whittling them away. The Thai people might consider this, too.
Absurd. (Score:1, Insightful)
Some group of people may be offended by feet, porkchops, pentagrams or santa claus but they can't possibly expect other people to share these feelings. So to lash out against the rest of the world because a person is incapable of taking something in stride, or at least jumping to another website to me just demonstrates poor coping skills.
If the majority of the world found something offensive and problematic, then I could see justification for having something banned. And actually, if they want to ban this stuff within their own country, well, they're free to do so. But to sue YouTube is ridiculous. And I don't want to find one day that my own freedoms are being limited in an attempt to avoid offending some minority group.
Without question, everyone deserves to be treated fairly. However that equality means that inevitably someone is going to be offended from time to time. It's either this or we start banning anything and everything to ensure no one is offended.
Re:Royal Family (Score:3, Insightful)
'like' or 'dont like' doesnt come in to play here. Its all about rights, not preferences.
Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)
a. Do the right thing and denounce the law as unfair and unjust, telling your supporters not to be so overzealous, or
b. Silently accept the law, and reap the benefits of being able to "forgive" people for insulting you by pardoning them. Fools think you're a hero for being so generous.
Robbing someone of 15 years of their life and then giving it back isn't generous, it's cruelty. The people are foolish enough to support it, and the king does nothing about it.
Re:as the dmca number fiasco demonstrated (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slashdotter Replies (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened to respecting other peoples cultures and religious beliefs anyway?
They are *tolerated* not respected.
This is as it should be.
As in "Wow, you believe in some idiotic shit. Oh well, whatever floats your boat" as opposed to "OMFG you believe in the divinity of the taco?!? I'm never eating at Taco Bell again out of respect for your stupid
Re:Why do I get the image (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, I am going to respond to this obvious troll because somehow it god modded way up (shame on you mods). Australian law is anagolous to the US law that the extradited suspect was charged under (what he was charged with is illegal in both countries). However, in this case the US has no law even remoltely resembling the Thai law.
Apple meet orange.
another proud American (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Absurd. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Absurd. (Score:4, Insightful)
Any kind of speech. At all. In every form. All should be protected in that there should be no laws favoring or opposing any of it preferentially - favor it all. Speech even in pictorial form (one of the oldest forms of written communication fer cryin out loud), prose, whatever. Say what you want. Just realize that others can too.
Decency and mutual respect can only occur when the powers are not favoring one over the other. if some people can say certain things and others can not you have just created friction greater than just letting people handle themselves.
Re:Hrm... (Score:5, Insightful)
A user on YouTube has created some commentary that has to be the most intelligent thing I've heard on the situation up until now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnz7lwh0pCM [youtube.com]
Re:Universally adored, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Universally adored? (Score:5, Insightful)
China = $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Thailand = $
I think that basically explains it.
Re:You tube should plead guilty! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless, of course, children might see it - then all bets are off.
Australian Extradited For Breaking US Law At Home (Score:2, Insightful)
Any different?
Re:Royal Family (Score:2, Insightful)
right... (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, it has nothing to do with it.
Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that Denmark is a liberal democracy and Thailand is a vicious military dictatorship. And no, it wasn't much of a "democracy" before the coup either. The Queen of Denmark would never consider jailing someone for insulting her, nor would the parliament pass such a law.
The Thai people are simply WRONG, as in immoral or evil. Google/YouTube should not cooperate with Thailand, nor should the US Government.
Re:"loved by all" (Score:2, Insightful)
sovereignty (Score:3, Insightful)
Get the fuck over it. Seriously.
The laws are lame. Tough shit Thailand.
No, tough shit *you*. Thailand is enjoying something called sovereignty: the power to rule itself as a country. If they want to make a law banning showing the king next to feet- that's their goddamn right.
If they're happy, then there's no real problem. I'm guessing you're a "fellow" American. I wish people like you would stop giving our country a bad reputation as being full of arrogant, bossy idiots who want to tell everyone how to do things.
Of course he's universally adored (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, if there are laws that prohibit insults against the royal family (like sending people to jail for 15 years), the king will be universally adored.
Re:Um.... (Score:1, Insightful)
I've been to Thailand many times. I am engaged to a wonderful Thai lady, and plan to live there with her. I have seen first-hand how much the Thai people love the King, and I know how much it hurt and offended those who saw the youtube video. I'm not even Thai, and it offended me.
Frankly, the lese majeste laws are unnecessary, since any Thai hearing you insult the Royal Family will not hesitate to kick your ass, and get as many of his or her friends to join in as they can.
Youtube/Google could have very simply solved this by taking down the videos. But, since they look at it as "freedom of speech," without regard to anyone else's culture, traditions or values, they left them up. And it gained notoriety as a result.
I've lived outsiude the US for several years now, and frankly, this is one more reason I am in no hurry to go back. It's another illustration of American arrogance and disregard for other cultures, traditions, and values.
Critique of the Critique (Score:2, Insightful)