I had thought that after a couple of weeks of relative quiet it would be in everybody’s best interest to simply ignore the provocative and childish videos that may, on occasion, cause offence in Thailand. I was wrong.
Apparently, Thailand’s junta-installed government now plans to charge YouTube with lèse majesté. The International Herald Tribune has some details.
It reports that:
Sitthichai Phokai-udom, the minister of information and communications technology, told The Associated Press that a suit would be lodged with a Thai court next week on charges of lese majeste, or offense against the monarchy, which is a crime in Thailand.
The minister said refusal to remove the clip on grounds of free flow of communication was “total hypocrisy” since the YouTube owners Google censored their operation to gain access to the market in China.
“Thailand is a fairly small country and not the economic or military powerhouse, so we are at the mercy of the greedy businessman in America,” he said.
He said the legal action was a cultural issue, not a political one, because “the majority of the Thai people feel deeply insulted by this video clip.”
In another report the Minister reportedly justified the blocking of websites in Thailand by saying that “though non-elected, the government was more democratic” than Thaksin’s popularly supported administration.
In response to these statements the questions are many: Will Google ever contest these charges in a Thai court? What would the consequence of a successful prosecution be? If Google/YouTube actually presents itself in a Thai court how closely will the world watch? Does the junta just want to continually draw attention to any and all perceived slights? Is that their tactic?
This ongoing saga shows no sign of ending any time soon. Who knows what will happen next?
15 responses so far ↓
1 Historicus // May 4, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Another question is why does this junta feel that it has to work so hard at protecting a monarchy that they claim is revered by all in Thailand (except those nasty Thaksin people)?
2 Pig Latin // May 4, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Phokai-udom’s quotes are ridiculous on so many levels!
My magic eight ball says: signs point to “Project for the New Thai Century” website opening soon!!!
3 Global Voices Online » Thailand: Thailand vs. Google // May 5, 2007 at 1:00 am
[...] New Mandala blog discusses Thailand’s attempts to charge Google with lèse majesté. Thailand’s government tried unsuccessfully to get Google owned YouTube to drop clips mocking [...]
4 AFREETHAI // May 5, 2007 at 3:48 am
Nothing he said is about bringing GOOGLE/YOUTUBE to justice ‘coz of lese majeste.
Lese majeste he said was ‘ cultural’…not legal.
5 Tosakan // May 5, 2007 at 5:08 am
This lawsuit is stupid on so many levels.
Who are they going to sue? Who are they going to arrest?
YouTube/Google didn’t produce the video. Greedy American businessmen didn’t produce the video.
What is Sitthi going to do, hire a Thai special forces team to hunt down the maker of the video , kidnap him like Adolph Eichmann style, and bring him up on charges of crimes against humanity, only to have the king pardon him?
Actually, that sounds like a cool movie.
Can you imagine a Thai special forces team in their camoflauge dropped in the middle NYC, given the mission to kidnap the YouTube producer, and bring him back for the trial of the century?
Pure comedy. Better than Crocodile Dundee.
.
6 Republican // May 5, 2007 at 3:25 pm
The use of lese majeste and the extraordinary efforts made by the state to control the king’s public image suggests that, contrary to what so many people claim is the universal love of the Thai people for their king, there are in fact many people who would not hesitate to criticize the king and the monarchy, and especially the king’s undermining of democracy in Thailand, if only they had the opportunity to freely do so. This criticism is in fact already expressed in code – in the criticism of Prem, and especially (as Somsak has pointed out) of “sakdina”, which one finds now even in daily newspaper columns. The real test of the king’s popularity would be to abolish lese majeste. This concept of the “beloved king” is purely the public image that has been manufactured by the ratchakan and maintained by its media monopoly, lese majeste, and the appallingly deceitful attempt to turn the king into an object of religious devotion – similar to the Mao cult during the Cultural Revolution. What these people “love” is a chimera. This chimera is the only thing standing between the control of the ratchakan state and real democracy, which is why the ratchakan defend it so vehemently.
7 AFREETHAI // May 5, 2007 at 11:17 pm
lese majeste can be compared to the insult law…
the king can do nothing when he;s attacked.
it’s the responsility of state to protect him as the head of state, without right to protect himself.
it can be endless discuss on this issue with different standpoint…between republican and who are not…
sometimes it sounds like debating which religion is better than another…
8 Srithanonchai // May 6, 2007 at 12:18 am
Afreethai: As Streckfuss and nganadeeleg have suggested on this blog: why not follow some European examples and make the application of lese majeste dependent on a complaint by the monarch, instead of letting all sorts of people play their more or less dirty political games with this law by accusing those they don’t like.
9 voice // May 6, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Sittichai , he didn’t care about lese majeste case , but he did it to protect Gen.Prem , because Youtube have a clip of Thaksin told about Gen.Prem who behind the scene ้ำhe interfered to justice system, to media, to prosecutor, used everything to topple.
10 Andrew Walker // May 8, 2007 at 2:29 pm
The Sydney Morning Herald is carrying a story on the proposed Thai action against Youtube:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/thai-king-to-sue-youtube/2007/05/08/1178390264540.html
11 fall // May 9, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Seem like the junta attempt to get a court order for YouTube like Turkey did, but with half the subtlety and none the sublime.
The problem with Thai culture is government does not know the different between government order and legal jurisdiction power. After so long status quo of government order as supreme command, the notion that someone could legally deny complying is non-standard situation. So they are fumbling with using legal court power like a child who learn to speak for the first time.
12 nganadeeleg // May 9, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Fall: It seems it’s not only Youtube that fail so jump at government orders.. from today’s Bangkok Post:
Thaksin’s wife postpones ASC testimony
(BangkokPost.com) – Potjaman Shinawatra, wife of deposed premier Thaksin, asked to postponed her testimony to the Assets Scrutiny Committee on Shin Corp share transactions scheduled for Wednesday, saying she had other business to look after.
Family lawyer Noppadol Pattama said on Tuesday that Khunying Potjaman was willing to cooperate with the ASC, but she was not available on Wednesday so she would like to reschedule the meeting.
He did not explain the exact nature of Khunying Potjaman’s claimed “other business,” but said she was not trying to duck out of appearing.
“The postponement isn’t aimed at buying time because Khunying Potjaman will testify to the ASC as a witness,” he said.
As to when she would meet with the ASC, Mr Noppadol said that depended on the decision of the probe panel.
It’s not the first time witnesses have done that – I cannot understand why the ASC allows it to happen.
13 patiwat // May 9, 2007 at 3:57 pm
So if the court convicts Google/YouTube in absentia for lese majeste, does that mean that Eric Schmidt (Google CEO) will be arrested and thrown in jail for 15 years if he visits Thailand?
14 fall // May 9, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Nganadeelag-
That’s the different between government power and legal power. From my understanding, ASC is just a committee. It cannot afford to “not allows” it to happen.
If ASC deem PJ’s postponement unreasonable/harmful to the case. The most it can do is ask for court order to seize the asset or detain the withness. But that’s court decision, not ASC. Whatever ASC say, it has to send the case to a prosecutor. PJ’s will still have to prove her innocent in court as defendant.
Patiwat-
In my opinion (political reasons aside), I assume the junta want to play the card like Turkey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#Banning_in_Turkey
But with all the grace of militaristic regime.
15 New Mandala » YouTube vs Thai dictatorship: A settlement? // May 11, 2007 at 8:30 pm
[...] is a new development in the conflict between YouTube and the Thai [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.