Comments on: YouTube vs Thai dictatorship: The saga continues

By: New Mandala » YouTube vs Thai dictatorship: A settlement?

New Mandala » YouTube vs Thai dictatorship: A settlement? — Fri, 11 May 2007 09:30:07 +0000

[...] is a new development in the conflict between YouTube and the Thai [...]

By: fall

fall — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:31:56 +0000

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.

By: patiwat

patiwat — Wed, 09 May 2007 04:57:17 +0000

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?

By: nganadeeleg

nganadeeleg — Wed, 09 May 2007 02:37:04 +0000

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.

By: fall

fall — Wed, 09 May 2007 01:30:49 +0000

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.

By: Andrew Walker

Andrew Walker — Tue, 08 May 2007 03:29:42 +0000

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

By: voice

voice — Sun, 06 May 2007 06:44:53 +0000

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.

By: Srithanonchai

Srithanonchai — Sat, 05 May 2007 13:18:10 +0000

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.

By: AFREETHAI

AFREETHAI — Sat, 05 May 2007 12:17:27 +0000

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…

By: Republican

Republican — Sat, 05 May 2007 04:25:15 +0000

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.