FACT - Freedom Against Censorship Thailand

The Princess and the Facebook Girl
By Lawrence Pintak
Arab Media & Society: May 2008

http://www.arabmediasociety.com/topics/index.php?t_article=199

The relationship between media and state in the Middle East and North Africa is no fairy tale. Not a single Arab country has a press classified as “free.” For every step forward, there is at least one step back. For every official committed to loosening the reins, there is a lawyer wielding a lawsuit or a police thug with a blood-spattered baton. The rack may be history, but electric probes are today’s torture implement of choice…The contrast between Princess Rym Ali, sister-in-law of Jordan’s king, and the plight of 27-year old Esraa Abdelfattah, Egypt’s so-called “Facebook Girl,” succinctly sums up the contradictions inherent in government-media relations in the Arab world…Princess Rym, a former CNN correspondent, is on a quest to build the region’s first Arabic language graduate school of journalism. Facebook Girl, meanwhile, found herself being hustled off by Egyptian state security after creating a group on the popular social networking site that attracted 75,000 members and served as the spark for the country’s recent anti-Mubarak strikes.
…The Egyptian regime’s contempt for – and fear of – the media can be seen in the recent seizure of satellite uplink equipment used by Al-Jazeera’s Cairo bureau and prosecution of the equipment’s owner; in what news execs tell us is pressure on Egypt-based satellite channels like Dream, Orbit, O-TV and El-Mehwar to sanitize their coverage of the recent riots in the delta town of Mahalla.

Oct 6 massacre redux in the making by Manager-PAD
Somsak Jeamtheerasakul, Department of History, Faculty of Arts, Thammasat University
Prachatai: May 7, 2008

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=626

On Tuesday morning, Oct 5, 1976, an ultra-rightist group called the ‘Housewives Club’ held a demonstration at the Royal Plaza to protest the government in light of the crisis caused by Field Marshal Thanom’s return.  The protest went on until almost the afternoon when someone raised the issue of a photograph of a re-enactment that had been staged by Thammasat students at noon of the previous day, Oct 4.  This portrayed the hanging of two electricians in Nakhon Pathom who had been protesting against Thanom.  A photograph of the scene was published on the front page of the Bangkok Post the following day.  The protesters claimed that the face of one of the students who took the role of a hanged electrician resembled that of the Crown Prince, and accused the students of lèse majesté. Read the rest of this entry »

[FACT comments: Strange that the audio files have been deleted from the independent download sites.]

Chotisak no show at forum due to threats from Manager Radio
Prachatai: May 5, 2008

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=623

On May 2, a public forum was held at Thammasat University to address the controversial issue of the refusal of Chotisak Onsoong and his girlfriend to stand for the royal anthem. The panelists included social critic Sulak Sivarak, historian Suthachai Yimprasert, and reporter Pravit Rojanaphruk, with Thammasat lecturer Kasem Penpinan as the moderator.

The organizers, including the Santi Pracha Dharma Institute and Fah Diew Kan (Same Sky) magazine, started the forum with an audio clip recorded from a radio programme ‘Metro Life’ which belongs to the Manager Group, the driving force of the anti-Thaksin, royalist People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). The radio programme was broadcast on the night of April 30 at FM 97.75, or Manager Radio, during which the hosts incited listeners to come to the forum to attack Chotisak and disrupt the event.

(Note: since the evening of May 2, the audio files of the programme for April 29 and 30 have been removed from www.managerradio.com, but can be downloaded here (29) and here (30).)

The organizers therefore informed participants that Chotisak would not join the panel at the forum for safety reasons. Read the rest of this entry »

เสวนาวิชาการ : ‘สิทธิมนุษยชน กับความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่าง’
Prachatai: May 3, 2008

http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/12059

วันที่ 2 พ.ค.51 ที่คณะเศรษฐศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ (มธ.) ท่าพระจันทร์ มีการเสวนาวิชาการเรื่อง ‘สิทธิมนุษยชน กับความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่าง’ โดย สถาบันสันติประชาธรรม ซึ่งเป็นเวทีสืบเนื่องจากกรณีที่นายโชติศักดิ์ อ่อนสูง และนางสาวชุติมา เพ็ญภาค ถูกแจ้งข้อหาหมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพ เนื่องจากไม่ยืนเคารพเพลงสรรเสริญพระบารมีในโรงภาพยนตร์เมื่อเร็วๆ นี้ โดยมีผู้อภปิรายร่วมแลกเปลี่ยนความคิดเห็นได้แก่ สุลักษณ์ ศิวรักษ์, สุธาชัย ยิ้มประเสริฐ อาจารย์จากจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย, ประวิตร โรจนพฤกษ์ ผู้สื่อข่าวหนังสือพิมพ์เดอะ เนชั่น และ เกษม เพ็ญภินันท์ จากคณะศิลปศาสตร์ มธ.เป็นผู้ดำเนินรายการ ซึ่ง ‘ประชาไท’ ได้ถอดความและเรียบเรียงเนื้อหาส่วนที่ทั้ง 3 คนนำเสนอบนเวที

ทั้งนี้ ในช่วงเริ่มต้นของงานเสวนา ทางคณะผู้จัดได้เปิดเสียงรายการ “Metro Life” จัดรายการโดยต่อพงศ์ เศวตามร์ และ อำนาจ เกิดเทพ ออกอากาศทางคลื่นยามเฝ้าแผ่นดิน FM 97.75 เวลา 21.30 น. เมื่อวันที่ 30 เม.ย.ที่ผ่านมาเป็นเวลาประมาณ 10 นาที ในส่วนของเนื้อหาที่เป็นไปในทางยั่วยุให้ผู้คนเกิดความเกลียดชังและเข้ามาก่อความรุนแรงในงานเสวนาดังกล่าวตลอดจนทำร้ายนายโชติศักดิ์

หลังจากนั้นทางคณะผู้จัดฯ จึงได้แจ้งต่อผู้เข้าร่วมงานว่าเนื่องจากเกิดกระแสยั่วยุดังกล่าวทำให้เห็นว่าเพื่อความปลอดภัย ไม่ควรให้นายโชติศักดิ์ อ่อนสูง เข้าร่วมงานในครั้งนี้ ซึ่งตามกำหนดเดิมนั้นเขาเป็นผู้ร่วมเสวนาคนหนึ่ง

“ทางคณะผู้จัดงานเห็นว่าไม่ควรให้คุณโชติศักดิ์มาร่วมงานด้วยเกรงเรื่องสวัสดิภาพของคุณโชติศักดิ์และผู้ร่วมงาน รวมทั้งเกรงว่าอาจจะเกิดความรุนแรงและถูกขยายผลนำไปเป็นเครื่องมือทางการเมืองอื่นๆ สุดท้าย เราขอยืนยันว่า ในสังคมประชาธิปไตยจะต้องมีการเคารพความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ไม่ว่าความคิดเห็นนั้นจะแตกต่างสักเพียงใดก็ตาม ตราบเท่าที่ความเห็นนั้นไม่นำมาสู่การสร้างความรุนแรงให้เกิดขึ้นในสังคม และกรณีทีเกิดขึ้นกับคุณโชติศักดิ์นั้นแสดงให้เห็นอย่างชัดเจนว่า สังคมไทยอาจจะยังห่างไกลจากสิ่งที่พึงปรารถนา และคุณโชติศักดิ์ อ่อนสูง ก็เป็นเหยื่อของสังคมที่ไม่เคารพความเห็นที่แตกต่าง” คณะผู้จัดชี้แจง Read the rest of this entry »

[FACT comments: Old enough to kill, old enough to be maimed and die, far from home and loved ones, but  private reading material somehow violates military "honor and decency"?!? Give us a break--does anyone doubt politicians are capable of irony?]

Proposed Ban on “Porn” Angers Soldiers
by Richard Blair
The All Spin Zone: May 7, 2008

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/84733/

Should congress ban the sale of Playboy and Penthouse at U.S. military installations? Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga) thinks this is a big enough problem that he needed to introduce legislation to promote a ban on such men’s magazines as “porn”. Soldiers aren’t too happy about it…Legislation that would restrict the sale of certain men’s magazines on U.S. military bases around the world would be bad for morale, according to soldiers at Grafenwöhr, Germany…The politician has introduced legislation that would close a loophole in the current law that allows the sale of some sexually explicit material on military bases by lowering the threshold required to deem material “sexually explicit.”…A Department of Defense committee that reviews materials sold on bases ruled last year that magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse are not pornographic. But Broun’s Military Honor and Decency Act includes language that could make those magazines eligible for the ban.

[FACT comments: The Internet Archive is one of the 'net's largest copyright-free resources and host to FACT's Banned Books Project. No more book burnings!]

ACLU Wins Challenge to Patriot Act NSL Provision
American Civil Liberties Union: May 9, 2008

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/internetarchive.html
Video: http://blog.aclu.org/index.php?/archives/676-Gag-Lifted,-Brewster-Speaks!.html

The ACLU won a hard-fought victory in another legal challenge to the national security letter (NSL) provision of the Patriot Act. As the result of a settlement agreement, the FBI this week withdrew an unconstitutional national security letter issued to the Internet Archive and agreed to unseal the case, finally allowing the Archive’s founder to speak out for the first time about his battle against the record demand…The NSL, issued in November of 2007, asked for personal information about one of the Archive’s users, including the individual’s name, address, and any electronic communication transactional records pertaining to the user. Brewster Kahle, founder and digital librarian of the Internet Archive <http://www.archive.org/>, decided to fight the NSL because it exceeded the FBI’s limited authority to issue such demands to libraries. The lawsuit is the first known challenge to an NSL served on a library since Congress amended the national security letter provision in 2006 to limit the FBI’s power to demand records from libraries.

[FACT comments: I think there is little actual support to abolish the Thai monarchy. Abolition of monarchy is a painful transition, as most recently in Nepal, and rarely serves the public interest. The issue is about abolishing the lèse majesté laws or, at the very least, amending them with clear guidelines as to their application. That one Thai citizen "can't stand" his fellow Thais' opinions and thinks that gives him the right to charge public Web discussion fora is ludicrous and the perfect example of what is wrong with the laws.]

Same Sky Books and Prachatai websites charged for allowing comments about Chotisak’s ‘not standing’
Prachatai: April 29, 2008

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=620

Yet another Thai man has sued Chotisak Onsoong for not standing during the Royal Anthem in a cinema, as well as two websites for allowing discussion about this in their forums…On April 28 a Khon Kaen resident filed charges under Article 116 (2) of the Thai Criminal Code with police against Chotisak, for offending the monarchy and inciting unrest, and Fah Diew Kan (www.sameskybooks.org) and Prachatai websites for publishing threads of discussions by readers who supported Chotisak’s act…“There are many comments supporting Chotisak’s claim that people who stand for the Royal Anthem are those who like the Sakdina system [Thai feudalism].  One post says that she is married to a foreigner, and will tell her husband not to stand either, because she has long disliked the monarchy.  And one person rudely parodies the lyrics of the Royal Anthem.  As a Thai with great respect toward the monarchy, I can’t stand this,’ Sunimit said.

Thai traditions: Lese majeste in Thailand
By FRANK G. ANDERSON
United Press International: April 28, 2008

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Human_Rights/2008/04/28/lese_majeste_in_thailand/2852/

Thailand’s most powerful political and social “hammer” may be the kingdom’s lese majeste law…However, whether you are ever convicted and punished or not is a question of who you are, who you happened to offend and who is protecting your interests. The law is supposedly designed to protect the country’s revered monarchy, but is often misused to silence dissent, punish social and political enemies, or to employ against foreigners when Thais would face far less severe charges. Politicians, power brokers and colluding police all benefit from the application — or merely the threat to apply — the lese majeste law…Having witnessed — as a victim — the misuse of the lese majesty law in Thailand, this writer cautions foreigners first and foremost that the real danger is not merely saying the wrong thing, but in being perceived so by police or other powerful interests who themselves do not always have real national interests at stake. The higher up your accusers are, and the better connected they are with the military and police, and most importantly, with powerful politicians, the more chance you stand of being convicted… A powerful tool to silence protests, arouse public support and justify massive armed attacks against democracy protest groups, the lese majeste law in Thailand has faced frequent and strong protest, as well as both internal and external pressures for repeal. It may be that unless the nation’s monarch himself calls for repeal, the law will remain on the books for decades more…The suggestion that Thailand’s lese majeste law be amended to where only the nation’s monarch issues any such charge is a workable idea but faces overwhelming resistance in the Land of Smiles from powerful interests who have grown used to misusing the law for their own gain and others’ losses. If the country’s powerful police cannot yet bring themselves to repeal the law, then perhaps they can amend provisions in its enforcement to ensure that legitimate rights are protected on the one hand, and that persons filing lese majeste charges are made well aware of their obligations and possible repercussions from malicious filing…In a document provided to Thai police on this subject, this writer asked that any individual signing a complaint of lese majeste swear that he or she has no personal conflict with the charged person, and that the person filing also accepts that should the charge be found to be malicious or without foundation, that the individual making allegations accept responsibility. Almost a year after receiving the suggestions, police have not bothered to respond. It is not in their interests to do so…The suggestion that Thailand’s lese majeste law be amended to where only the nation’s monarch issues any such charge is a workable idea but faces overwhelming resistance in the Land of Smiles from powerful interests who have grown used to misusing the law for their own gain and others’ losses. If the country’s powerful police cannot yet bring themselves to repeal the law, then perhaps they can amend provisions in its enforcement to ensure that legitimate rights are protected on the one hand, and that persons filing lese majeste charges are made well aware of their obligations and possible repercussions from malicious filing…In a document provided to Thai police on this subject, this writer asked that any individual signing a complaint of lese majeste swear that he or she has no personal conflict with the charged person, and that the person filing also accepts that should the charge be found to be malicious or without foundation, that the individual making allegations accept responsibility. Almost a year after receiving the suggestions, police have not bothered to respond. It is not in their interests to do so.

(Frank G. Anderson is the Thailand representative of American Citizens Abroad. He was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer to Thailand from 1965-67, working in community development. A freelance writer and founder of northeast Thailand’s first local English language newspaper, the Korat Post — www.thekoratpost.com — he has spent over eight years in Thailand “embedded” with the local media.)

Time to abolish the lèse majesté law in Thailand
Giles Ji Ungpakorn, Chulalongkorn University

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2008/05/03/ji-ungpakorn-on-the-abolition-of-lese-majeste/

Once again we are seeing the extreme Right in Thailand using lèse majesté as an excuse to encourage acts of violence against those who stand up for freedom and justice…Manager is opening its web-pages to Right-Wing thugs who want to encourage violence against Chotisak Onsoong because he chose to think differently and not stand for the King’s song in the cinema. Following this there have been threats of violence, also posted on The Manager website, against Jittra Kotchadej, Chairwoman of the Triumph textile workers union. Her supposed “crime” was to wear a T-shirt supporting Chotisak’s freedom of expression. In both cases, their addresses have been published by The Manager. The actions by Manager are not only illegal in that they encourage violence against others, but they are also a serious obstacle to basic rights and democracy…The fact that lèse majesté is an excuse to silence and use violence against those who think differently is merely one of many reasons why the law should be abolished…The second reason to abolish lèse majesté, as a matter of urgency, is that it is an authoritarian law of the type found in countries with Absolute Monarchies. No modern civilised and democratic nation in the world maintains such a law. If we are to have democracy we must have the right to express ourselves. There must be the right to criticise the Monarchy. Otherwise the Monarch or members of the Royal Family can behave as they like without any accountability or transparency. Lèse majesté laws actually indicate that the Conservatives are afraid that if they allow criticism we shall see that many many Thais have different opinions. The constructed image of the Monarchy will also face serious scrutiny. In other words, the Conservatives are afraid of the truth. If not, why not dare to abolish lèse majesté?

Foreign Law and the First Amendment
By FLOYD ABRAMS
Wall Street Journal: April 30, 2008

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120951734327554697.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Today, there are sharp distinctions between U.S. and English law. One difference is that under the First Amendment we provide far more protection for speech that is claimed to be libelous…There is no need for democratic nations to agree upon such matters. The values of free speech and individual reputation are both significant, and it is not surprising that different nations would place different emphasis on each…But a serious problem has surfaced. In recent years, English libel law has come to have a disturbing impact on the right of Americans to speak out.