Talk:Censorship in Thailand

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Thailand High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Freedom of speech Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Boonsong Chaisingkananont was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 17 February 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Censorship in Thailand. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is one-sided and quite misleading:

• The article has no historical context. Was Thailand a haven for the free press, only to descend to censorship in the government of Thaksin Shinawatra? What about the governments of Sarit, Thanom, Prapat? What about the era when every single television channel was owned by the government or the military? When community radio simply did not exist? This article has one purpose, and that is as a platform to attack Thaksin Shinawatra. Which is a shame, because this article addresses an issue that has been and will be a serious issue in the Thai media. Patiwat 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The article ignores lese majesty, which has been a serious hindered media freedom in Thailand for decades. The massacre of students at Thammasat University was due to charges of lese majesty, it has long been used to silence critics of the Government, and in an ironic twist, it has been used to try to bring down the current Government. Any discussion of censorship in Thailand without mentioning the record of how lese majesty laws have been used is seriously lacking. Patiwat 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of anger there, as it seems. On what basis do you claim to be in a position to make remarks accusing me of being"one-sided and quite misleading" or "This article has one purpose, and that is as a platform to attack Thaksin Shinawatra"? - temper!temper! All reverences were chosen thoughtfully. Besides, this article is not on lese majesty, as you as a native speaker of English, can see with ease. Your tone is a shame and so are your attempts to ruin other people's work. I truely appreciate your eagerness to give the article more depth, however. If you've got a point to make beyond emotinal accusations and insults, be my guest! alpha60

• Don't take this personally. You're being wordy, but not really responding to my issues. Censorship in Thailand predates Thaksin Shinawatra, and to ignore the absolute press control of Sarit, Thanom, Prapat and focus exclusively on Thaksin makes it biased. As for lese majesty, well lese majesty is censorship.
• Don't misunderstand me - I'm not an apologist for Thaksin. I believe his libel suits against the press are a slap in the face of press freedom. "It’s impossible to distinguish a libel suit from an attempt to silence the prime minister’s critics." They deserve to be documented in an article on censorship. Patiwat 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't insulted, rather surprised about the harsh diction. Anyway, nevermind. You are right: the pre-Thaksin eras can't be left out. Good you added it. Besides, it wouldn't have occured to me to consider your editing as being apologetic. Yet, I felt urged to revert some of it; in order to match the title of the article (pls. see discussion page) alpha60

The cabinet has revoked the military junta's order for the Information and Communications Technology Ministry to block websites deemed harmful to the military council and to the national security. In practice I'm personally seeing sites previously blocked now freely accessible (eg. references to "The King Never Smiles", pro-Taksin...). Rendler 09:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, I can access YouTube and Newgrounds now! (IMO, you might want to move your message to the top. You might want to add it!

-HuBmaN!!!! 09:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that PULO website was always censored. At least, before 2006. Could anyone confirm this? underexpose 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That isn't worded as clearly as it should have been. I have changed it to "Websites censored due to political content (i.e., threats to national security) as of 2006 include..." alpha60, this seems irrelevant to our differences in perspective about this article, so I hope you don't mind that I made the edit. Patiwat 17:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article notes: "Numerous libel law suits have been filed against critics of the government in what the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) called “Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s continued use of criminal defamation charges to silence media criticism of his government”". This is an article on Censorship in Thailand, not Censorship by Thaksin. As such, it should show the historical context of censorship, which for a long time has been used to silence government critics. Focusing exclusively on Thaksin (like much of the article) makes it biased and reduces its credibility. Patiwat 16:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Any ideas? alpha60

• How about "The threat of libel suits has long been used to silence government critics.[1]​[2] Brad Adams, executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia Division, noted that “it’s impossible to distinguish a libel suit from an attempt to silence the prime minister’s critics. Thailand’s once-vigorous free press is being slowly squeezed to death.” [3]​" i.e., What it was before the reversion. Patiwat 16:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see why you deleted the Finland Plot libel suits. The Finland Plot expose is certainly more significant than the accusations Sondhi made on 4 April, and using a libel suit to try to shut up the press has a much more serious implications to press freedom in Thailand. Patiwat 16:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine with me.

The so-called Finland Plot is a lot of things, but surely not objectively documented, don’t you agree? Most news translations on it are quiet angled and therefore not suited of the English wikipedia. That’s why I deleted it. As for the historical dimension: Wasn’t Chirmsak’s show, the first to discuss “common” issues on public television, axed in the 1990s for being counteractive by the authorities? Chavalit later followed the same pattern in terms of acting against press freedom, at least. Elaborating on those starting points sure would bring about some benefit for the understanding of present-day events. Firstly, by outlining that censorship wasn’t, by God!, Thaksin’s invention and, secondly, to increase the amount of information given. alpha60

• • I have a different perspective - it doesn't matter if the allegations are "objectively documented". Press freedom should be absolute, whether it is objectively documents its contents or not. If newspaper articles and editorials need to be objectively documented in order to be immune from censorship, then the vast majority of Thai and international media would be open for censorship. As for the historical dimension, feel free to add on the the article regarding Chirmsak's show. However, I don't recall it ever being axed, even in the middle of the Suchinda government. Patiwat 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're also not showing the link between Shin Corp and Thaksin. The way it reads right now, you're assuming that the reader knows that Thaksin owned Shin Corp and that Shin Corp's lawsuit was as a proxy to Thaksin. Since wikipedia readers might not be well versed on Thailand or Thai business/politics, it should be spelled out clearly: "​Shin Corporation (at the time owned by Thaksin's family) filed a criminal libel suit against Supinya Klangnarong, Secretary General of the Campaign for Popular Media Reform. [4] In an article, published in July 2003 in the Thai Post, Supinya had indicated the rise in the Shin Corporation’s profits since Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party had gained power in 2001 (approximately $US 980m), might be a result of benefits to Shin Corp from the administration’s policies, which would amount to a conflict of interest . The charges were dropped in March 2006. [5] after the Shinawatra family sold Shin Corporation." Patiwat 16:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with deleting information about the libel suit against Abhisit. This article shouldn't be focused exclusively on media censorship - political censorship is potentially more harmful to society and should be covered as well. Thaksin used a libel suit to try to politically silence the leader of the largest opposition party - that makes it very worthy of being included in the article. Patiwat 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That information is contained in the lines: "Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has been repeatedly accused of using his political and economic power to silence dissenting voices and curbing freedom of speech based on the fact that he has direct authority over the state-owned TV stations while his family controls the other broadcast TV channels." How about the historical dimension mentioned earlier?

alpha60

• • Well, that sentence is in a different section. And it doesn't make it explicit that Shin Corp was owned by Thaksin. Since the Libel section talked about a lawsuit by Shincorp, it should be explicitely noted in that section that Shincorp was owned by Thaksin.

• I believe the Luang Ta Maha Bua incident is interesting and should be covered in the article. Certainly no Buddhist would ever sue a Buddhist monk, no matter how badly he has been cursed. That effectively makes monks immune from political censorship (of course, when they make statements on religion, they can be censored, ala Santi Asok). Patiwat 16:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm transfering the info about Sondhi's TV show being cancelled from the "Further ways of censorship" section to the "Broadcast media" section. It fits better there. Patiwat 17:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen it. "It fits better there" - I agree ... If you hadn't altered it, that is. alpha60

• • Well, let me explain myself. Sondhi's Thailand Weekly show was broadcast on a television channel. Television channels are a broadcast media. There is a section on "Broadcast media". Therefore the cancellation of Sondhi's TV show should be in the "Broadcast media" section. Could you suggest a better reason for it to occur in the "Further ways of censorship" section? 24.193.105.76 14:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why these 2 paragraphs were reverted: "Currently, domestic publications present a wide range of political and social commentary, with many publications (e.g., Phoochatkarn Daily, The Nation) openly critical of the government. Unless critical of the royal family or the monarchy, foreign and domestic books normally are not censored and circulate freely.... However, threats to press freedom still remain. In April 2000, during the Chuan-government, the Editor in Chief of the Chiang Mai daily newspaper Pak Nua was shot and seriously wounded in an attempted murder, but recovered. The editor believed that his repeated critical reporting on the government led to the assault." Basically, this is saying that the press isn't explicitely censored, except for some rare and troubling occassions. Or maybe I should make this more explicit? Patiwat 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's easy to answer - because if you had cared to click on the sources quotes at the end of the article, you would have seen that the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) mentioned far more recent occurrences of the kind you've already delected twice...

alpha60

• • The IFJ quotes refers to censorship and restricting freedom of the press of the current government. You've already noted that it wouldn't be appropriate to only talk about censorship in the current government - that the historical perspective is useful to understanding "Censorship in Thailand" rather than "Censorship of the Thaksin Government". The Chiang Mai editor incident is clearly a very very serious incident of censorship-by-murder, and it occured in the 90's. Why isn't this a good illustration of historical trends in Thai censorship? 24.193.105.76 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Let me suggest a rephrasing to be more clear: "Currently, domestic publications are not explicitely censored, and present a wide range of political and social commentary, with many publications (e.g., Phoochatkarn Daily, The Nation) openly critical of the government.(citations) However, some troubling incidents restricting freedom of the press have occured. For instance, in April 2000, during the Chuan-government, the Editor in Chief of the Chiang Mai daily newspaper Pak Nua was shot...(citations) More recent incidents include what the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) called ... (citations)​" Sound OK? 24.193.105.76 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some clarifying details about the newspaper editors incidents. The BKK Post guy wasn't just fired for criticizing the government - he was fired for publishing an article claiming that the new BKK airport runway had cracks. An article that later had to be retracted when it turns out that the new runway did not have cracks. That the government put pressure on him is unquestionable - whether it should be called censorship or justice is up to the reader to decide. The second incident with the Siam Rath editor was much uglier, really shameful for the Thai government. Patiwat 17:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The "BKK Post guy", as you prefer to call Veera Prateepchaikul, was, according to the NYtimes, layed off for the reasons given in the newspaper article quote originally.[6]. So why your demur? alpha60

• • I understand that there might be multiple perspectives to this issue. But the edits I made were not a "perspective"; they were facts. The editor of the newspaper published an article with allegations that had to be retracted because they were found to be false. He was fired. To me, these facts, back up with reputable citation, have at least as much weight as NYT's interpretation on why he was fired. Not that I don't agree with the NYT, but the Bangkok Post case isn't so clear cut as the Siam Rath case.

• • • This may be nitpicking, but your edit states "...incorrectly alleged that runways at the new Bangkok airport had cracks," which I think is a bit too far. The issue as I understand it is that the Post reported that the cracks were in the middle of the runway whereas they were actually in an area of the runway designated for water drainage. There are references to cracks in the runways from the Deputy Transport Minister[7] and Transport Minister[8], the latter in reference to them needing to be fixed. I will massage that statement a bit. WokYai 17:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert the whole article to its original version, if you don't mind.

You've shown some decent efforts in contributing. It doesn't help at all, however, to obstruct attempts to post an article by expressing your "feelings" , "believes" etc. Please help supporting the article by keeping up the good approach you've show in adding the historic background of censorship in Thailand, e.g.!

And would you please be so kind and spare me phrases like "Basically, this is saying that the press isn't explicitely censored, except for some rare and troubling occassions. Or maybe I should make this more explicit?" Be civil! But, yes, you should get more explicit - but with regards to your contributions! Those blurred "truths" you present appear of little value.

I start to understand that you are emotionally involved in this topic. In so far, please forgive me if you feel discomforted by being criticized. alpha60

And, please check your reverences: [9] by the "the fool on the dune" is not precisely a verifiable source, is he? No, you call it a blog. In doubt, check out Verifiability on that please. alpha60

• Yes, alpha60, I do mind when you call edits made in good will, with citations and discussion "vandalism". Let's keep this constructive, OK?
  • The blog citation was made because the article in The Economist is only available by paying a fee. The blog author printed the sentences that made the royal reference, and gave a link to the pay site of The Economist. I think that primary sources are much preferable to secondary sources (e.g., The Guardian article). After reading The Guardian article, I still have no idea whether censorship of the The Economist article was reasonable or not, e.g., did it slander the Royalty? After reading the blog, it is possible to interpret The Economist article and then pay a fee if I want to double check that the blogger accurately reprinted the article text. In conclusion, I think that particular bullet-point should be reverted, with the addition of The Guardian article if you like. 24.193.105.76 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• alpha60, please explain yourself. Why was the entire section on community radio censorship deleted, without any discussion? Community radio is a broadcast media (even if it only have a 15km broadcast radius). There have been several public accussations that the government is trying to censor it. The topic is controversial. Multiple perspectives (the government and the broadcasters) are represented. Several citations are given. I really don't see why this section was deleted... 24.193.105.76 14:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A case example of political censorship have been deleted without any discussion as to the merit of the example. Let me explain myself and hope that the example will be reverted. The leader of the opposition party publically accused the government leader of tax evasion, which seems like a typical excercise in free speech. However, previous investigations had revealed that the government leader was innocent of tax evasion. The opposition leader was sued for libel with massive damages, damages that could very well render him bankrupt. He bravely refuses to be silenced. The government leader claims he was defending his good name - others claim he was trying to silence political expression. A citation is given which explains both perspectives. Links were given to other articles which give background to the issue. The language includes no weasel words or loaded words. Yet this example was deleted. Please explain why. 24.193.105.76 14:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A case example of censorship via lawsuit has been deleted without any discussion as to the merit of the example. Let me explain myself and hope that the example will be reverted. A newspaper published a series of articles claiming that the government was seeking the overthrow of the King. On the surface, this sounds like an expression of the freedom of the press. Yet this is a topic is sensitive because it deals with the monarchy, which according to the Constitution and organic law, is untouchable. In addition, in Thai people show great respect to the royal institution - accusations of conspiracy to his overthrow could very well destroy a person's good name (see Pridi Banomyong). A lawsuit was filed agains the newspaper. This is clearly a controversial topic, but relevant to the topic of censorship via lawsuit. The example given in the article chose to state the facts with little interpretation rather than try to explain all possible sides, which could be quite complex. A citation was given. The language includes no weasel words or loaded words. Yet this example was deleted. Please explain why. 24.193.105.76 14:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One case of censorship that I definitely think deserves mention is "Fah Diao Kan" magazine. "Fah Diao Kan" is the only publication that I know of that prints articles concerning the King that do not worship the royal institution. The Oct/Dec 2005 issue dealt with the institution of monarchy, and Jan/March 2006 issue brought out the problem of the Crown Property, talking about how the CPB is exploiting from the poor and how it is linked with the government and Thaksin Shinawatra's Shin Corp. The Oct/Dec issue was banned under the pretext that "it may upset public order or morality". And afterwards,the publisher and editor of the magazine, Thanapol Eawsakul, was charged with lese majeste - the case has yet to be concluded. I'll right up some short sentences describing the situation later. 24.193.105.76 17:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify my reasons for wanting to include the censorship of "Fah Diao Kan" magazine. 1) The 3 incidents cited so far as examples of censorship of the press have been of foreign publications. No examples of censorship of a local publication have been given. 2) None of the examples cited so far were direct criticisms of royal institutions like the CPB. The censorship of "Fah Diao Kan" hence adds a new perspective on censorship of the press in Thailand that sheds further insight to the topic. Patiwat 11:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I know what you're referring to. The sole problem is that only a Thai version of the texts will be

available. Besides, the issue had been in circulation for month before being confiscated (after (Pro-government protesters accused the journal of lese majeste and burnt a copy during a heated demonstration at Chatuchak Park) and the respective sections of the aticles were never publically cited by authorities. For me, it only shows the in the article already mentioned (and constitutionally guaranteed) position of the monarchy. alpha60

• • You have a good point about the source texts being in Thai. As far as I know, the issues have not yet been translated. However, can't secondary references be used instead? For instance, the Fah Diao Kan censorship incidents were the subject of an Appeals Programme from the Asian Human Rights Commission. The appeal itself layed out the details of the incident, and I think would serve as a credible verifiable reference to any information we include regarding the incident in this article. The inaccessibility of the primary article hasn't stopped us from noting the censorship of that 2002 edition of the The Economist magazine - as you have discussed elsewhere in this article. Also, I think this incident deserves to be included in the article because at the moment, there are no concrete examples of censorship of the domestic press (only the foreign press). Lastly, could you please clarify the last sentence of your previous posting? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Patiwat 14:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are vandalising the article with your attempts to remove "the POV"! I explained my self and refuse to respond to your recently posted threats since they are beyond the point and in importance not equal with what has been altered or answered earlier, repectively. If every instant of censorship in Thailand (remember that's what the article is about!)was documented in this article, it would be a wee bit longer and sure exceed the standard scope for wikipedia articles.

I thought we had agreed that the historic dimension needed elaborated upon? Why don't you focus on that?

As far as the rest of the article is concerned: I do not know what it is that makes you try to flaw that article with your opinion of what is important and what is not. The original article I had posted was well researched with verifiable sources however, I concede, the historic dimension was neglected; pls. see discussion above); most of them are independent NGOs.

You are merely adding what you consider important. Plus, your sources are less verifiable.

Vandalism is defined as "addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."

Hence I call your edits vandalism. alpha60

Look, lets just chill out a bit, alright? I'll try to respond to your issues point by point.

• I assure you that any changes I have made have not been in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the article. I've assumed good faith on your part and hope you do the same for me. I stand by my edit history and believe that a reasonable third person, viewing my edit history, would agree with me.
  • I was never excited, really. But take a deep breath if you want! And then explain how you could not

assume good faith on my part? alpha60

• • • Its easy to misunderstand people in Wikipedia... and if you misunderstood me, then I apologize. I was responding to a post made where you said an edit I made "can therefore hardly be used in good faith."​Patiwat 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please accept my apologies if you interpreted my recent posts as threats. I tried to explain in a step-by-step manner why I thought certain topics should be included in the article, and didn't intend to threaten you or anything (not that I have anything to threaten you with).
  • Yes, you don't. And I never said you had. alpha60

• I'm not trying to list out every single incident of censorship in Thailand. I'm only trying to add, as you noted, what I think is important: incidents that shed light on the historical perspective (not just the Thaksin government), the diversity of censorship mechanisms (censorship by murder, censorship by wavelength regulation, censorship by libel suit), and the diversity of censorship targets (political speech, dialog concerning the King, foreign views), as well as ethical dillemas concerning censorship (incidents where false free speech destroys the good name of a person or institution). I don't wish to focus on any one element - I want to cover all the above and believe that doing so would substantially improve the quality of the article. If, on the other hand, you think that this is going to far and would make the article unneccesarily long, could you make any constructive suggestions?
  • For the 3rd time: Yes, I agee, the historical perspective should be covered. The diversity of censorship mechanisms is in there already. Why the other points suddenly? alpha60
    • Regarding censorship mechanisms, there is no coverage at all of censorship by wavelength regulation, which is the mechanism that is allegedly being used to censor community radio. As for the other stuff, well.... why not? Why shouldn't an article on censorship in Thailand not include information about domestic dialog concerning the King or any other topics mentioned above? Patiwat 19:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made suggestions about where I think specific examples should occur. For instance, there are currently no examples shown for censorship in the section on Broadcast Media. This gives the impression that broadcast media is not being censored, which I think both you and I would agree is incorrect. Again, please respond to my suggestions about where individual examples should occur.
  • And...Your suggestion, please! How about mentioning about censoring movies? I think it is fine as it is.
    • I'd suggest that we move the paragraph about censorship of the broadcast radio program from the "Further ways of censorship" section and place it in the "Broadcast media" section.
    • Actually, why not mention censoring movies? Movie censorship is fairly common (some Christian groups recently came very close to censoring the "The Davinci Code"), is fairly controversial, has been blamed for the rise of pirated movies, and is mentioned in all the US State Department censorship reports. This article is about censorship in Thailand in general, so I don't see why we shouldn't mention censorship of movies, music, and any other significant popular media. Or I can create a new article called "Censorship of Movies and Radio (Thailand)​". I'll gladly do that if you think it doesn't belong in this article. Patiwat 18:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You've claimed that my source was less verifiable and therefore deleted it. I believe you are referring to my citation of a blog which showed the text of the article in question, rather than a newspaper which interpreted the situation as a whole. I don't believe this issue is so clear cut. Ideally, the article would cite both 1) the article in question from The Economist, and 2) an article from another source which explained the issue. You did the second - I tried to do the first. However, the first is impossible because the article in question requires payment. Trying to convenience the reader, I cited a blog which quotes a paragraph from the Economist article, which also contained a link to the pay site. Again, I stand by my actions, and believe that another citation to the blog should be included.
  • If it is not available, don't cite it. That blog you mention states a lot of things. None of which could be in any way called objective.

• I am not opposed to the results of the IFJ surveys. As you can see in my Discussion page edits of 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC), I suggested that the IFJ survey be cited. However, the IFJ only survey cited only covers the Thaksin-period. As noted in an above bullet, additional historical perspective should be included as well - hence my suggestion that the pre-Thaksin-government attempted murder of a newspaper editor should be included.
  • There are more recent examples of attempted murder which "worked". alpha60
    • Great! Lets use it then. But as we've both noted, lets give a historical example as well so as not give the impression that attempted murder has been an effective censorship mechanism only in the current government. Patiwat 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You've also noted that I am opposed to the POV of the RSF surveys. Again, I have no issue with RSF - in fact, I've tried to further substantiate RSF's claims (reference number 23) by adding concrete examples of how Thaksin is trying to censor Sondhi by filing libel suits.
  • That was covered by "On April 4, 2006, People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) leader and fierce Thaksin critic Sondhi Limthongkul was sued by Thaksin Shinatwatra for allegedly slandered him during an anti-Thaksin rally. (..) In total, Sondhi has around 40 complaints lodged against him." fairly well. alpha60

• You mention that I'm opposed to the point of view of press reports like that from Time magazine. I've searched the article and only found one citation from Time magazine on "Mechanisms for censorship have included strict lèse majesté laws, direct government/military control over the broadcast media, and the use of economic and political pressure." (reference number 3) Let me assure you that I perfectly agree with that point of view.
  • Would you care to read it again? I'm afraid you mixed something up. None of the words you quoted appear there! [10]

alpha60

• • • Sorry.... what are you getting at here? The article had several examples of lèse majesté being used as instruments of censorship, you've noted several times the fact that the government/military control large parts of the broadcast media, and several examples of economic and political pressure being used to silence the press have been used. But if the citation doesn't specifically support the text, then lets just remove the citation. Patiwat 18:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You've claimed that I have made changes in bad faith regarding my edit about the wide range of political and social commentary in the press. Maybe I should have added citations for individual sentences, even though this isn't normally accepted wikipedia practice. Most edits on wikipedia try to Assume good faith. My sources were the 1993, 1994, and 1995 Thailand Human Rights Practices report by the US Department of State (currently reference numbers 16 and 17 in the article), which stated "Thai domestic publications continued to present a wide range of political and social commentary." I haven't been able to find more current dates of that report, but believed that the message was still relevant in the current day: simply looking at headlines in any newsstand would confirm that some newspapers are blatantly anti-government and that there are many magazines that present the alternative view on social matters. That there are publications that present a wide range of political commentary does not by any means imply that freedom of speech in Thailand has not come under increasing pressure.
  • Some additional research shows that the 2003 Thailand Country Report of Human Rights of the US State Dept continues to state that "Domestic publications continued to present a wide range of political and social commentary."

• • • There are plenty! I would read the Thai Journalists Association’s statement on the occasion of the World Press Freedom Day 2006 -"the era of fear and hatred”- differently, if you don't mind! alpha60
      • Well, multiple points of view are a fact of life for Wikipedia. I have no problem with saying that "Domestic publications continued to present a wide range of political and social commentary - however, despite living in an era of fear and hatred".... or something like that. Patiwat 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If, as you noted, you do not wish to respond to me, then so be it. But I don't think we're going to improve the article if we refuse to discuss things. Patiwat 13:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misinterpretation again! I wrote "to postings above". alpha60

After going through your arguments again carefully I felt urged to add the following:

You repeatedly opposed the results of surveys by Reporters without Frontiers, the International Federation of Journalists etc., which are reliable in the sense required for an objective article on wikipedia, by your “interpretations” and called the topic controversial. What are you implying there? That those reports on Freedom of Speech are aimed at compromising the Thaksin administration? The aspect which is disputable is you adding “facts” which you think are important based on your intuition and/or your ideological gusto.

Those estimations, press reports like the one from Time magazine or the ones just mentioned, obviously oppose your own point of view. Just because you don’t like them, does not make them wrong. Still, they are more suitable than what you consider should be in here for the reason being that they were published by independent bodies (which sure have little interest in fueling a controversy). According them, freedom of speech in Thailand has come under increasing pressure due to the monopolized control of media outlets by the present government. That is precisely what this article is founded upon.

It is, as I noticed during my research on this issue, impossible to find any serious source which claims the opposite. Changes like the you proposed (“urrently (sic), domestic publications are not explicitely (sic) censored, and present a wide range of political and social commentary, with many publications (e.g., Phoochatkarn Daily, The Nation) openly critical of the government.” can therefore hardly be used in good faith.

In sum, my intention in writing this article the way I did was to cover “Censorship in Thailand”. Period. Unfortunately, I could not manage to match your perception of the issue for reasons whatsoever. Besides, I don’t understand your excessive editing on this one.

After refuting several of your suggestions on solid grounds, as I would say, you keep presenting more and more “important” points that were allegedly omitted. I suspect we could go on like that infinitely. The benefit for the quality would be none. alpha60

• For the record, it is quite incorrect to refer to "monopolized control of media outlets by the present government". Never before in Thai history has the government had less monopolized control of media outlets. Don't forget: up to the 90s, MCOT was a government organization, there were no cable television providers, and all radio was licensed. Today: MCOT is owned by thousands of shareholders, ITV has been sold by Thaksin, Sondhi has 8 channels of satellite TV, Nation Group has over a dozen channels, anybody can get cheap pirated cable and satellite TV, and there are thousands of unlicensed community radio stations. More should be done - MCOT should be fully privatized and the Army should get out of the TV business (but I don't think anybody has the guts to tell that to tell that to them, including Thaksin). Regardless, the myth of a government monopoly over the media is just plain wrong. Patiwat 13:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ey? Hear! Hear! Also just for the record (from Reporters Without Borders 2004 Annual Report on Thailand): "Thaksin Shinawatra, the "Asian Berlusconi," has direct authority over the state-owned TV stations while his family controls the other broadcast TV channels. He has never tried to resolve this conflict of interest that threatens press diversity in Thailand. The army also has a slice of the news media: two TV channels and 120 of the 500 radio stations. The armed forces commander is the prime minister’s cousin." alpha60

• No argument. But in early 2006, Thaksin Shinawatra's family sold its ownership of the broadcast ITV, thus resolving the long-standing conflict of interest. As for the army/state-controlled stations, that is nothing new. Its been that way for the past 50 years. I've got no argument with these facts - actually, I think they should be in the article. Patiwat 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in there already. alpha60

I can’t help but think that you have a hidden agenda there! How about stop editing for a bunch of weeks? I, of course, will do the same.

I don’t see how we can reach any agreement; particularly with regard to your last posting.

I’m convinced it will go a lot more swimmingly afterwards. Do you agree? alpha60

• Its tempting, but I don't think I'll agree to that. Censorship is occuring on a daily basis, with movies blurred, community radio stations raided, and websites blocked out. Handley's controversial biography of the King is just being published, and is already banned. Heck, there's been recent attempted murders that have been effective in censoring people. This is a timely topic, and quite controversial as you can see. Lets try hard to work this out. Wikipedia has seen worse disagreements between editors and has still survived, and thrived. As for a hidden agenda; sorry, I don't work for anybody. Not that it matters.... It would be great if we could get other editors to give their perspective to this article. Patiwat 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the sprit! Why are you sorry for not working for anyone? Ah, self-employed, I see. There have not only been attempted murders effective in censoring people. That happens a lot. Be happy you're not censoring anyone then.

While you are awaiting Handley's controversial biography of the King, I'll await substance for the article. alpha60

• Could you take a look at Censorship of radio and film (Thailand) and tell me whether you agree that it should be merged with this article. Patiwat 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • No, it should not. alpha60

• • Yes,when I arrive here from France, I sure will. Wait until July 15, 2006.alpha60

Greetings from above Iran/Irak or whatever; Emirates Flight E045; is it still Don Muang?

• • • I still want that removed. I never wrote it. alpha60

I reported Patiwat for vandalism and asked the page to be protected after he had shown no willingness to stop diminishing the quality of this page and refused a time-out. alpha60

• I deny this charge of vandalism. I stand by my actions - all of my edits have been in good faith, as can be determined by any users or admins with an examination of both my Edit record and my Discussion record. Patiwat 13:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors having a heated dispute over the contents of an article does not constitute "vandalism" by either editor. Alpha60 should withdraw his report, calm down, and resume discussing the matters at issue. I'm not an expert on the topic of the article but it seems well-written and balanced, and that is a credit to both editors who have been working on it. If the vandalism charge is not withdrawn I will visit the appropriate page and oppose it. Adam 14:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your posting, Adam. Deeply appreciated. I am more than calm, I can assure you. Patiwat added the emotional dimension, as can be seen from above.

The reason why I posted the tag is because Patiwat’s edits, particularly the one in the “Subjective editing” section of the article’s discussion page, left me little other options than to assume he was trying to be Mr. Fix It by, as outlined above, trying to flaw the contents of this page.

I suggested both users to stop edit for a while. He refused it. That’s what made me put up the vandalism tag.

The point I fail to notice is what it is that is so substantially wrong with this article to have this extended kind of discussion about additional edits. Even though , the historical dimension, as Patiwat brought up and as I admitted above, is not/was not adequately represented.

My point is: what speaks against the two of us, Patiwat and me, refraining from editing this article for a while? I do not think that the quality of the article, in accordance with what you, Adam, mentioned, would suffer too much. alpha60

±===Response from WP:RFI=== Greetings. I am from Wikipedia:Requests for investigation and have come here due to a report filed by User:alpha60 concerning User:Patiwat. After reviewing this entire talk page and the history of the article, I would like to do what I can even though this is not vandalism but a content dispute.

Alpha60, I'd like to remind you that even though you initially wrote the article, that according to WP:OWN, by contributing to Wikipedia, you forefit the right to disallow others from modifying your contributions. Because this is a content dispute, you and Patiwat are on the right track by discussing the article in great detail (which I commend both of you for doing).

Patiwat, you claim to be editing in good faith, and according to your balanced conversation here on the talk page, I agree that you are doing just that.

For the third time, I'd like to remind everyone that this is a content dispute. As you two seem aware, please do not violate WP:3RR when the discussion gets heated. If and when it does, just take a break. Walk outside. Find something else other than editing to do. Come back later with a cool head and continue discussion until an agreement (which you both have come to numerous times) can be reached.

If you have any questions, comments, or inquiries about the nature and/or result of this investigation, please contact me on my user talk page, accessible by clicking the "Talk" link in my signature. Thanks. --Zsinj^Talk 18:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice one, Zsinj! Cheers. Right you are! I'll comply. alpha60
• Your decision is heard, and will be complied with. I'm currently focusing my editing on Censorship of radio and film (Thailand), given that this article is still protected. Patiwat 03:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article you've mentioned is redundant given the existence of the one at hand. (see discussion of

Censorship of radio and film (Thailand)). I really think a time out is inevitable! User:alpha60

I'd like to suggest the following addition to the Internet section: "Thai courts have also taken action not only against websites, but on posters to political opinion webboards.[11] After the Criminal Court's controversial jailing in July 2006 of three independent Election Commissioners, several webboard posts were made criticizing the ruling. The Criminal Court subsequently worked with the police Crime Supression Division to trace the IP addresses of the posters." Patiwat 15:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the action by criminal court is not entirely correct, judging from a free-speech-standard. but no action has been taken against the poster yet. i believe we should wait until this issue is more stabilized and result of such action is clearer. thanks, underexpose 17:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your point of view here, underexpose. But I also think that the public threat that the posters will be investigated for contempt of court is a powerful act of censorship in itself. If anything, leading to self-censorship. For some more examples of criticism of the Court's rulings, see the web board discussion forums of The Nation. As an analogy, the article now contains examples of libel suits filed against people who have criticized Thaksin. To my knowledge, the courts have no yet decided on any of these suits and no formal action has been taken against the critics. Yet these are clear examples of censorship through the threat of legal proceedings. Contempt of court is an even more serious crime than libel - it carries a jail sentence whereas the libel suits only demand compensation for damages. That being said, I have no problem with a "wait and see" attitude to evaluate how serious the Courts and Police are with proceeding with this issue. Patiwat 18:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former midnightuniverity.org webboard is closed recently. Please follow this link to see. http://board.thaimisc.com/midnightuniv Due to the content in there is involve with the king. One day before the webboard close, someone post the link in pantip.com. Blaming that why authority leave it.

Another issue I want to add here. In 2003, some historians allege that the Stele is not made by the king Ramkhamhaeng himself, but by the king Rama IV instead. After the public know that from the news, they form an angry mob, and accuse the scholars of defamation to the king Rama IV. Is this mob some kind of establishment? And that may mean that the Bureau of the Royal Household influences the mob or pay them, like politian do. (In Thailand, it is widely believed that various mobs are paid by politicians for political reasons) Somewhat conspiracy, isn't it? But I believe that somebody, who have stake in the monarch, have connection or someway that makes the mob form so fast. I don't think that the protesters use internet regulary or they currently have the associations or connection channel to be rapidly collective.

The current article seems to be exclusively focused on censorship of mass media in Thailand. I think this goes against the spirit of the article title (if it were to be exclusively about mass media, it would be called "Censorship of mass media in Thailand"). The scope of the article should also include censorship and restrictions of individual speech. Although this is guaranteed by the Constitution, it is also limited by several laws. The King may not be slandered, and neither may the courts. I'd suggest a short new section titled Individual Speech: "The judgement of Thai courts may not be criticized. After a controversial ruling in July 2006 in which the Criminal Court jailed three Election Commissioners, the court worked with the police to identify 16 individuals who were captured on TV news footage criticizing the judgement.[12] The maximum punishment for criticizing the court is a jail sentence of up to seven years."

yes, i agree that this article should include censorship of individual in Thailand. However, if we to use critism of the EC ruling case as an example, i suggest if all wait until action has been taken against those critics. wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's better to wait until any situation is finalized before we immortalized it here. underexpose 17:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nothing is ever "immortal" on Wikipedia :-) That being said, my thoughts here are the same as in the above section on censorship of web boards: The public threat of criminal investigation is in itself an act of censorship, even if there is yet no finalized judgement to the case. The current courts have made very clear that they are advocates of judicial activism (see http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/07/30/opinion/opinion_30009908.php) and will aggressively punish those who go against their will. But again, I have no problem with "wait and see". Patiwat 18:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patient Patiwat. underexpose 18:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest news regarding this can be found here: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/08/02/headlines/headlines_30010209.php The 16 protestors have been found, and a verdict is due on Thursday. Patiwat 15:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Criminal Court has made an "unprecedented" ruling[13]: it found all 15 defendants guilty, and ordered 4 of them jailed. I think this certainly as censorship and warrants mention in the article. Patiwat 15:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The verdict is clear. I have no objection against placing this example in the article. underexpose 22:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note, the other institution that is above criticism in Thailand is the King. There are 5 cases in recent memory where this have restricted freedom of speech. Each of these examples illustrates a different perspective on the issue of the King and censorship. 1) Politician Veera Musikapong in 1986 (Dep. Interior Minister at the time) was convicted and imprisoned for offending the King, and also banned from politics for some time. He had noted in a public speech that if were born the Crown Prince he "would be drinking whisky instead of standing here getting pains in my knees."​[14] This is the last time in Thai history that a Thai was ever imprisoned for lese majesty.[15] 2) Sulak Sivaraksa was charged with lese majesty, but he bravely refused to be censored. He was later charged with new charges of lese majesty, and had to flee the country. The courts later rejected all the charges. 3) The multiple charges filed by Thaksin & Co. against Sondhi & Co., and the charges filed by Sondhi & Co. against Thaksin & Co. This hasn't stopped any of them from invoking the King in their political debate. 4) The deportation of 2 reporters from the Far Eastern Economic Review for writing an article noting the business connections between Thaksin and the Crown Prince. On the other hand, this might be more appropriate under the section on Press censorship. 5) The British Military Attache went crazy on an international flight and started screaming "F*** this country! F*** the king! F*** the Buddha!" He was banned from entering Thailand. I think each of these examples would be useful, depending on the needs of the reader. Your inputs would be appreciated. Patiwat 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no wonder why my sarcastic joke seems dull. it should have read as "it's better to wait until any situation is finalized before we immortalized it here." =) Concerning the issue you have raised, I do not have enough knowledge on this particular incidents; therefore I couldn't appropriately give you such input. However, after reading your cited source, it seems to me that lese majasty law is being used as a political tool rather than else. If the census here agree that such example(s) should be included in this article, I feel that we should word it appropriately and carefully. A censorship is censorship. But its intention does matter too. I donot want to give readers with false impression. underexpose 00:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cases 3) and 4) are most probably politically motivated uses of the lese majesty laws for censorship purposes. Case 2) might have been, while 1) was, to my understanding, not politically motivated (Veera was a government minister at the time). I'll suggest an edit in the Disc. page before I put it up to the main article. Patiwat 07:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#5 sounds believable, but do you have a source? (even if it's not worth putting in the article...) AADM3 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about your parents! Take a bow ( and relaxx!); and start making sense. alpha60

Patiwat, I think I should make myself clear: The article was part of an academic project.

I do not have any particular perspective on the issue. Therefore I reject the repeatedly used remark about the controversy etc. of this article.

Having read your claim on your user page that you have a strong adversity against former Thai administrations for personal reasons, I understand and respect your line of argumentation. As an outsider I still feel a bit surprised by your angled and smug tone on the matter.

Lastly, I’d like to add that, in the light of completion of the project, I will not continue editing this article any further. Thanks for your “help”! Regards alpha60

Fine. However, I'd still appreciate your inputs on the issues noted above. Although academic projects may be completed, Wikipedia never will be. Also, should your thesis be cited as a reference for the article? Patiwat 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press Conference and Public Forum on Internet Censorship Wednesday, November 15 1:30 pm, October 14 Memorial Hall, Ratchadamnoen (in Thai and English, translation available)

Filing our petition to the National Human Rights Commission Wednesday, November 15 5:00 pm, National Human Rights Commission, Anti-Money Laundering Office Bldg, Ratchawithi, opposite Siam Discovery Centre

---

(THAI TEXT FOLLOWS)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FREEDOM AGAINST CENSORSHIP THAILAND--NOW!

A distinguished group of academics, journalists, publishers, business owners and parents today formed the Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) to file a formal petition before the Thai Human Rights Commission asking for a complete ban on Internet censorship in Thailand.

Since 2002 when Internet censorship was initiated by the Thai government, more than 35,000 websites have been blocked. The Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MICT) blocks 2,500 websites; the Royal Thai Police, 32,500; and the Communications Authority of Thailand (CAT) an unspecified further number.

There is no Thai law which permits such blocking, all of which is done in secret. In fact, the 1997 Thai Constitution guarantees unfettered access to all communication, as does the Thai Telecommunications Act. MICT has funded a study from Sukhothai Thammathirat University's legal faculty to determine how current laws can be used to enforce Internet blocking in order to subvert and undermine the foundation of law enshrined in the Thai Constitution.

The Thai Government conceals a hidden agenda by targeting pornographic websites, the majority of those blocked. At least 11% of websites blocked are critical of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, his Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party, government handling of the violence in southern Thailand and the September 19 coup d'etat.

In addition to keeping this blocklist secret, Thai government agencies also will not disclose their criteria for blocking websites or who, in fact, is making these decisions. Nor will they define what is considered "a threat to national security". This lack of public transparency is in direct contravention of the Information of Government Act 2540.

Since September 19, MICT is also blocking public discussions in which comments and replies from the public are posted to moderated and unmoderated webboards such as Prachatai, Pantip and Midnight University. Midnight University has already brought their case before the Human Rights Commission and the Administrative Court and was granted an interim injunction to unblock their website pending the Court's final determination.

MICT has also blocked anonymous proxy servers through which Thai Internet users can access a blocked webpage. The Ministry has also requested Google Thailand and Google USA to block access to its cached web pages in Thailand by which blocked pages can be accessed, as well as to block by keyword search. Both these methods are used as tools used for political repression in China.

As of October 13, 2006, websites from BBC 1, BBC 2, CNN, Yahoo News, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Age, Amazon.com, Amazon UK and Yale University Press containing articles about His Majesty King Bhumibhol and Thaksin are also being blocked by MICT.

The blocking of websites or, in fact, any government censorship of freedom of expression, is most often used by an insecure government in a feeble attempt at control of its citizens. Usually the censorship is directed against views government deems unconventional or unorthodox, if not an outright threat to power, as in Burma or China or North Korea or, in fact, in the USA using its PATRIOT Act. Thailand is not Burma or China or North Korea (yet). Perhaps Aung San Suu Kyi said it best: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

There are an estimated more than two billion distinct websites, including at least ten million pornographic sites. Is blocking millions of sites A) within the Thai government's capabilities; B) worth the huge expenditure necessary; or C) just a smokescreen for a far more sinister political agenda?

Internet censorship impacts on academic research, business competition, media freedom, and family education, among many other fundamental rights and freedoms.

We estimate that at least 40% of Thai graduate students will be unable to complete thorough, effective theses or dissertations due to blocked websites. This means these Thai graduates will never be able to compete with international graduates.

It should also be noted that we have a dearth of libraries available in Thailand, especially in the provinces; the Internet is, for many, the only source for research and information.

The Internet is presently the only forum in which all opinions are equal, neutral and non-commercial. Should not any person judge the validity of those opinions for themselves? We do not believe the World Wide Web should be in any manner curtailed, censored or managed anywhere.

Freedom Against Censorship Thailand is a partner in the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC) and has received statements of support from more than 70 international organisations including Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) whose website is blocked by MICT).

The world is watching. Internet censorship is improper, obscene and illegal in a democratic Thailand.

Contact details:

CJ Hinke <facthai@gmail.com> tel. 087-976-1880 (English)

Supinya Klangnarong (<freemediafreepeople@gmail.com>) โทร 086-788-9322 (ภาษาไทย)

---

สำหรับเผยแพร่

FREEDOM FROM CENSORSHIP THAILAND--NOW!

ในวันนี้กลุ่มคณะของเหล่านักวิชาการ สื่อมวลชน สื่อสิ่งพิมพ์ เจ้าของธุรกิจ และผู้่ปกครองได้รวมกันจัดตั้งกลุ่มเสรีภาพต่อต้านการเซ็นเซอร์แห่งประเทศไทย (Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) เพื่อที่จะนำเรื่องเรียกร้องต่อคณะกรรมการสิทธิมนุษยชนแห่งประเทศไทย เพื่อให้ยุติการเซ็นเซอร์อย่างสิ้นเชิงในไทย

ตั้งแต่ปี พ.ศ.2545 หลังจากที่รัฐบาลได้เริ่มการเซ็นเซอร์อินเตอร์เน็ต เว็บไซต์มากกว่า 35,000 เว็บไซต์ได้ถูกบล็อก โดยทางกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสารได้ทำการบล็อกเว็บไซต์กว่า 2,500 เว็บไซต์ และทางสำนักงานตำรวจแห่งชาติได้ทำการบล็อกอีก 32,500 เว็บไซต์ และยังมีอีกจำนวนมากที่ไม่สามารถรู้ได้จากการบล็อกของการสื่อสารแห่งประเทศไทย

เนื่องจากไม่มีกฎหมายไทยฉบับใดที่อนุญาตให้สามารถทำการบล็อกอินเตอร์เน็ต การกระทำเหล่านี้จึงทำในลักษณะเชิงที่เป็นความลับ จริงๆแล้วรัฐธรรมนูญปี พ.ศ.2540 ได้รับรองเสรีภาพในการติดต่อสื่อสาร ทางกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสารได้ให้ทุนวิจัยแก่คณะนิติศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยสุโขทัยธรรมาธิราช เพื่อที่จะทำการศึกษาหากฎหมายที่มีอยู่ในขณะนี้ที่สามารถรองรับการใช้อำนาจอันขัดต่อหลักกฎหมายที่รัฐธรรมนูญรองรับ

รัฐบาลได้ปกปิดภาวะซ่อนเร้นโดยอ้างการปิดเว็บไซต์ลามก ซึ่งเป็นเว็บไซต์ส่วนใหญ่ที่ถูกบล็อก โดยอย่างน้อยร้อยละ 11 ของเว็บไซต์ที่ถูกบล็อกนั้นเกี่ยวข้องกับการวิพากษ์��ิจารณ์อดีตนายกรัฐมนตรี ทักษิณ ชินวัตร และพรรคไทยรักไทยของเขา รวมถึงเรื่องมาตรการของรัฐที่เกี่ยวกับปัญหาภาคใต้และเรื่องรัฐประหารเมื่อวันที่ 19 กันยายน

ในการที่จะปิดรายชื่อเว็บไซต์ที่ถูกบล็อกเป็นความลับ หน่วยงานของรัฐบาลไทยจึงไม่ยอมเปิดเผยเกณฑ์ที่ใช้ในการบล็อกเว็บไซต์ หรือบอกว่าบุคคลใดมีอำนาจในการตัดสิน อีกทั้งยังไม่อธิบายหรือให้คำจำกัดความคำว่า "มีผลกระทบต่อความมั่นคงของชาติ" การไร้ซึ่งความโปร่งใสต่อสาธารณะถือว่าเป็นการขัดต่อพระราชบัญญัติข้อมูลข่าวสารของรัฐ พ.ศ. 2540

ตั้งแต่วันที่ 19 กันยายน ทางกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร ยังได้ทำการบล็อกกระดานแสดงความคิดเห็นที่มีความเห็นและความเห็นตอบจากสาธารณะแสดงอยู่ ไม่ว่ากระดานแสดงความคิดเห็นเหล่านั้นจะมีการตรวจสอบเบื้องต้นหรือไม่ก็ตาม เช่น ประชาไทย พันธุ์ทิพย์ และมหาวิทยาลัยเที่ยงคืน โดยทางมหาวิทยาลัยเที่ยงคืนได้นำเรื่องนี้สู่คณะกรรมการสิทธิมนุษยชนเรียบร้อยแล้ว เฉกเช่นเดียวกับการนำเรื่องสู่ศาลปกครอง โดยทางศาลปกครองได้ออกมาตรการคุ้มครองชั่วคราวโดยให้ทำการปลดการบล็อกเว็บไซต์ดังกล่าวก่อนในช่วงขณะที่คดียังอยู่ในระหว่างการพิจารณาขั้นสุดท้ายของศาล

ทางกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสารยังได้ทำการบล็อก Anonymous proxy server ที่ผู้ใช้อินเตอร์เน็ตในไทยใช้ในการเข้าสู่เว็บไซต์ที่ถูกบล็อก ทางกระทรวงฯยังร้องขอต่อ Google Thailand และ Google USA ให้ทำการบล็อกการเข้าชม Cached web page ในไทยที่ทำให้สามารถเข้าชมหน้าของเว็บไซต์ที่ถูกบล็อกไว้ เช่นเดียวกับกรณีการบล็อกการค้นหาโดยการใช้คำที่สำคัญ (Keyword) วิธีการทั้งสองวิธีนี้เป็นวิธีการที่ใช้ในการที่จะปราบปรามการแสดงความคิดเห็นทางการเมืองในประเทศจีน

ตั้งแต่วันที่ 13 ตุลาคม พ.ศ. 2549 เว็บไซต์ของ BBC1, BBC2, CNN, Yahoo News, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Age, Amazon.com, Amazon UK และ Yale University Press ที่มีบทความเกี่ยวกับพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวภูมิพลอดุลยเดชฯ และทักษิณ ต่างถูกบล็อกโดยกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร

การบล็อกเว็บไซต์ หรือแท้ที่จริงแล้วคือ การเซ็นเซอร์เสรีภาพในการแสดงความคิดเห็น โดยปกติแล้วเป็นวิธีการที่รัฐบาลที่รู้สึกไม่มั่นคงจนต้องพยายามที่จะครอบงำและควบคุมประชาชนของตน โดยปกติการเซ็นเซอร์จะใช้กับความคิดเห็นที่รัฐบาลเห็นว่าเป็นการต่อต้านและไม่เหมาะสมสมควร หรือก็อาจจะส่งผลต่อฐานอำนาจของตน ดังที่ใช้กันในประเทศพม่า หรือจีน หรือเกาหลีเหนือ หรือแม้แต่ในสหรัฐอเมริกา แต่ในรูปแบบของพระราชบัญญัติรักชาติ (PATRIOT Act) ประเทศไทยไม่ใช่พม่า หรือจีน หรือเกาหลีเหนือ (อย่างน้อยก็ในขณะนี้) บางทีคำพูดของอองซานซูจี ที่เคยกล่าวไว้น่าจะเหมาะสมที่สุดในการอธิบายสถานการณ์นี้

"เราไม่มีสิ่งใดที่ต้องกลัว เว้นแต่ตัวความกลัวเอง" ("We have nothing

to fear but fear itself.")

มีการประเมินแล้วว่ามีเว็บไซต์ในโลกมากกว่าสองพันล้านเว็บไซต์ ซึ่งในนี้มีเว็บไซต์ภาพลามกอย่างต่ำกว่าสิบล้านเว็บไซต์ แต่การที่จะบล็อกเว็บไซต์นับล้านนั้นอยู่ในความสามารถที่จะทำได้ของรัฐบาลไทยหรือ และค่าใช้จ่ายจำนวนมหาศาลที่จะต้องใช้ในการนี้มันคุ้มค่าจริงๆหรือ หรือว่านี่เป็นแค่การสร้างกระแสเพื่อกลบเกลื่อนภาระซ่อนเร้นอันชั่วร้ายของรัฐบาลต่างหาก

การเซ็นเซอร์อินเตอร์เน็ตส่งผลกระทบต่อการศึกษาวิจัย การแข่งขันทางธุรกิจ เสรีภาพสื่อ และการศึกษาของแต่ละครอบครัว และยังรวมถึงสิทธิและเสรีภาพขั้นพื้นฐานอื่นๆ

เราประเมินพบว่าอย่างน้อยร้อยละ 40 ของบัณฑิตไทยจะไม่สามารถพัฒนาความคิดได้อย่างสมบูรณ์เต็มที่ ส่งผลกระทบต่อการทำวิทยานิพนธ์และรายงานทางวิชาการเพราะผลจากการบล็อกเว็บไซต์ นี่หมายความว่าบัณฑิตของไทยจะไม่สามารถที่จะไปแข่งขันกับบัณฑิตในต่างประเทศ

เราควรที่จะรับรู้ว่าประเทศของเรานั้น ห้องสมุดขาดแคลนเป็นอย่างมากโดยเฉพาะในต่างจังหวัด สำหรับหลายคนนั้นอินเตอร์เน็ตเป็นหนทางเดียวสำหรับการค้นหาข้อมูลและข่าวสาร

อินเตอร์เน็ตในปัจจุบันเป็นที่เดียวที่ความเห็นต่างๆนั้นเท่าเทียวกัน เป็นกลาง และปราศจากผลประโยชน์เชิงธุรกิจ จึงเป็นการสมควรแล้วหรือที่จะให้บุคคลใดบุคคลหนึ่งมาตัดสินว่าความคิดเห็นไหนไม่สมควรเพื่อประโยชน์ของพวกเขา ดังนั้นทางเราจึงไม่เชื่อว่าอินเตอร์เน็ตนั้นสมควรที่จะถูกควบคุม ตรวจสอบ หรือถูกจัดการในทุกรูปแบบ

ทางกลุ่มเสรีภาพต่อต้านการเซ็นเซอร์แห่งประเทศไทยเป็นภาคีของกลุ่มสนับสนุนเสรีภาพบนอินเตอร์เน็ตของโลก (Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC) และได้รับแถลงการณ์สนับสนุนจากองค์กรระหว่างประเทศมากกว่า 70 องค์กร ซึ่งรวมถึงมูลนิธิ Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) ที่เว็บไซต์ของมูลนิธิเองก็ถูกบล็อกโดยกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร ขณะนี้โลกกำลังจับตามองประเทศไทยอยู่

การเซ็นเซอร์อินเตอร์เน็ตนั้นเป็นสิ่งที่ไม่สมควร น่ารังเกียจ และผิดกฎหมายในประเทศไทยอันเป็นรัฐประชาธิปไตย

ติดต่อ Supinya Klangnarong (<freemediafreepeople@gmail.com>) โทร 086-788-9322 (ภาษาไทย) CJ Hinke (<facthai@gmail.com>) โทร 087-976-1880 (ภาษาอังกฤษ)

---

Contact details: CJ Hinke email: <facthai@gmail.com> tel. 07-976-1880 (English) Supinya Klangnarong <freemediafreepeople@gmail.com> tel. 086-788-9322 (Thai)

---

The description of the book by Handley is rather POV. In particular the judgement made about the scholarship quality of the book and the insignificance of the mistakes it contains. A more neutral description would be more suitable. And as mentionned on The King Never Smiles the websites of yteh YUP is accessible as is the Amazon webpage Roger jg 10:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph has been deleted: Following the 2006 Thailand coup d'état that took place on 19 September 2006, further restrictions have been put on the Thai media and freedom of speech.

Thai media is more free now (post Coup) than it has ever been. When still in power, Thaksin could not be criticised on normal Thai TV, today any one can criticise the government on TV.

---

Roger, my friend, having worked nearly full-time on this issue for more than a year, you could not be more wrong. Immediately post-coup, the military occupied all media outlets for some weeks; if that's not called intimidation, what is? MICT Web-blocking increased 500% between October & January--free, you say? Enormous self-censorship is going on in every media; a good recent example is that the YouTube controversy went completely unreported in the Thai-language press. --FACThai 06:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Although the "interpretive biography" of Thailand's King Bhumibhol Adulyadej, The King Never Smiles by Paul Handley (Yale University Press) was published in July 2006, websites concerning the book had been blocked as far back as November 2005. As no advance reading copies or excerpts were made available, these sites were censored based on the book's title alone. All sites with links to sales of the book are still blocked, including Yale University Press, Amazon. com, Amazon UK and many others.

None of these sites are blocked in Thailand. Come to Thailand and you will see, wherever you are writing from.

---

Actually, Roger, I've lived in Thailand for twenty years. While the entire Web domains may not be blocked, individual Web pages in each of the examples you cite are, in fact, blocked and are present on MICT's secret blocklists.--FACThai 06:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

A 2002 issue of The Economist was withheld because it made an 'inappropriate' reference to the monarchy[9]. Fah Diew Kan, a political and social commentary magazine was prohibited and sellers charged with lese majeste under the military junta-appointed government of Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont. Defamation and lese majeste laws are commonly used for censorship and political suppression in Thailand, as is a law prohibiting discussion or criticism of Thai court decisions.

Surayud Chulanont was not Prime minister in 2002, Thaksin was. Also the last time some one was charged with lese majeste in Thailand was in 1994 then the Swiss man this year. So 'Commonly used' is not the correct word.

---

Roger, you are really out of touch! There have been numerous lese majeste charges between 1994 and 2007. I can name Sulak Srivaraksa (three times), several times for Sondhi Limthongkul, publisher of Manager and leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy, and at least once for Na Liam himself, as well as the publisher of Fah Diew Kan, Thanapol Eawsakul. The Economist & Fah Diew Kan are, of course, separate publications; they appear in separate sentences and thus are separate references. As you can see, lese majeste laws in Thailand are "commonly used" as a tool for political repression!--FACThai 06:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Websites are blocked by Uniform Resource Locator (URL) and/or IP address. However, only about 20% of blocked sites are identified by IP; the remaining 80% are unable to be identified at a physical location. If these sites could be identified as being located in Thailand, legal action could be taken against their operators. Thus, lack of IP is a major oversight.

Is it just that I'm tired, or am I missing something. Identifying an IP address is totally different from identifying a physical location. All websites have the IP addresses publicly available or you wouldn't be able to see them. This passage doesn't make sense to me, or maybe i'm just really tired Bawolff 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thailand-internet-redirect.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 113.53.107.150 made on 22:52, 6 August 2010.

Summa sumarum this shows that Thailand is NOT a democracy, and they are still a long way from be`s ieing so. A country in need of this sensorship dont trust on their population, but the population is not ther for the country, it`s opposite. And I think some day some of the corrupt owners of Thailand will experience what I just said. I`m not able to write this trough Freegate or Hidemyass, but anyway It`s important to telle everybody about the sensorship the governmet are abusing. I do not think any former government has been better, but it can change in the future:-)

Moved here from the article space. --Atlantima (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The flip side is what is not being censored.

• Andrew Spooner (August 2, 2011). "Why are Thai liberals defending the right to incite violence?". Asiancorrespondent.com. Back in 2010, as the Thai people were busy counting the corpses resulting from former-PM Abhisit's Bangkok massacre, a young 17-year-old girl left a message on her public Facebook page. The message was a rebuke to Thailand's royalty that was so mild it didn't even attract a charge under Thailand's draconian lese majeste. But what it did attract was something far more sinister. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessdaymonth=, |accessyear=, and |accessmonthday= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

--Pawyilee (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new Minister for Communication and Technology (MICT) Captain Anudith Nakornthap of the Pheu Thai Party has gone on record by declaring (in translation) "...from now on, the ministry’s officials and staff members of every level have been urged to be more stringent in the pursuing of violations against the Computer Crimes Act and lèse majesté on websites, by enforcing the law to the fullest."^[1]

--Pawyilee (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that International websites regularly voluntarily censor sensitive Thai topics in order to keep their access to the nation. You will find that most all expat and travel sites connected to Thailand aggressively censor topics that could result in their websites being blocked or their webmasters being arrested by Thai authorities. In addition, Yahoo itself has censors non-threatening sensitive posts willingly and has specifically designed its Yahoo Answers section to avoid political or social discussion of foreign nations in the US. It offers Yahoo Thailand but that too is aggressively censored by users and site managers. Twitter accounts which post even slightly critical posts about the monarchy or Buddhism are often quickly closed. The Internet has brought limited freedom to most nations including Thailand due to its business first policy. 110.168.34.16 (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Censorship in Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070220174428/http://sivaraksa.com:80/january-25th-letter-to-the-prime-minister to http://sivaraksa.com/january-25th-letter-to-the-prime-minister
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928081113/http://205.188.238.181/time/archive/preview/0,10987,962326,00.html to http://205.188.238.181/time/archive/preview/0,10987,962326,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Censorship in Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214120404/http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php to http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There probably should be a section on the various Expat forums which have thousands of members and censoring. ThaiVisa is mention in the article as making a statement that it was being censored in 2010 but that website and others like Teakdoor have done massive amounts of censoring and deleting of accounts of posters arguing the case against the Thai junta since then. Most expat forums have pages which comment on the situation but their censoring goes much further at times than seems necessary as the Mods on the forums have different opinions on what should be censored. Early on before and during the coup, many expat websites were extremely hard on anti-coup/junta opposition. Posts and users accounts were deleted continuously up to the day of the coup. This seemed to be for several reasons. The first reasons were in order to protect their business opportunities as they feared the imminent junta control over the nation. Another reasons was the already aggressive censoring and charges that were being placed on the Thai media. Finally, some of the Mods in the various forums took sides in the political story going on in Thailand. This censoring in expat forums crushed the voices of the English language opposition in these internationally-popular websites. To those looking at Thailand from abroad, with Thai media mostly censored and foreign media and these expat forums censoring, the truth and other side of the story was mostly lost.Every Thai and longterm expat knows that in Thailand what the media holds is missing truth or often the other side of the story. Since the takeover, these expat forums played a role in the junta's media control and in is pushing of its propaganda. Without free and open discussion much truth was lost and the junta was even more empowered. Since that time the junta has settled in. The moderation on forums has continued to censor but there have been moments of 'fairer' discussion. The expat forums still do not allow comments that go against the junta or royal family so what readers get from a forum is a reflection of their own understanding of what 'freedom of information' means to that forum and Thailand. Someone who knows nothing about the history or reality of Thailand is today, would read a forum post and miss the truth about it. This is for the record. I hope that this large discussion community is not left out of the censorship in Thailand story. NaturalEquality (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Censorship in Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207202418/http://www.ect.go.th/english/files/2007-constitution-english%5B1%5D.pdf to http://www.ect.go.th/english/files/2007-constitution-english%5B1%5D.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sarakadee.com/web/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=612
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sarakadee.com/web/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=610
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sarakadee.com/web/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=611
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141127105625/http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1415857431&section=00 to http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1415857431&section=00
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050507090137/http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/print.asp?parentid=8230 to http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/print.asp?parentid=8230
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129031737/http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1416032341&section=00 to http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1416032341&section=00
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://205.188.238.181/time/archive/preview/0%2C10987%2C962326%2C00.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://archive.waccglobal.org/wacc/layout/set/print/regions/asia/asian_articles/free_speech_in_thailand_wacc_scholar_takes_on_prime_minister_and_media_giant_in_freedom_of_speech_case
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060513073633/http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=42112 to http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=42112
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130414223635/http://freedombarometer.org/ranking/thailand/2011 to http://freedombarometer.org/ranking/thailand/2011

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Censorship in Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207171520/http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=550 to http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=550
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119202408/http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=549 to http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=549
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131012309/http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1043 to http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1043
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110307183608/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-21/world/thailand.emergency_1_emergency-decree-thai-cabinet-abhisit?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-21/world/thailand.emergency_1_emergency-decree-thai-cabinet-abhisit?_s=PM%3AWORLD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070121184910/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/02/headlines/headlines_30017813.php to http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/02/headlines/headlines_30017813.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522030836/http://en.rsf.org/thailand.html to http://en.rsf.org/thailand.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there is a delay of about 5 minutes for some foreign TV Channels (I don't know all channels, but CNN and BBC-WOrld belong to them). My guess is that the cable companies create this delay, to be able to blank the channel in time for censoring. Is this information that could/should be included in the article? --FredTC (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. It's been covered by Prachatai[16] and Khaosod English,[17] though they don't go in-depth into the exact nature of the delay. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]