Facebook/Twitter Banned In Thailand For Election 177
societyofrobots writes "In the run up to the July 3rd election in Thailand, use of Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are banned for campaigning and other election related purposes. Offenders face a maximum six months in prison and a 10,000 baht ($330) fine. The ban includes sending short telephone texts and forwarding emails. 'There will be a unit of more than 100 officers to monitor this,' said police spokesman Prawut Thavornsiri of the social media ban. 'If we can track the origin of (an online message) right away, we will block the site and make an arrest. But if the sites are registered overseas and we can't check the origin, we'll first block it and ask the IP (Internet Protocol) providers for further investigation,' Prawut said."
Re:Only banned during last hours before polls (Score:3, Insightful)
It is still censorship and a pretty stupid thing to censor at that.
Re:Only banned during last hours before polls (Score:2, Insightful)
That's up for us to decide. Just like a little air conditioning is ok, or a little dessert, or a little alcohol.
Believe it or not, humans don't live in a world of absolutes, there are things that are acceptable in moderation.
Re:Only banned during last hours before polls (Score:5, Insightful)
So, since it's only a little bit of government censorship, it's OK?
Well, yes. More generally, it's a little bit of censorship that is very limited both in time and in scope, and which has a well-defined goal that the society considers important (fair elections).
Considering that, as far as censorship goes, this is far less significant than, say, criminalizing "incitement to riot", Americans should be familiar with the overall idea.
Re:Only banned during last hours before polls (Score:2, Insightful)
Thailand has a long history of repressive regime and it's hardly a working democracy.
True.
Yes, it's a repressive move
No, not really. This would only be true if it didn't apply to some of the candidates. As it is, it's not any different than similar laws on the books in most Western countries. The general idea is to ensure that election is fair, and one candidate doesn't attempt to "drown out" the others by his campaigning, if he has access to superior resources in that department.
Re:Only banned during last hours before polls (Score:4, Insightful)
It would constitute censorship under very limited circumstances. It would constitute censorship if new information was discovered in the final hours of the election, and it was prevented from inadvertently reaching the voter due to the blackout.
But the reality is that new information rarely pops up in those final hours. Because of that, most of the campaigning done would have more to do with manipulating the political process (e.g. presenting misinformation that the other parties cannot respond to). That sort of situation is far more dangerous to democracy than something that a few people could interpret as censorship because they see the world in black-and-white terms.
Re:Only banned during last hours before polls (Score:2, Insightful)
It is nowhere near "common" in established democracies. It is also highly dubious. There is no substantive difference if a "dirty secret" is released at 11:59pm on the day prior to the ban or 1 minute before the polls open or one minute before they close. In none of these cases there is a chance to reply since all banned "campaigning" also includes "replies". Of course "replies" of the friends of the ruling junta are usually "special" and thus "exempt".
Thus it is all bullshit instigated by people in shaky fake "democracies" (like Thailand) who are afraid that elections will "heat up" (i.e. the patsies ... err ... "voters" of the crook facing an imminent loss will be prompted to resort to violence at the polls).
Re:Only banned during last hours before polls (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Only banned during last hours before polls (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, bullshit. Second of all, freedom of speech is necessary for a democracy whether the people want it or not.