Censorship in Thailand
[3] Criticism of the king is banned by the constitution, although most lèse-majesté cases have been directed at foreigners, or at Thai opponents of political, social and commercial leaders.
Many titles reflect their era of anti-communist fervor but were published both in Thailand and abroad in Thai, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Bahasa, English, German, French, and Spanish.
Historically, this and other acts have been used to severely restrict press freedom, especially during the military governments of Plaek Pibulsonggram, Sarit Dhanarajata, and Thanom Kittikachorn (up to 1973).
The Devil's Discus by Rayne Kruger (London: Cassell, 1964), a result of investigative reporting, which examines the case of King Ananda, was immediately banned and its author barred from Thailand.
Three royal servants were executed without warning and in secrecy for regicide in 1955, nine years after King Ananda's death, after many acquittals and subsequent prosecution appeals with little evidence, old or new, but which resulted in fresh convictions for all three in Thailand's highest court.
King Bhumibol (Rama IX), a young, untested monarch at the time, failed to exercise his royal prerogative of pardon for the three prisoners, despite the many questionable facets to the case.
[19][20] One example of censoring media of foreign origin is the case of Bangkok Inside Out, a tourist guide, which, according to the Ministry of Culture, "taints the image of Thailand and its people".
Although Morakot's thesis was published in 1987, the criminal defamation case against her by Khunying (a Thai royal decoration of recognition) Nongyao Chaiseree, former rector of Thammasat University, is only starting to be heard in court in 2007.
Individuals in possession of communist literature (books, print/electronic media, academic journals, audio, video footage) would be found guilty of treason against the Thai government.
[23] Fah Diew Kan, a political and social commentary magazine was prohibited and sellers charged with lèse-majesté under the military junta-appointed government of Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont.
Sulak Sivaraksa, perhaps predictably, wrote a review of The King Never Smiles in English for his Seeds of Peace magazine published by the International Network of Engaged Buddhists in Bangkok.
[25] Also in August 2005, Rungruang Preechakul, editor of Siam Rath Weekly News Magazine, quit after covering alleged government mishandling of the bird flu crisis.
[26][27] On 10 March 2006 the then-governor of Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Mr. Pongpayome Wasaputi, during a regular scheduled press conference with the local media, asked Frank G. Anderson, founder of the Korat Post newspaper, to "kindly refrain from carrying any more headlines regarding events at Watpa Salawan, because it is like irritating an old sore."
[28] On 10 February 2010 it was learned that the children of Thaksin Shinawatra would petition the supreme court to gag the media on speculation of a pending judgment of the deposed prime minister's assets.
The following years have seen a constant stream of sometimes violent protests, regional unrest,[36] emergency decrees,[37] a new cybercrimes law,[38] and an updated Internal Security Act.
[48] Local cable broadcasts of CNN, BBC, CNBC, NHK, and several other foreign news channels were censored, with footage showing former Premier Thaksin blacked out.
[49] The nine members of the board of directors of MCOT, a privatized state-owned media company, resigned on 26 September to take responsibility for allowing Thaksin Shinwatra to address the nation on MCOT-controlled Modernine TV (Channel 9).
[50] Seven months after the coup, in an editorial, the Bangkok Post reported that military censorship of broadcast media was tighter than at any time in the past 15 years.
The anti-Thaksin movement, which had seized power in a military coup, claimed the program's host, prominent Thai political commentator Sorrayuth Suthassanachinda, was a supporter of the overthrown premier.
At least four colonels visited Thai PBS headquarters in Bangkok and instructed the station's directors to stop the broadcast of a talk show in which the host, Nattaya Wawweerakhup, asked villagers and activists for their opinions on the junta's reform process.
During June, an NTC subcommittee on broadcasting went around Thailand to "pre-register" prospective CR operators with the expectation that when the regulation becomes effective in July, the license process will be expedited.
[72][73] After controversy surrounded Apichatpong Weerasethakul's film Syndromes and a Century, the Free Thai Cinema Movement started to gain momentum in late-April 2007.
"[76] Naw Kham, a Golden Triangle drug kingpin, and his gang were found guilty of attacking the two Chinese cargo ships in collusion with Thai soldiers.
[75] In 2018, Thai government censors banned the film, Thi Baan The Series 2.2, unless a scene depicting a monk bursting into tears at his ex-girlfriend's coffin was removed.
[86] "Tropico 5 has been banned but I cannot give the reason unless you ask permission from our Director-General," said an unnamed official at the Video and Film Office, part of the Ministry of Culture.Although freedom of speech was guaranteed by the 1997 constitution, it was limited by several laws.
In 1986, Deputy Interior Minister Veera Musikapong was convicted, imprisoned, and banned from politics for a campaign speech in which he noted that if he were born the crown prince, he "would be drinking whiskey instead of standing here getting pains in my knees.
[92] In 2003, the Thai Journalists Association (TJA) rapped the spread of self-censorship as well as the "sophisticated and subversive means" used by the authorities to control the media, fearing they would turn into propaganda mouthpieces of the Thaksin government.
Warathep Rattanakorn, of the Office of the Prime Minister, responsible for overseeing all state media, insisted that there was no interference from the government or MCOT (the Mass Communications Organisation of Thailand, which issued the concession to privately owned Channel 3.
[95] 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.
The charges were dropped in March 2006[98] after Supinya received considerable Thai and international support and her case became a cause celebre for free speech and media freedom.
