Freedom of Speech!
"นายสิทธิชัย โภไคยอุดม รัฐมนตรีว่าการกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร (ไอซีที) กล่าวว่า เปิดเผยว่า ได้สั่งการให้เจ้าหน้าที่ปิดเว็บไซต์ของกลุ่ม"คนวันเสาร์ไม่เอาเผด็จการ" ตั้งแต่ปลายสัปดาห์ที่แล้ว หลังพบว่าเว็บไซต์ดังกล่าวมีเนื้อหาหมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพ อีกทั้งยังเชื่อมต่อไปยังเว็บบอร์ดที่แสดงรายชื่อผู้ร่วมถอดถอน พล.อ.เปรม ติณสูลานนท์ ออกจากประธานองคมนตรี"
According to the aboved statements, Thailand has adopted the new policy concerning about the internet and cyberspace issues. Besides the legal issue regarding the contents insulting our King, the Ministry of ICT indicated that the content contained in Youtube, including the provided Link, severely criticized the "important persons(?)," in Thailand. This MV, undoubtedly, is indefinitely extreme for Thai society, as least for some groups, because the criticized persons are: the member of the King's privy counsel; the leaders of military coup, and other leading and "influent" persons in this sanctimonious country. The major issue is whether the current Thai's government under the coup's auspice can legally impose this stricted policy. If the current "illegal" entity is capable of demanding this regulation, what basis will be used to justify this rule? Under the United Nation Standard, which Thailand is the party of several human right conventions, Freedom of speech is the major one of human being. For instance, according to the UN. Declaration of Human Right, freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. This right is preserved in all United Nation Universal treaties that our country ratified almost a decade ago. It is also widely recognized by the law of most nations.
When considered with the domestic law, under the present temporary constitution, it provides the right and freedom of speech, which is similar to the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution. In the United States, this kind of law to regulate the freedom of speech is extremely stricted; the state cannot assert only the necessity to enact any policy without cautious consideration and weighing the public interests with the other totality of circumstances. The states must prove that: the necessity to protect the interest of state is much stronger than the right and freedom of speech; and the rule is proportionate. In addition, there must not be any alternative to reach such state's goal. If the state cannot make a clear proof of those pre-requisites, any law or rule will be declared unconstitutional. In Thailand, several web sites have been blocked by the administrative orders of the ICT Minister. Most of them is legal in the U.S., but it is not in a hypocritical assertive country. I concur that the integrity of state is extremely crucial, but there should be better alternatives rather than blocking them. Upon doing that, the "undesirable contents" are still effective! Thailand is only the loser and the loser...and only Thais will not have an opportunity to know other's perspective toward Thailand! Is it the best way to deal with this problem?
All things considered deliberately, this action obviously violated the international treaties, which Thailand has the legal obligation to act in good faith to comply with those treaties. It is also utterly useless to act in this way. What is wrong in Thailand right away in term of adoptive resolution? What is the key factor for this failure to implement this policy? The coup, or the other factors?
Is there any better method to deal with this problem which does not violate the individual's freedom of speech and the right to access the world-wide information and simultaneously protect our nation security more effectively? Is the legal process much more appropriate? Can the Thai government file the lawsuit againt Google Thailand and request the Google Thailand to take more aggressive action regarding this problem?
P.S. Maybe, the most controversial and prominent case which occured in France regarding to yahoo.com site and cyberlaw might be the best lessen for Thailand to learn and I hope that Thailand can find out the better resolution to cope with this problem! I indeed expect that the Thai goverment legal consultant should have known this famous case! [As a result, I will not explain it! ]
Create Date : 07 เมษายน 2550 |
Last Update : 18 มิถุนายน 2553 13:23:09 น. |
|
38 comments
|
Counter : 725 Pageviews. |
|
|
|
ส่วนเรื่องบล็อคเว็บไซต์เนี่ย ต่างจิตต่างใจเนาะ ไก่เห็นภาพในหลวงในยูทูปแล้วก็รับไม่ได้เหมือนกัน ส่วนของคนอื่นเฉยๆค่ะ โดยเฉพาะหมีแพนด้า (อิอิ)
อย่าไรก็ดี ยอมรับว่า เสรีภาพในการแสดงออกของพวกเราตอนนี้ค่อยข้างจำกัด แม้อาทิตย์ก่อน ท่านนายกฯจะให้คำมั่นว่า ผมให้เสรีภาพพวกคุณ เต็มที่ ก็ตาม (เซ็ง)