BANGKOK, Jun 27 (IPS) - Against the backdrop of a key Thai official's latest statement, the tug-o-war between the government and campaigners against Internet censorship looks far from being resolved any time soon.
At issue is how far the government can come in, citing the public interest, to control, penalise or shut down websites, or to curb cyber crimes.
"I'm sorry that my right to regulate the Net seems to be the right of the government of Thailand. The only thing I'd do my utmost is to prevent lese majeste cases," Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom said with a tone of finality in front of a packed Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand Tuesday night.
In early April, Sitthichai ordered the popular video-sharing web site YouTube blocked from Thailand, after users uploaded footage insulting to Thailand's revered monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej.
Under the law of lese majeste here, Thais and foreigners who violate the law can, if found guilty, face a prison term of up to 15 years.
Sitthichai's statement at the press club did not sit well with the many freedom of expression advocates in the crowd, who expressed concern about the use of laws to suppress freedom of expression in general by banning political websites as well.
In a symbolic gesture, Campaign for Popular Media Reform's Supinya Klangnarong handed the minister a thick pad listing the allegedly blocked websites.
This despite the minister's vehement statement that he only ordered the closing down of 200 websites -- and not the more than 17,000 sites that critics say have been shut down since the military seized power on Sep. 19, 2006. Many of these are critical of the military-installed government, critics say.
Sitthichai did announce that he would ask the government to repeal Order No 5 of the newly passed cyber crime law, which allows the MICT to block or close down websites. But Supinya, like other media rights advocates, remains wary.
According to Supinya, if not done properly and fairly, letting the courts decide to close down a website upon recommendations by authorities is a cause for concern.
"That the government is trying to intervene and control the media is worrisome enough. I feel threatened because people, in general, rely on the judicial system to protect them from any violation of their rights. Now, it seems that the court is the one who will clip these same rights," she told IPS.
Internet Thailand project manager and avid blogger Isrya Paireentairit said: "Taking away the MICT's power to block sites is a good development. This will prevent them from doing anything they want." Unlike Supinya, though, he said that under the new law, "at least we have official guidelines as to how to implement the laws, unlike before when we had nothing to hold on to".
Known as the Computer-Related Offences Commission Act, the law identifies 12 types of Internet crimes that are punishable with up to 20 years imprisonment and a 300,000 baht (9,420 U.S. dollars) fine.
The law is still a source of confusion for Chiranuch Premchaiporn of the independent, Thai-language online daily newspaper Prachatai.com.
"The cyber crime bill should focus on preventing cyber criminals from violating the right of and harming Internet users. But I'm also wondering if this will encroach on the right to privacy of an individual," said Chiranuch.
She is worried that, taken to extremes, the law could become a tool for repression by authorities. Her concerns are stem from a provision that requires Internet service providers to keep computer traffic data for at least 90 days. This allows authorities to check on the IP addresses of each subscriber and identify who visits particular websites.
Sitthichai, however, assured that the government follows certain criteria in banning or blocking a website, the most important of which is lese majeste.
"Pornography comes next, but this is a grey area and we leave this to the public's discretion. As for political sites, the only thing I'm against is when they attack people personally and in a very inappropriate manner," said Sitthichai.
Like the blogger Isrya, Chiranuch is for the abolition of Order No 5 of the cyber crime law "because it is against the Constitution". The Constitution is currently being amended in the wake of the September coup.
"Let our courts be involved in the process. This is better than having officials do everything on their own. This is a good check-and-balance system," Chiranuch added.
More public awareness is crucial to protecting the space for freedom for expression, including on the Internet, campaigners say. Supinya notes that the present political situation and the elections promised by the military-installed government in December are taking up most of the public's attention.
"Internet freedom is a very new issue here. On the surface level, just pointing out this issue to people will give you cool reactions. But I think that if you provide them with more information and discuss with the implications of these laws and regulations, the majority will come up with new ideas," she said.
Chiranuch says that while more netizens may feel that freedom of speech is being controlled and violated online, the cyber crime law is a different story.
"Only a few people are interesting and actively pursuing the issue. These are the people directly affected by the new law, such as the ISPs and webmasters. Ordinary Internet users see it as something interesting but they don't care deeply enough," she explained.
Said Isrya: "Most bloggers are not aware of the new cyber crime law. I think the people who are likely to be more aware are those involved in webhosting and ISPs."
Chiranuch adds that also need to learn to use circumvention programmes on the Internet if necessary. No, there is nothing illegal about this, she assures. "One of the bill's draftees clarified that using proxy servers is not a crime per se, so I think people can learn new ways of getting online."
