FACTback – Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (Backup)

How to unblock your website in Thailand

[Note: The ICT ministry has just moved offices on May 11. All of these phone numbers have changed. We shall keep the numbers in this article updated as we verify them. Please check back.]

We have never before been privy to the mechanism of censorship in Thailand. If your website is blocked, here are some steps to follow.

Chances are, your website has been blocked by order of the Royal Thai Police High-Tech Crimes Centre. First contact HTCC’s chief, Yanaphon Yungyuen 02-913-6699 <htcc@police.go.th> and <yanaphon@dsi.go.th>. Your primary questions here are when and why your site was blocked.

The order to block a website then passes to the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology’s IT Regulation Bureau. The Bureau’s chief is Aree Jivorarak 02-505-6213 <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>. Aree actually sends the blocklists to the ISPs.

Under the requirements of the Computer Crimes Act 2007, there must be a court order to block a website, unless government has declared martial law or is under the provisions of an emergency decree issued by the prime minister. Therefore, you may request a copy of this court order and the reasons for blocking. Court orders must be public. Be polite but firm. Remember, these are civil servants and you pay for their kids’ school and wife’s hair perm–you are the boss here.

If Khun Aree is unresponsive, his superior is Deputy Permanent Secretary Angsuman Sunarai <angsumal@mictmail.go.th>

02-505-0588. If the deputy permanent secretary does not offer you satisfaction, his superior at MICT is Su Lo-utai, Permanent Secretary 02-568-2521 <sue.l@mict.mail.go.th>. If you still have no success with the permanent secretary, you must appeal directly to the ICT Minister, Ranongruk Suwanachee <bowbo43@gmail.com> tel. 02-505-8888, 02-505-7370

The Ministry also has a handy complaint form for you to fill out: http://www.mict.go.th/main.php?filename=index_complaint

Internet censorship is only made possible with the cooperation of Thailand’s more than 100 ISPs. Your business is important to your ISP. Remember that many of the ISPs are publicly traded companies on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET); some are even subsidiaries of foreign companies trading on international stock exchanges. They will be inclined toward not offending their shareholders if you start to make a fuss. Use this as leverage when dealing with them. You only need buy a single share to be a shareholder; this is your ticket to ISPs’ annual general meetings to fight censorship policy. Private companies are also more easily sued for damages than government.

Always talk to the top person, someone who is capable of making decisions. CEOs and executive vice-presidents. Hassling office workers makes them feel bad because they can’t help, are afraid of losing their jobs, and a waste of your time. you pay these people’s salaries with your custom so remember who is in charge. Use these phone calls for patient education and consciousness-raising.

You will notice that some of the ISP censors are mobile telephone services, which provide access to GPRS and WiFi. Mobile phone companies are even more responsive than ISPs to losing your business.

Every ISP also has a helpdesk or other phone contact for technical support. Open a complaint with them, too. If your ISP is a university or other academic institution, call its computer centre and talk to the administrators.

Follows a list of the contacts MICT uses at each ISP to effect blocking. Your ISP should have a copy of the court order blocking your website to ensure it is acting legally, know the reasons for the block, and be able to tell you the exact date and time of MICT’s order and the precise date and time the ISP blocked.

101 Global Co. Ltd. <support@101g.com>;

Advanced Datanetwork Communications [Buddy Broadband] <noc@adc.co.th>, <ktnrg@adc.co.th>, <nattapong@adc.co.th>, top kab <top.kab@hotmail.com>;

Advanced Info Service [AIS] <naruepoi@ais.co.th>, <krits@ais.co.th>;

Alltelecom Co. <cindy@alltelecom.co.th>, <BIOICE1981@hotmail.com>, <nocworldweb@hotmail.com>;

ANET Internet <psanti@anet.net.th>, <system@anet.net.th>, <uaichai@anet.net.th>, <premchai@anet.net.th>;

BB Broadband Co. Ltd. [Beenet Broadband Internet] <apinan_k@beenets.com>;

CAT Telecom (CAT Public Co. Ltd., CAT Internet Data Center) “kittipong m” <kittipong.m@cattelecom.com>, <admin-thix@cat.net.th>, <schaka@cat.net.th>, varin c <varin.c@cattelecom.com>, <noc@cat.net.th>, <bkriengsak@cat.net.th>, <suchok@cat.net.th>, <suchok@bulbul.cat.net.th>, suttiporn y <suttiporn.y@cattelecom.com>, wasan s <wasan.s@cattelecom.com>, <support@idc.cattelecom.com>;

CS Loxinfo <webblacklist@csloxinfo.net>, <phup@csloxinfo.net>;

Far East Internet Co. Ltd. <admin@fareast.net.th>, <surasak@fareast.net.th>;

Hutchison CAT Wireless Multimedia Ltd. [formerly Tawan Mobile Telephone Co.] <sariya.s@hcwml.com>, rommuk p <rommuk.p@hcwml.com>;

Infonet Thailand <sarayuth@infonetthailand.com>;

Internet Thailand <chakrit@inet.co.th>, <noc@inet.co.th>;

Inter University Network [UniNet--are these the people responsible for the censorship at Kasetsart University, Mahidol University and others?] <noc@uni.net.th>;

ISP-Thailand (Internet Solution & Service Provider Co. Ltd.) <thaweesak@isp-thailand.com>, <support@isp-thailand.com>, <csupport@isp-thailand.com>, admin issp <admin_issp@isp-thailand.com>, <helpdesk@isp-thailand.com>, <chatree@isp-thailand.com>, <EAK@ISP-THAILAND.COM>;

IT.co.th <kung@it.co.th>;

Jasmine International Net [JI-net] (Jasmine International Public Co. Ltd.) <sathinut@ji-net.com>, <boonma1222@yahoo.com>, <nprattha@jasmine.com>, <noc@ji-net.com>, <taewa.k@jasmine.com>, duangjai s <duangjai.s@jasmine.com>, jirawan c <jirawan.c@jasmine.com>, Nongluck p <Nongluck.p@jasmine.com>, <tsutee@jasmine.com>, <uraiporn.s@jasmine.com>, <mubooh@gmail.com>;

Kirz Communications <thana@kirz.com>, <sarayut@kirz.com>;

KSC Commercial Internet <ictcensor@ksc.net>;

Milcom Systems [WLANNet] <patcharabuls@milcom.co.th>, <tomesiam@hotmail.com>;

NTT Communications (Thailand) Co. Ltd. <channira.no@ntt.co.th>, <kalant@ntt.co.th>, <uthai@ntt.co.th>, <jaroonchai@ntt.co.th>;

Otaro Internet [you may remember they were the first company to delete the website of Same Sky Books/Fah Diew Kan] <noc@otaro.com>;

Pacnet Thailand <noc@pacific.net.th>, <noc.th@pacnet.com>, neeyada sirisampandh <neeyada.sirisampandh@pacnet.com>;

Proen Internet <noc@proen.co.th>, <suvinit@proen.co.th>, <mars2551@yahoo.com>;

Samart Infonet Co. Ltd. [Samtel] prasitchai v <prasitchai.v@samtel.samartcorp.com>, <se@samart.co.th>;

SIPphone Unlimited Communication <info@sipphone.co.th>;

Telephone Organisation of Thailand [TOT] Public Co. Ltd. (TOT ISP, TOT International Gateway) <boonmak@tot.co.th>, <totnoc@tot.co.th>, <noc@totisp.net>, <blockweb@totisp.net>, sittiraj tot <sittiraj.tot@gmail.com>, <noc@totiig.net>;

Total Access [DTAC] <Parinyar@dtac.co.th>;

True Internet ictcensor@trueinternet.co.th, network@trueinternet.co.th, watanyu chu <watanyu_chu@trueinternet.co.th>, Surparsorn Run <Surparsorn_Run@truecorp.co.th>;

TT&T Public Co. Ltd. [Maxnet] narits ss <narits_ss@ttt.co.th>, ekkarachu ss <ekkarachu_ss@ttt.co.th>, surachaiji ss <surachaiji_ss@ttt.co.th>, <matisa@ttt.co.th>, issn ss <issn_ss@ttt.co.th>, <ict@tttmaxnet.com>;

Upload Today, True Corporation Public Co. Ltd. <info@uploadtoday.com>,

World Internetwork Co. Ltd. [INTERNET Thai] <support@internetthai.com>;

Be patient–jai yen yen! But be persistent. Expect this process to take some time.

FIGHT BACK! Take back the power! Freedom NOW!

Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)

http://facthai.wordpress.com

Follows my email to MICT below, updates in brackets. FACT readers will find my questions and suggestions eminently sensible, reasonable and non-confrontational. MICT is not the enemy.

What is the enemy is the concept adopted by Thai government that censorship serves the public good. Censorship does not create good citizens, a thinking, questioning public. Quite the opposite.

Censorship tells Thai people “You’re too stupid to look at this. Let us do your thinking for you.”

There can never be real democracy in Thailand under the shadow of government censorship.

———————————————————————————————

Most of my earlier questions have been resolved by the ISPs themselves so there is no need for you to reply to my last email. However, more concerns and questions have come to my attention.

Have you yourself looked at FACT’s website? If so, you can see that our goals are not at odds with MICT’s.

One can readily see that FACT is completely non-partisan and non-political. All we try to do is raise public awareness of censorship issues worldwide and in Thailand but viewed from the Thai context, making things better for everyone in a truly democratic society.

Unlike many Thai websites, FACT has never been anonymous. I am the registered owner of FACT’s website. Accordingly, it would far better serve both citizens and government were MICT to request websites, including mine, to simply remove illegal content first, rather than immediately blocking or, worse, arresting website owners. A lot of these problems could be solved by prompt discussion between government and citizens.

I am scrupulously careful not to host or post illegal content or comments, including lese majeste. However, in two and a half years, I have only had to edit three comments and one post! [Obviously, the problem of illegal opinion is not as severe as government would have us believe!] FACT does not promote censored content but simply defends citizens’ rights to express their opinions.

I can accept that there may be a need for some level of censorship. But Internet censorship always overblocks. The censorship of FACT’s website is a perfect example.

FACT wants to encourage transparency and accountability in the censorship process. Censorship should not be kept secret because, for one thing, this makes censored information far more attractive.

One of FACT’s goals is publication of Thailand’s blocklists of banned websites. Were this to happen, I think initially a lot of people would try to access these sites out of curiosity not out of malice. But that initial curiosity would die down quickly and Thailand would take the moral high ground with transparency in government, a novel concept!

MICT should redirect Internet users trying to access a blocked website to a blockpage telling the user who ordered the blocking, why the site is blocked and containing clear and easy instructions for requesting unblocking, anonymously so citizens don’t feel threatened with repercussions. After all, if MICT thinks it’s doing the right thing, a public service, by censorship, it should be open about it.

FACT’s goal was not merely to have MICT unblock our website. The goal is to understand the whole process of Internet censorship.

I have some pertinent questions regarding Internet censorship in Thailand.

1) Do the block orders always come from the Police High-Tech Crimes Centre or does MICT also compile its own lists?

2) Why do the Police not send the block orders to ISPs themselves but forward them to MICT to send to the ISPs?

3) In fact, why does MICT involve the ISPs at all? Why does MICT not order direct blocking at the international Internet gateways?

4) Are the block emails from MICT to the ISPs, government to private companies, official documents, even though they are sent from free, cloudmail services like Yahoo or Hotmail? Are they secret or confidential? (See 9 below).

5) Does MICT review the block orders from Police before sending them to ISPs to ensure that all sites really contain illegal content? This is a crucial point which MICT should implement. If this were done, FACT’s website would never have been blocked.

6) Will you please tell me the precise dates and times of the recent Emergency Decree? If FACT’s website was blocked under the Decree, MICT did not need to seek a court order under the Computer Crimes Act.

7) Why does MICT not make the court orders public, removing the list of blocked websites, if they desire?

8) May an Internet user contact MICT to inquire if a website is blocked?

9) Lastly, why do Thai government email addresses never function? There was some talk of government banning civil servants using cloud email but almost everyone in government uses Hotmail or Yahoo (even to send out block orders, which is extremely insecure, to say the least!) I think MICT might make it a goal making government computers, servers and email actually work.

I have opposed Internet censorship in Thailand since 1997 when the first such law was proposed by Dr. Charmonman Srisakdi. The proposal was quietly dropped.

[UPDATE: Dr. Charmonman did not come up with this idea on his own. He was advised by an international charity, ECPAT International (End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes) <http://www.ecpat.net/EI/index.asp>, which raised the spectre of child pornography on the Internet. ECPAT, of course, owes its budget to the public purse and support of governments in many countries.

At this time, there was much media discussion over the trafficking of women and children, underage prostitution and the sale of Thai village girls, particularly in the North, to brothels.

Economist and former senator Mechai Viravaidya, “The Condom King”, singlehandedly and at great personal risk in stratified Thai society, taught AIDS awareness to sex workers and their customers in Thailand.

The practical result was that poor farmers became aware of the dangers to their daughters and the waiting “AIDS explosion” never materialised here.

Dr. Charmonman styles himself the “Father of the Thai Internet”. FACT readers will enjoy his homepages at <http://www.charm.au.edu/index.htm>, especially the photos of his home <http://www.charm.au.edu/PhotoRes/picture.asp>.]

I am making MICT an offer. I would like to consult with MICT officially to develop a process by which Internet users could request unblocking of MICT. I would also be eager to help MICT make the censorship process more equitable and transparent to serve everyone’s best interests.

Please forward me a copy of the email MICT sent to the ISPs to order UNblocking of FACT’s website.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Best wishes,

CJ Hinke

087-976-1880

How Thailand Censors the Internet

No. 72  – Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)

The details of FACT’s website censorship have finally become clear as Thai ISPs have provided FACT with concrete data, including the email requests from both Royal Thai Police and the ICT Ministry. This is the Thai public’s first real look at the implementation of Internet censorship in Thailand which is usually accomplished by  government-in-secret.

On April 22, 2009 at 16:45:47 from IP address 124.108.115.147 (ESMTP id 25FD7274C64F) email was sent from the Royal Thai Police High-Tech Crime Center <htcc@police.go.th> to Aree Jivorarak, Chief of MICT’s IT Regulation Bureau <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>. It is certain that a blocklist of banned websites was attached to this email.

On April 23, 2009 06:49:43 Aree forwarded the Police email to 94 ICT contacts at 38 of Thailand’s more than 100 ISPs and mobile telephone providers–CAT Telecom, Pacnet Thailand, ISP-Thailand, Internet Thailand, Advanced Datanetwork Communications [Buddy Broadband], KSC Commercial Internet, True Internet, CS Loxinfo, Telephone Organisation of Thailand [TOT] Public Co. Ltd., Jasmine International Net [JI-net], ANET Internet, Far East Internet Co. Ltd., Milcom Systems [WLANNet], World Internetwork Co. Ltd. [INTERNET Thai], Otaro [you may remember they were the first company to delete the website of Same Sky Books/Fah Diew Kan], 101 Global Co. Ltd., Kirz Communications, TT&T Public Co. Ltd. [Maxnet], Proen Internet, Jasmine International Public Co. Ltd., IT.co.th, Infonet Thailand, Inter University Network [UniNet--are these the people responsible for the censorship at Kasetsart University, Mahidol University and others?], Alltelecom Co., SIPphone Unlimited Communication, TOT ISP, TOT International Gateway, Internet Solution & Service Provider Co. Ltd. [ISP-Thailand], NTT Communications (Thailand) Co., Ltd., BB Broadband Co. Ltd. [Beenet Broadband Internet], CAT Public Co. Ltd., Hutchison CAT Wireless Multimedia Ltd. [formerly Tawan Mobile Telephone Co.], Upload Today, True Corporation Public Co. Ltd., Samart Infonet Co. Ltd. [Samtel], Total Access [DTAC], Advanced Info Service [AIS], CAT Internet Data Center–with a the subject “ส่งต่อ: ขอส่งรายชื่อเว็บไซต์ที่มีผลกระทบต่อความมั่นคง”  (” Fwd: We send a list of sites that affect security”). The email’s message was ”เรียนผู้ isp และผู้เกี่ยวข้อง เพื่อโปรดดำเนินการ อารีย์ จิวรรักษ์ ”  (“to ISPs and whom it may concern to take action”) followed by ”หมายเหตุ: แนบจดหมายที่จะส่งต่อแล้ว” (“Remarks: Forwarded mail attached”) which is obviously the original Police email. (Full details below.) This message may well have been truncated before it was sent to FACT. Why did Aree send this email before seven a.m.? To take advantage of the government’s Emergency Decree?

Although FACT was not made privy to the ICT Ministry’s blocklist itself, as FACT’s website started to be blocked by some ISPs around noon April 25, 2009 and diverted to MICT’s blockpage at http://w3.mict.go.th, it is safe to assume we were on it!

Further information from another ISP states that FACT’s website was included on the list of 71-plus alleged “Red-shirt” websites blocked.

Of course, FACT is not a Red-shirt (nor any-shirt) front nor do we play partisan politics. One can readily see how easily any website can be swept up by government paranoia. This is the first time FACT’s website has been blocked since our inception on November 15, 2006. We are proud to join the ranks of our colleagues at Midnight University, Sept19,org, Same Sky and Prachatai; we wear our censorship as a badge of honour.

FACT will defend anyone censored in Thailand because the public has a basic human right to freedom of information. We will continue to expose secret censorship in Thailand and provide circumvention strategies and software to enable Internet users to ignore the censorship.

When these 71-plus websites were unblocked by MICT on April 26, why was FACT not included in the list? FACT was finally unblocked by at least one ISP by request of MICT at 01:29 on April 28, 2009. We have yet to receive of copy of MICT’s email to ISPs or order FACT unblocked but we know there to be one.

The email exchange also raises further interesting questions. Who surfs the Internet looking for illegal content? Does Internet censorship always start with the Police or are there censors in other agencies such as the ICT ministry and Ministry of Culture? How many people are employed to censor?

This gives a real glimpse into the shadowy, clandestine world of censorship in Thailand. And it shows that F/freedom is under police scrutiny in Thailand.

Nothing has changed at Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT). We didn’t change, edit, alter or deleted any information, postings or comments on our website before, during or after MICT’s censorship.

So why did they censor FACT in the first place and why did they unblock us so rapidly?

The Prime Minister’s Emergency Decree was in effect April 12 – April 23, so it would appear that legally MICT was not required to seek a court order for blocking under the provisions of the Computer Crimes Act 2007 as normal laws were suspended. For those FACT supporters who were hoping FACT would be the first to challenge MICT in court over Internet censorship, it appears MICT acted legally. We’re saving that fight for next time!

The moral of this story: FIGHT BACK! Take back the power! Freedom NOW!

This has been an interesting and valuable exercise because now we know who the censors are and how they operate. If your website in blocked, notify FACT, call all media you can think of (FACT will help with this) and get in touch with MICT at 02-505-6213 <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th> to request immediate unblocking.

Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)

http://facthai.wordpress.com

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: aree jivorarak <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>

To: kittipong m <kittipong.m@cattelecom.com>, admin-thix@cat.net.th, schaka@cat.net.th, varin c <varin.c@cattelecom.com>, noc@pacific.net.th, thaweesak@isp-thailand.com, support@isp-thailand.com, csupport@isp-thailand.com, noc@adc.co.th, ktnrg@adc.co.th, nattapong@adc.co.th, top kab <top.kab@hotmail.com>, noc@cat.net.th, noc th <noc.th@pacnet.com>, chakrit@inet.co.th, noc@inet.co.th, ictcensor@ksc.net, ictcensor@trueinternet.co.th, webblacklist@csloxinfo.net, network@trueinternet.co.th, watanyu chu <watanyu_chu@trueinternet.co.th>, boonmak@tot.co.th, sathinut@ji-net.com, boonma1222@yahoo.com, nprattha@jasmine.com, noc@ji-net.com, psanti@anet.net.th, system@anet.net.th, admin@fareast.net.th, surasak@fareast.net.th, patcharabuls@milcom.co.th, tomesiam@hotmail.com, support@internetthai.com, noc@otaro.com, support@101g.com, thana@kirz.com, narits ss <narits_ss@ttt.co.th>, ekkarachu ss <ekkarachu_ss@ttt.co.th>, noc@proen.co.th, taewa k <taewa.k@jasmine.com>, kung@it.co.th, sarayuth@infonetthailand.com, noc@uni.net.th, cindy@alltelecom.co.th, BIOICE1981@hotmail.com, nocworldweb@hotmail.com, info@sipphone.co.th, noc@totisp.net, blockweb@totisp.net, sittiraj tot <sittiraj.tot@gmail.com>, neeyada sirisampandh <neeyada.sirisampandh@pacnet.com>, duangjai s <duangjai.s@jasmine.com>, noc@totiig.net, bkriengsak@cat.net.th, chaiwat@isp-thailand.com, admin issp <admin_issp@isp-thailand.com>, surachaiji ss <surachaiji_ss@ttt.co.th>, matisa@ttt.co.th, issn ss <issn_ss@ttt.co.th>, totnoc@tot.co.th, sarayut@kirz.com, channira no <channira.no@ntt.co.th>, apinan k <apinan_k@beenets.com>, suchok@cat.net.th, suchok@bulbul.cat.net.th, helpdesk@isp-thailand.com, suttiporn y <suttiporn.y@cattelecom.com>, wasan s <wasan.s@cattelecom.com>, chatree@isp-thailand.com, sariya s <sariya.s@hcwml.com>, rommuk p <rommuk.p@hcwml.com>, jirawan c <jirawan.c@jasmine.com>, info@uploadtoday.com, Surparsorn Run <EAK@ISP-THAILAND.COM, ict@tttmaxnet.com, Nongluck p <Nongluck.p@jasmine.com>, prasitchai v <prasitchai.v@samtel.samartcorp.com>, se@samart.co.th, tsutee@jasmine.com, suvinit@proen.co.th, mars2551@yahoo.com, kalant@ntt.co.th, uthai@ntt.co.th, jaroonchai@ntt.co.th, uaichai@anet.net.th, Parinyar@dtac.co.th, uraiporn s <uraiporn.s@jasmine.com>, mubooh@gmail.com, naruepoi@ais.co.th, krits@ais.co.th, premchai@anet.net.th, support@idc.cattelecom.com, phup@csloxinfo.net, aree mict <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>

Sent: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:49:43 +0700 (ICT)

Subject: ส่งต่อ: ขอส่งรายชื่อเว็บไซต์ที่มีผลกระทบต่อความมั่นคง

เรียนผู้ isp และผู้เกี่ยวข้อง เพื่อโปรดดำเนินการ

อารีย์ จิวรรักษ์

หมายเหตุ: แนบจดหมายที่จะส่งต่อแล้ว

______________________________________________

Details of original Royal Thai Police email to MICT:

X-Apparently-To: aree.mict@yahoo.co.th via 124.108.115.147; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:45:47 +0800

X-YahooFilteredBulk: 203.144.222.214

X-YMailISG: fp65WQ0WLDvYG3YSo55j2geZUpCKkKvyZloXeOzMEj3eOtRsh2QOnvrJ0j03CBU6aDgqLBis88fT1JETW52gDaisZrdSGx.nUGGanUZ1BE.YX5VGp.dPxT0DnHrzdyOrhfQyznmlWcnZScV2Nnjg0N8ZBozwFbviCjUQAbwDFJ2M9BPOGOzRNSwdvfIALCGObg2ZeRFQEsa9kx7mxqZj1.6pHKnojTI6Fbp6fgAFbY1bHhpJ8gXwGdTPZJO55GShFoGsTflsrnkF9h5wew3E0K1LeL5w7_h_BbTCx3gmNLWn9Y0HTtJtJ9_dRrnG7d5OaFGTnHKO8QXZ9jgSsVyq_1lRp6Cx13VKlQ0gVnyPa2txJsijkfBVcbJFIdC0ac4c9N9Vb0pmzodMPmpFM2h22cLii1TEPn53xR1ACEZ0Ndkg_lw6qpUgEt1NuDsqcgxsZ0PKAB7AU2I_O2zyGcpUQ3Y.4xkca1PmyiUTg8t0CftrR6.rymSSof8e4vYmhdwxKpoDcxgVNXmFWtdQ5YF_zHyi4ygx

X-Originating-IP: [203.144.222.214]

Authentication-Results: mta108.mail.sg1.yahoo.com  from=police.go.th; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=police.go.th; dkim=neutral (no  sig)

Received: from 203.144.222.214  (EHLO mail.asianet.co.th) (203.144.222.214)

by mta108.mail.sg1.yahoo.com with SMTP; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:45:47 +0800

Received: from irgb9.truemail.co.th ([203.144.173.225])

(envelope-sender <htcc@police.go.th>)

by mail5.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP

for <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>; 22 Apr 2009 15:45:44 +0700

X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true

X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggUAOt17kk6YSut/2dsb2JhbAATgTyTToI4lnukZIN2Bg

X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i=”4.40,229,1238950800″;

d=”scan’208″;a=”449055345″

Received: from mail.police.go.th (HELO police.sran.net) ([58.97.43.173])

by irp4.truemail.co.th with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2009 15:37:50 +0700

Received: from localhost (pmail.police.go.th [127.0.0.1])

by police.sran.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25FD7274C64F

for <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:46:43 +0700 (ICT)

X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at

X-Spam-Score: -0.952

X-Spam-Level:

X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.952 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6

tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, AWL=-1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599,

DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.2, MIME_BASE64_NO_NAME=0.224,

SUBJECT_ENCODED_TWICE=1.723, URIBL_PH_SURBL=2.8]

Received: from police.sran.net ([127.0.0.1])

by localhost (police.sran.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)

with ESMTP id fH3fy0iY1wyj for <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>;

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:46:39 +0700 (ICT)

Received: from police.sran.net (unknown [192.168.1.2])

by police.sran.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC1D274C64B

for <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:46:39 +0700 (ICT)

Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:46:39 +0700 (ICT)

From: High-Tech Crime Center <htcc@police.go.th>

To: aree.mict@yahoo.co.th

Subject: =?utf-8?B?4LiC4Lit4Liq4LmI4LiH4Lij4Liy4Lii4LiK4Li34LmI?=

=?utf-8?B?4Lit4LmA4Lin4LmH4Lia4LmE4LiL4LiV4LmM4LiX4Li1?=

=?utf-8?B?4LmI4Lih4Li14Lic4Lil4LiB4Lij4Liw4LiX4Lia4LiV?=

=?utf-8?B?4LmI4Lit4LiE4Lin4Liy4Lih4Lih4Lix4LmI4LiZ4LiE4LiH?=

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

X-Originating-IP: [127.0.0.1]

Content-Length: 1516

FACT blocked in Cambodia!

I live in Bangkok and my server is TRUE but currently I am in Ratanakiri, Cambodia, and I tried to access your website but could not and I contacted the Cambodian IP server (CAMSHIN) and they told me that all internet communications from their platform are routed via Thailand and perhaps this is the reason I am denied access.

Kind regards,

Shane Tarr, PhD

FACT blocked in Shanghai!

In answer to recent tlc posting, I cannot access your site in China (Shanghai). There is quite often a problem with wordpress sites here, even in Shanghai.

Professor Nicholas Tapp

Censorship Thai-style: The FACT story

How easy to censor, how difficult to unblock!

Monday, April 27, six calls to the ICT ministry. Permanent Secretary Su Lo-uthai refused to take my call. I found this rather typical, insulting abuse of government power considering I had petitioned him personally on behalf of FACT. Su referred me to Deputy Permanent Secretary Angsuman Sunarai. I was given two numbers for him but he did not work at the first office and the second did not answer. I was given his mobile and it was turned off. Angsuman’s secretary didn’t answer hers. Angsuman was reported to be in Khon Kaen so I was given two numbers at the ministry for his deputy, Aree Jivorarak, chief of MICT’s IT Regulation Bureau. Neither number was answered and so I was given his mobile number. He asked for details by email, copied below:

Further to our telephone conversation, it has been brought to my attention that my website, Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) has been blocked by around noon Saturday by at least six ISPs.

The URL is http://facthai.wordpress.com. Internet users trying to access the FACT website are redirected to http://w3.mict.go.th.

I have been the registered owner of this website since November 15, 2006. We definitely do not host, post or tolerate any illegal content on FACT’s website and we have never been blocked before.

Please investigate this matter thoroughly and report your results to me

immediately.

I hope the results of your investigation are such that you will immediately

unblock my website.

However, if MICT wishes for some reason to continue to block access to FACT, I require your reasons in full for so doing and a copy of the court order authorising you to do so under the requirements of the Computer-Related Crimes Act 2007.

My mobile telephone number is below my name.

Thank you.

Two followup calls to Aree but he could not deal with this matter because he was in a meeting. He gave me a mobile number for Nut Payongsri, IT Specialist. Nut replied he would read my email and get back to me today. Nut called back to advise me that he found FACT’s website accessible from his office using TOT ISP (wouldn’t one expect all MICT computers not to be blocked?) and that FACT’s website does not appear on the blocklist for April 24 but this is the latest blocklist he had available.

He promised to contact his superior, Aree, for copies of the MICT blocklists for April 25, 26, and today and to call another office to check using a different ISP.

MICT, at 2 pm April 27, denied blocking FACT’s website despite the fact that users are redirected to http://w3.mict.go.th. This is, of course, simply not credible! Meanwhile, FACT’s website is still inaccessible for me on CAT Hi-net ISP.

All administrative functions for FACT’s WordPress site using https are now blocked. Furthermore, the latest post in which I advised users to switch to HTTPS for access had been modified so the URLs read only HTTP on FACT’s public front page but, on editing, return to HTTPS. Hackers or MICT?

TOT unblocked FACT’s website (“sorry for your inconvenient”) around four PM April 27; CAT unblocked around six PM April 28. (True never implemented blocking.) I have insisted to both ISPs that they provide detailed information on the MICT “request” and the dates of blocking. If this was accomplished during the Emergency Decree, it’s legal; otherwise, MICT needed a court order to comply with the Computer Crimes Act. It is likely smaller ISPs will be slower to unblock.

The very least FACT expects from the ICT minister, Ranongruk Suwanachee, is a formal and public apology. None of the information on FACT has been deleted or altered from the time of blocking to the time of unblocking. This means there never was any illegal content on FACTsite.

This has been a valuable lesson for FACT and shows how completely arbitrary Internet censorship really is, in Thailand and everywhere.

FACT wishes to work with MICT and the ISPs to create a clear and simple procedure for website owners to appeal blocking.

Very few have fought or would fight as hard as I did. Next time, FACT hopes to see them in court!

CJ Hinke

Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)

[FACT comments: This Indian government film censorship smacks of lese majeste in the form of national insult. Perhaps the song was intended to be politically ironic...or perhaps it was just intended as entertainment.]

RamGopal Varma moves to Bombay High Court

DuniyaLive: May 11, 2009

http://www.duniyalive.com/?p=23757

Filmmaker Ram gopal Varma has knocked the door of Bombay Hight Court, over censorship of the title song of his next coming flick Rann.

Varma tempered the National Anthem, making it ‘Jana Gana Mana Rann hai, Is Rann mein Zakhmi Hua hai Bharat ka Bhagya vidhata’.

Following this, censor board has denied to grant permission to air a song based on the national anthem in the movie ‘Rann’.

Board said that Ram Gopal Varma has no right to temper the national anthem and not only this, it’s being criticized all over.

In the mean time, Varma in a statement released to media “I have lost my faith in the censor board and am now going to seek recourse by the law of the land. I am going to approach the High Court for justice.”

FACT censored [and how to resist]
Political Prisoners in Thailand: April 28, 2009

http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/new-fact-censored-and-how-to-resist/

On 26 April 2009, Freedom Against Censorship reported that access to their site was being blocked by at least ISPs in Thailand: TOT ADSL, Kasetsart University, and Buddy Internet. FACT has issued a letter of protest and has also asked readers to let them know if other providers are blocking their site. Read the full article here: “Freedom Against Censorship Thailand CENSORED!”

On 27 April 2009, FACT posted a workaround. If you are having difficulty using the original site, then access the site here. [Note: http has been replaced by https]. Share this information widely.

FACT website blocked
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation: April 27, 2009

The Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) yesterday claimed that its blogsite has been blocked since Saturday noon, apparently on orders of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Ministry.

“This is typical of a censorship regime in that over-blocking always occurs,” FACT founder and coordinator CJ Hinke told The Nation. “There are always innocent websites that are swept up in the general censorship.”

The free-speech advocacy group will file a complaint with the ICT Ministry today, as ministry officials were not available to take a petition over the weekend.

Hinke, a Canadian citizen based in Bangkok, said his group is non-political and non-partisan and the website contained no illegal content.

Hinke urged FACT readers to use bypass software to access the site, which provides detailed information on censorship in Thailand including measures to avoid lese-majeste charges.

Hinke claims the ICT Ministry has admitted to restricting access to 6,218 websites deemed a threat to national security and the monarchy.

Last Friday, the ministry said it has allowed the anti-government Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship’s 71 websites to go back online.

[FACT comments: People in Thailand are barely aware that the future of the National Human Rights Commission is being disappeared before our eyes. Incidentally, the NHRC has yet to respond to FACT’s petition over Internet censorship presented to them on November 15, 2006.]

An Open Letter to the Senate of Thailand
THAILAND: Senate must delay vote on NHRC
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC): April 29, 2009

http://ahrchk.net/

Prasobsuk Boondech
President
Senate of Thailand
Office of the Senate Secretariat
499 Sukpraprueit Building
Prachachuein Road
Bangsue, Bangkok 10800
THAILAND

Fax: +662 831 9211

EXTREMELY URGENT

Dear Mr. Prasobsuk

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you out of grave concern that if the Senate proceeds with a vote on the seven persons nominated as commissioners of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand at the sitting on this Friday, May 1 as the Senate Secretariat announced today, April 29, the new commission will violate international standards on the procedure for selecting a national human rights institution.

The AHRC already in a letter of April 25 to the chairperson of the Senate selection committee for the new NHRC (copied to you) pointed out that the selection process of the new commissioners has been rushed, non-transparent, undemocratic and contrary to the basic principles that the NHRC is supposed to represent. While we agree that the appointment of new commissioners is a priority, it should not be at the expense of public debate and measures to get the right people for the job.

Unfortunately, as explained in that letter, everything seems to have been done to keep the entire process and the names and backgrounds of the selected candidates hidden from view. In the few days since, there have been a few small steps taken to allow very limited public awareness and comment on the nominees, steps that can only be described as pathetic. For instance, after it was pointed out that there was no form on the Senate website for members of the public to post comments, on the afternoon of the last day given for the making of comments, a form did in fact briefly appear on the site, only to be removed before the following morning. By way of another example, we have read news that the seven nominees will this afternoon be presented to the media at the Senate premises. These sorts of paltry measures do nothing to make the selection process meaningful and only raise further doubts that the Senate will try to create the impression that the process was in some way accountable when in fact it was the very opposite.

The AHRC is aware that citizens’ groups in Thailand have already voiced opposition to some of the candidates and the manner of their selection and notes that these groups too were not kept informed of the selection process or invited to comment. This is hardly surprising given that the selection committee itself apparently did not even meet the candidates before selecting them, and nor does its report to the Senate contain any reasoning on the choice of these seven over any other of the 133 applicants. For this reason the AHRC iterates its concern that the manner of selection and composition of the candidates stands in breach of the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993, that:

“The composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly by powers which will enable effective cooperation to be established with, or through the presence of, representatives of: (a) Non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial discrimination, trade unions, concerned social and professional organizations, for example, associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and eminent scientists…”

That the procedure for selection of candidates to the NHRC violated this provision is manifest from the backgrounds of the seven nominees, only one of whom has any manifest practical human rights experience. The other six consist of persons with little if anything to lend them to the job, among whom is a police general, a civil servant, a judicial administrator and an industrialist. Furthermore, three of these people are still serving in other parts of government, and their appointment to the commission appears to violate the terms of the Paris Principles that members of government departments, if included in the NHRC “should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity”.

Violation of the Paris Principles in selection and appointment of nominees to the NHRC would have real consequences for Thailand. The Senate should be aware that were the status of the NHRC under the principles reviewed, The commission could be downgraded and lose its rights to participate as a national human rights institution in international forums, such as has happened to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka. Aside from this, it would further undermine Thailand’s already greatly diminished credibility on human rights issues worldwide.

Finally, the AHRC notes along with domestic groups that the manner of selection and backgrounds of particular candidates may be in breach of provisions both under the Constitution of Thailand BE 2550 (2007) and the National Human Rights Commission Act BE 2542 (1999).

In this period of political and social turmoil in Thailand, there has simply not been enough time given or attention paid to the process of selecting these candidates for the National Human Rights Commission. If the Senate proceeds to a vote on Friday, May 1, then it will be doing so contrary to both international and even domestic standards on human rights and will throw the future of the entire commission into doubt. Above all, it will be doing a great disservice to the people of Thailand. We strongly urge you to postpone this vote until such a time as the matter has obtained the public attention that it deserves and a coherent debate on the role of the NHRC and the candidates for commissionerships has followed.

Yours sincerely

Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

Cc:
1. Mr. Abhisist Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of Thailand
2. Ms. Jennifer Lynch, Chairperson, International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
3. Ms. Margaret Sekaggaya, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders
4. Mr. Homayoun Alizadeh, Regional Representative, OHCHR, Bangkok

[FACT comments: Governments just don't get what "national security" really means: It means citizens have freedom from fear.]

An Open Letter to the Senate of Thailand
THAILAND: Senate must give more time for debate on new NHRC
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC): April 25, 2009

http://ahrchk.net

Theerajit Sathirotamawong
Chairperson
Senate Committee to assess NHRC nominees
Office of the Senate Secretariat
499 Sukpraprueit Building
Prachachuein Road
Bangsue, Bangkok 10800
THAILAND

Fax: +662 831 9211

Dear Mr. Theerajit

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you out of concern that the selection process for a new National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand is being rushed through in a highly undemocratic manner, without any public consultation or accountability and contrary to the basic principles that the NHRC is supposed to represent. We urge you to delay the selection process to allow more time for discussion and debate, or risk violating international standards on National Human Rights Institutions, which may affect the NHRC’s official status in global forums not to mention undermine its credibility in the eyes of the general public of Thailand.

By way of background, the AHRC is aware that even though the terms of the former NHRC commissioners expired in 2007, as there was at that time an interim military-installed government operating under a temporary constitution, they stayed on in their positions under the terms of the law governing the commission’s work. However, after the Constitution of Thailand BE 2550 (2007) came into effect, in October 2007 two persons approached the Administrative Court to have new commissioners elected under the altered terms of the new charter. In a ruling prepared on 12 December 2008 that was read on 30 January 2009, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the former commissioners should vacate their seats and that it was not necessary to delay appointment of new commissioners until a new NHRC law was prepared by parliament.

Accordingly, on 11 March 2009 the NHRC secretary invited applications for new commissioners, giving a period of one week for applications, from March 14 to 20. Applications had to be submitted in person at the NHRC office in Bangkok. The office received 133 applications. The Selection Committee, consisting of the presidents of the three top courts, two persons chosen by two assemblies of judges, and the president of the lower house of parliament met to consider the applications on April 8. The seventh member of the committee, from the political opposition, was not involved apparently due to the political uncertainty gripping Thailand.

On April 10 the committee sent the names and documents of its seven nominees to the Senate for consideration and approval. The seven are: Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Mr. Parinya Sirisarakarn, former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007); Mr. Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitution Court; Ms. Visa Penjamano, ministerial inspector, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Mr. Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don’t Drive Drunk Foundation; Mr. Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubol Ratchathani; and, Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.

On April 20 the Senate established a committee to review the nominees and the following day it announced that it would give until April 27 for public comment on the seven, that is, until this coming Monday.

The AHRC would like to point to just a few of the most obvious problems with the selection process so far:

1. Inadequate time for candidates to come forward and for public debate: From mid-2007 to March 2009 there was no action on the selection of new commissioners. Then a period of only one week was given for applicants to present themselves at the office in Bangkok and submit forms and supporting documents for candidacy. After that, this second period of only one week, announced on the second day of the week, from April 21 to 27, was given for members of the public to make comments via a post office box at the Senate.

2. No attempt to encourage public debate or awareness: The announcements for candidates and for comment on nominees have been made through official websites and government channels. There have been no attempts, to the knowledge of the AHRC, to inform the general public about the process or encourage debate on commissioners, either through television, radio or print media. No fax numbers have been provided for prompt submission of comments in the week provided. Nor has an attempt been made to use the Internet so that people can make comments easily. Although public submissions were invited via the Senate website, when the AHRC visited the website we could not find any dedicated page or form for the submitting of comments.

3. Selection process itself patently flawed: The Selection Committee chose the seven nominees based solely upon the written forms and supporting documents that they submitted. Unlike the nominees to the previous commission, they were not interviewed and nor were they required to give a speech to the Senate before approval. It is hard to see how the committee could make informed decisions about these candidates without even meeting with them. This is of special concern given the undemocratic composition of the new Selection Committee, itself comprising of judges, judge appointees, and one representative of the incumbent party in government, by contrast to the body that selected the former commission under the terms of the Constitution of Thailand BE 2540 (1997), which included representatives of civil society, the media and other sectors.

It is in these respects that the AHRC is concerned that the selection process as it stands at present may result in the election of an NHRC that violates both the 2007 Constitution as well as the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions.

With regards to the first, under section 256 of the 2007 Constitution the NHRC should comprise of persons “having apparent knowledge and experiences in the protection of rights and liberties of the people, having regard also to the participation of representatives from private organisations in the field of human rights”. However, the selection process in 2009 has resulted in a body of seven candidates with little manifest knowledge and experience in the protection of human rights, among whom none are representatives of private organisations in the human rights field. This is despite the fact that there were applicants for the position from such organisations and others with very considerable knowledge and experience who were not selected.

With regards to the second issue, section 1 of the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions on human rights (The Paris Principles) (adopted United Nations General Assembly resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993) on composition states that,

“The composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly by powers which will enable effective cooperation to be established with, or through the presence of, representatives of: (a) Non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial discrimination, trade unions, concerned social and professional organizations, for example, associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and eminent scientists…”

However, the selection process for the NHRC of Thailand in 2009 has been marked by an absence of procedures to afford necessary guarantees to ensure pluralist representation of the sort envisaged in the Paris Principles. Nor do the seven nominees include among them anyone from a non-governmental organization responsible for human rights, trade unionists or others from a diverse range of social backgrounds, which is manifestly a consequence of the manner in which they have been chosen.

Furthermore, the AHRC notes that under section 1(e) on the composition of an institution under the Paris Principles, it is explicitly stated that members of government departments, if included in the NHRC “should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity”. However, three of the seven nominees for the commissioners’ posts are in fact serving in other parts of government (the police, judicial administration and a ministry). Their candidacy, if approved, would appear to violate this section.

At present the NHRC of Thailand holds full accreditation status with the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights; however, that status is subject to review, and if it is found that the country has not complied with international standards in the selection and composition of the NHRC it may be downgraded and lose its rights and privileges in international forums. This happened to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka after that country’s president failed to comply with the correct procedure in appointing new commissioners. The Senate of Thailand too should take that as a warning of what may follow if it is too hasty in its appointment of the seven nominees, without regard to the international standards to which the NHRC is expected to comply if it wishes to be treated seriously in forums on human rights abroad.

In light of the above, the Asian Human Rights Commission urges the Senate Committee for assessment of the new National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and the Senate as a whole to postpone the appointment process of the new commissioners to allow more time for public debate on the seven nominees. The debate should be accompanied with wide publicity to invite public comment through as many means as possible, including online and by fax. The Senate itself, when reviewing the nominees and considering whether to accept or reject them, should take into account not only the personal qualities and backgrounds of the candidates but also the process of selection and consider whether or not it is possible for appropriate commissioners to be identified without so much as an interview.

At a time of intense debate and conflict in Thailand over the country’s future, the role of the NHRC should be one of special importance. If suitable persons are selected to serve as commissioners they could contribute towards bringing Thailand into a new and more progressive and prosperous future. If not, the commission will be rightly dismissed as a sham and a failure, not only among people in Thailand but also in the global community. More time is needed to make the right decisions and chart the course between these two alternatives.

Yours sincerely

Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

Cc:
1. Mr. Abhisist Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of Thailand
2. Mr. Prasobsuk Boondech, President, Senate of Thailand
3. Ms. Jennifer Lynch, Chairperson, International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
4. Ms. Margaret Sekaggaya, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders
5. Mr. Homayoun Alizadeh, Regional Representative, OHCHR, Bangkok

—————————–

Asian Human Rights Commission

19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,

998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.

Tel: +(852) – 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) – 2698-6367

Censorship Watch: Zack and Miri [Can’t] Make a Porno: Crank. High Voltage short-circuited
wisekwai
The Nation: April 21, 2009

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/wisekwai/2009/04/21/entry-3

Apparently for its concept alone, the raunchy sex comedy Zack and Miri Make a Porno has been banned in Thailand.

Local distributor M Pictures attempted to release American director Kevin Smith’s film on March 12 in a limited run at Paragon Cineplex, but the movie was  pulled over concerns by censors.

The distributor then made an appeal to the National Film Board, which today announced it has firmly stood by its decision to ban the film, saying “its explicit sexual content go against moral principles [in Thailand]“, according to an article on The Nation’s website.

The comedy is about a pair of friends, played by Seth Rogan and Elizabeth Banks, who hatch a scheme to make pornographic films as a means of getting out of debt.

Culture Ministry permanent secretary Vira Rojpojchanarat offers the reason the film is banned in Thailand:

“The screening of this film may encourage copycats here.”

Zack and Miri Make a Porno has been a lightning rod for controversy since it was first proposed.

In Hollywood, the Motion Picture Ratings Association initially gave the film a NC-17 rating, meaning that only people age 17 and older can be admitted to the film. It’s the most restrictive rating a film can receive in the US. Film studios typically seek to avoid the harsh rating because it limits how widely the film can be advertised and released.

After an appeal, the film was rated R (requiring that viewers under age 17 be accompanied by a parent or guardian) for “strong crude sexual content including dialogue, graphic nudity and pervasive language.”

Smith also fought a pitched battle with America’s ratings board over the film poster. After an image of Rogan and Banks purportedly receiving oral sex was rejected (but allowed in neighboring Canada), the initial teaser poster for the U.S. was of stick figures. The final poster was a fanciful cartoon drawing.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno was released in the U.S. last October.

People who have has seen the film say it is loaded with the typically raunchy but witty dialogue that Smith is known for, but the nudity primarily consists of bare breasts, which are sometimes allowed to be seen in Thai cinemas.

Update: Here’s the full story from Daily Xpress.

Update 2: And DPA picked up the story, pointing out that “pirated versions … are already widely available on the streets of Bangkok”.

Update 3: Kevin Smith’s News Askew website has comments about this as does the film blog, Cinema Blend.