Censors live in the Dark Ages

I beg to disagree, both on philosophical and practical grounds.

First, unity is not always desirable: what is not only desirable but necessary is the willingness to understand others before seeking to make one’s own stand understood. For example, in every election, millions of Thais vote for one candidate and millions more choose the opponent – yet all agree that offering voters a choice, even of opposites, is not only healthy but necessary for our way of life.

The reason given by censors is exceedingly broad, and means whatever the censors want it to mean. It therefore cannot serve as a guide for those seeking to follow the guidelines. For example, if you did a documentary on the rule of law in Thailand, focusing on how the killers of Krue Se, Tak Bai and, now, Nong Chik have got away scot-free, based entirely on the undisputed reports of the government’s own fact-finding committees, your documentary would certainly arouse people against the authorities, creating disunity. But does that mean that your work should be banned?

I agree with Potter Stewart that “Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself.” The days of the central government knowing best are long over, and Thais should be able to judge for themselves what makes sense to them and what not. So, if the film in question is libelous, one-sided, etc. then take the producers to court before it can be shown and/or organise press conferences to rectify the perceived bias.

On practical grounds, in this digital day and age, censorship is ineffective; you can get any banned book online. On the other hand, if a work is particularly inflammatory under the present circumstances, the government can seek a court order to get publication postponed for a short, non-renewable period, during which the government and the banned work’s sponsors can inform the public about both sides of the issue.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok