Too close to home for some to stomach

If, as Channel 3 alleges, the soap opera violates Section 37 of the Broadcast and Telecommunications Operations Act, which bars content seeking to overthrow the constitutional monarchy, threatens national security or morality, constitutes profanity or harms people’s mental or physical health, then Channel 3 should prove its case. For example, it might say that having the main character’s body being possessed by a necromancer would lead viewers to believe in spirits, endangering their mental health. If so, then the station should take a stand that believing in spirits is detrimental to one’s sanity.

As things stand, it sounds very much like the real reason the soap opera was pulled is that it resembled reality too much, and that some people in power didn’t want viewers to learn about corrupt practices in satellite deals. Surely Thaksin Shinawatra wouldn’t object to the show, even though he was convicted of corruption and ran a satellite company, would he? And even if he did object, Thaksin should prove his case in court, suing the authors and Channel 3 for slander and libel, thus holding them accountable for their acts.

Down with censorship, whether self-imposed or not, so long as free and independent courts exist to keep media accountable.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok