Talk:Thailand bans YouTube over videos insulting king

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I have e-mailed YouTube to see if they will answer a few questions...I don't think they will respond but here is a copy of the e-mail:

Hello my name is Jason Safoutin and I am a freelance journalist writing for and I was wondering if someone at your office could just give me a brief statement regarding the video that allegedly insulted Thailand's King.

  • 1. Why did YouTube refuse to remove the video...assuming that's true given recent media reports?
  • 2. What of the still image taken from the video that allegedly still remains? If its still there, will it be removed? If so by YouTube or the user?

That is all the questions I have. If you could answer those questions and add a small statement for the article I am writing on this incident. Please reply when you are able to.

Jason Safoutin Writer/editor/administrator.

DragonFire1024 04:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

PS...I also added the link to my credentials...but I thought easier to leave that part out here...PSS...if you want to see my credentials, see my user page ;) DragonFire1024 04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lèse majesté[edit]

Lèse majesté is the actual name of the offence. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was the CSM source removed? This detailed the offense that provoked the video. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know? DragonFire1024 09:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll dig it out the history and re-add it, worth a read and probably a paragraph or 2 in it. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC) was an edit conflict...I readded it. DragonFire1024 09:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OR reporting[edit]

Does this, as researching the quotes of the video and such fall under OR? DragonFire1024 08:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I read in the article, you've done OR. So detail some of the detective work you did. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Ok...there are 2 listed in external links...I just found another...before I sources it do we need three? DragonFire1024 08:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

These links may well vanish, I'd not put up too many. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Only 3 so far that I can hunt down. All three are different. DragonFire1024 08:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
one link will do. why shld we include the offensive title of the second link? –Doldrums(talk) 08:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
have gone ahead and done so. reg. the title of one of the videos, there is no particular need for us to report every word of abuse someone says on youtube. –Doldrums(talk) 14:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is about the videos. To say there are 3 and then not have links is ridiculous. Also calls into play whether or not we are telling the truth, in relation to 3 videos. If the links are broken, then they should be removed...IMO...and besides...the main link to the first video reported on was removed...readd. DragonFire1024 18:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


The title is nearly 2 lines long in my browser window, and it should be changed as low numbers like three should be spelt out. Can we shorten it? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What a silly photo?[edit]

What does this photo have to do with this story? Seems like nothing. Just put up a photo form the youtube video. You could also put up a photo of the kings face, but that seems silly when a photo from YouTube is fair use. 18:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What photo? There is a YouTube logo in the article. But I am afraid I don't know what other photo you are speaking of? DragonFire1024 19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems an opportunity for a screen shot, if that would be allowable content here. (I would do it, but I have no time at the moment.) -Edbrown05 19:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a screenshot seems ideal. I didn't realize it was so difficult to get an image off youtube, but here the images are pretty small anyway, so it wont hurt if its just a screenshot. Anywho it's obviously okay to use one image from a video. Maybe just his face with the feet? 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Headline: Thailand bans over screen shot insulting king
so on the other hand, maybe this isn't such a good idea. -Edbrown05 05:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
As funny as it sounds, I think you just might be right....No screenshot...we don't want to make matter worse. DragonFire1024 06:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

.gif image to .svg[edit]

Proposal: Change link - [[File:Youtube.gif]] to [[File:YouTube logo.svg|123px]]

Reason: .SVG file can be scaled and is of better quality than its .GIF counterpart. Cflm001 (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The origial user did not remove the video...I did![edit]

I am a Thai national. When I first saw the insulting video back in 2007 - I was so furious and determine to hack "Paddidda" youtube account. youtube should be able to confirm that there were numerous failed/attemped log in about 3 hours from 10pm PT to about 1:00am PT leading to the remove/deletion of that video. The log in IP address would shown to be from someone (that me) within CISCO corporation - through VPN. The orginal user didnt use "hard" password. And once I got in their youtube account - the email address that was used to set up youtube, also was the same password!!! So I didnt have to hack the email address - It was a free email account with ( : I immediately changed the password to both youtube and email account of the perpetrator. In acc info, I was not able to trace further the whereabout or more info about the person who posted the original video - The address only list State : Minneapolis No other email address was listed. The original didnt even come forward to claim either youtube or email account (or report that someone hacked their accoung) - So today, even after 9 years - I am still holding control of both accounts. I even posted other type of video instead - like Miss Universe pageant clips with Mr. Trump!!!