The recent suspension of two of the evening shows on Voice TV could be a textbook example for journalism and political science students of the future. It was a trifecta of errors. The wrong censors made the wrong programming ban for the wrong reasons. The station, known to have strong red shirt and Pheu Thai sympathy, lost an evening talk show for two weeks. But the form and result of the two-week shutdown of the TonightThailand programme goes well past the inevitable court case over the order.
The first problem is the actual censor. Shortly after he seized power in 2014, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha placed all broadcasting censorship powers in the hands of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) and its secretary-general Takorn Tantasith. This quite properly drew strong criticism at the time. The NBTC's duty is to regulate physical control of the airwaves. Except by Section 44 order, it has no built-in ability to monitor, let alone control, content.
Every constitution since 1997, including under the Prayut government, has laid out the systems of two basic and intertwined freedoms. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not absolute. But for authorities to abridge or end these freedoms in any given case, authorities must reasonably show that an alleged offender has violated or endangered national security, public order including morals, or health.
Not only did Voice TV's contentious discussion programme not violate these conditions, the NBTC didn't even allege it did. According to the order for Voice TV to sideline TonightThailand for 15 evenings, the programme had "appeared to cause confusion". The only reason provided for the censorship was that speakers touched on events that occurred during the French Revolution.
This sounds at first hearing too close to the recent, mad case against social critic Sulak Sivaraksa. The ludicrous case alleged he had committed lese majeste against King Naresuan the Great, ruler of the Lanna kingdom from 1602 to 1605. Now, the censorship case against Voice TV involves the French Revolution (1789-1799). And the order to stop broadcasting the show carefully stipulated that the only known people who "considered the content inappropriate and unsuitable" were unidentified members of the commission.
The regime never should have delegated censorship power to the NBTC. The commission wasn't founded and isn't organised to deal with broadcast content. Inevitably, as this case shows, its decisions are based on personal feelings of the NBTC or those who advise it. That is clearly wrong, when the supreme law holds clear steps that should be taken in case censorship is deemed necessary.
There is no denying that Voice TV broadcasts are impertinent and provocative. Station policy opposes the coup and the military regime. Pro-Thaksin Shinawatra, pro-Yingluck apologists are standard guests. No doubt the station's content is often offensive to some. But minority and contrary opinions are the reason for laws that protect freedom. There is no reason to have constitutional protection for mainstream opinion and support of the government. Those laws are to protect the minority.
It would be wise if the government took back the power to censor from the NBTC, which lacks competency. In addition, the government will ultimately be blamed for any attack of any kind on freedom of speech. A wise regime will realise two things. First, there is strong value to an outspoken, loyal opposition.
Second, censorship should be considered only in extreme and obvious cases of actual danger to national security and public safety. Otherwise, such as in discussing history, the proper response to offensive speech is more speech.
Gen Prayut is backed by an information apparatus so extensive that it is often criticised as a "ministry of truth". If a TV show upsets the government, then the government should fight back, with statements of its own.