Court bans rap song for being a threat to Thailand’s national security

A rap song has been banned by the Court for being seditious and a threat to Thailand’s national security.

The song, Patiroob (meaning reform), by Rap Against Dictatorship, was blocked on the YouTube platform as a result of a Ministry of Digital Economy and Society petition to the Court that it should be prohibited under the terms of the Computer Crime Act.

The Court agreed that the song’s lyrics, which allude to the Thai king and prime minister, are a threat to national security. The Court also ruled that the song was filled with obscene language.

The music video drew unfavourable comments from the online social media community about the monarchy that broke constitutional law and could result in a number of Lèse-majesté charges to those critical of the royal family.

The Court dismissed arguments that the song was in keeping with constitutional freedoms of expression and that it was a creative work of benefit to society, stating that liberty must not cause damage to others, especially figures in the monarchy and government.

The band acknowledged the ruling and said they would remove the video and song from all its public platforms.

Rap Against Dictatorship added on Facebook that “the creation of anything to reform, improve or change things in a totalitarian land may be difficult at present, but the time will soon come.”

Band member Dechathorn Bamrungmuang, a.k.a. HOCKHACKER, denied that the song posed a threat to national security and petitioned the Court on September 23, 2021, to overturn the ruling because the band had not been allowed to testify.

As a result of the request, the Court suspended the ban and scheduled a new trial. It was delayed a number of times until May, before the latest ruling in July.

The song criticises the government for prosecuting and using force against the pro-democracy protesters, condemns misuse of public revenue for personal pleasure, underlines the illegality of a government formed through a coup, and argues that taxpayer voices must be heard rather than be spent on polygamy.

SOURCE: Pratachai