The junta crackdown on the Internet and broadcast news media continues apace. Campaign for Popular Media Reform chairperson Ubonrat Siriyuwasak spoke with The Nation's Pravit Rojanaphruk about violations of freedom of speech and the right to information. Excerpts.

How would you compare news media freedom under the junta with the Thaksin Shinawatra administration. Which is worse?

Both regimes violated press freedom. Under Thaksin it was very clear that money was used to deal with the media while under the junta, it's weapons that have been used. Press freedom under a gun barrel cannot be called press freedom.

Secondly, violations under Thaksin occurred under the context of a constitutional guarantee, so there was a confidence in the constitutional rights that were being violated. Right now, there's no such confidence.

Newspapers seem almost indifferent to violations against the broadcast news media and the Internet. Why?

Newspapers have been politicised since Thaksin's time and now they continue to be politicised by supporting the junta-backed administration. They have chosen to take sides. And I don't see any way out of it.

The Thai Journalists' Association and the Press Council have been politicised by sending representatives to sit in the [junta-appointed] National Legislative Assembly. They also comply with "requests" made by the regime. The print media is lacking in independence.

It has been nearly nine months since the coup. Did you expect press freedom to be so adversely affected?

In general, I believe coups are a hindrance to press freedom. It forced regime change and crucially relied on the media to establish its legitimacy. Brutal ways of muzzling the media have been resorted to.

Most media didn't even dare report the sending of troops to television stations on the evening of the Constitution Tribunal ruling against two big political parties. Those who did presented it as a small news item, except for prachatai.com [an online newspaper].

The evil that leads to the blocking of websites is restricting political expression. What occurred after the coup was darkness. We can't expect good things, especially when basic rights of people have been curtailed - such as rights to elections, to freedom of expression and so on.

What can the man on the street do?

They must search for alternative news and information from different sources. You can see that some websites and programmes have enjoyed a surge in popularity.

Another step is to stand up for the press freedom of Web boards and sites. They must fight against Information and Communications Technology Ministry censorship tooth and nail.

Some approve of muzzling the pro-Thaksin news media and say not to do so endangers peace and stability. What do you say to them?

Such thinking is tantamount to a refusal to accept the basic principle of equal rights for everyone. It's akin to the curtailing and blocking of the views of other.

Whether some media is backed by interest groups or not isn't the main issue. Whether we like or dislike a certain political party, we should have the right to speak. Otherwise it means we should no longer have the right to vote, doesn't it?

It's clear some editorial departments have been coerced ... otherwise why would the military be dispatched there? This is different from surrendering freedom out of true free will.

The government is introducing "public television". Are you optimistic?

I can't really answer this question. I expect it to become yet another state-run media, like the second Channel 11. The state has already once again taken over iTV channel.

We cannot call it real public television and the people behind it do not believe true public television can benefit society.

Why didn't the government relinquish ownership and control of, say, Channel 9, 11 or an Army-controlled station if it is sincere about broadcast freedom?

That's because it has no belief in broadcast-media reform but it continues to use it as a mechanism to thwart the old power clique and further politicise the media in general.

How much do you think society values news media freedom and freedom of expression?

It's an important question. Its view is related to the inability of people to organise themselves politically in a sustained fashion. The people's rights to be informed and express themselves have always been limited by the state's view of how much they want to grant it to the people. So the people now appear to have little freedom. The people's view has also been shaped by propaganda.

On the other hand, Rousseau's view that people's rights are inalienable is also there. This can be seen by the anti-military protests in the 1970s and May 1992 and the demand the state free broadcast media from its yoke.

There's no easy answer, but, in a way, people are aware their rights have been curbed. However, they may not be organised, or lack confidence.