This kind of censorship is the worst violation of freedom of expression and access to information, as it instantaneously affects millions of Internet users. So when it happened in Thailand right after the September 19 coup, it was appalling.

Let us be candid why Internet censorship is happening now. First of all, it has been due to growing criticism of the September 19 coup, as some sectors of Thai society disagree with the power seizure. Some such views come from the intellectual community, while others are from the remnants of the deposed Thaksin government.

In this sense, the current government is no different to previous ones when it comes to intolerance of dissident views. The Ministry of Information and Communication Technology does not have a mind of its own; it follows a political directive.

Secondly, the proliferation of pornographic websites is a major problem, not only in Thailand but globally. MICT officials view these sites as a threat to Thai moral values and standards. Of course, it would be difficult to argue against this concern, even though Thai society is considered one of the world's most hypocritical as far as sex is concerned. Where on earth, if not in this country, can foreigners just walk off a plane and be greeted by a plethora of young female and male escorts. This kind of moral hypocrisy has continued for decades. The danger here is that the effort to counter porno sites has now turned ugly, as it has permeated into new areas of academic freedom and access to information.

Before the coup, from 2002 to 2005, the MICT under Thaksin blocked at least 2,800 (mostly) porn sites without much fanfare. Of these sites, less than 10 were considered as "anti-royal" due to their content and views expressed. However, one of these sites, Manusaya.com, proved to be very controversial. After months of surveillance by an independent group of experts, this site was traced to Sweden. The most mind-boggling disclosure was that many associated with the previous government were involved in one way or another in propping up this highly damaging portal. The fact the site had been operating for over  three years before it was shut down early this year shows the labyrinth of connections and powerful support it enjoyed. At one point, Thai Police Headquarters even considered the site the work of Thai-Muslim insurgents based abroad. A special request was made in April to the Chinese government, which dispatched technicians to block the site.

Let the truth be told: this particular site was a bone of contention during the Thaksin era, as it demonstrated the lack of commitment in tracking down website creators and collaborators.

When it was shut down, it sent a chill through the now-deposed PM and his close aides. That experience has somehow directly affected the coup leaders and the new government. Now, the prevailing attitude is that any website containing messages or views deemed negative to the conventional wisdom on the monarchy will not be tolerated and must be dealt with swiftly.

The greatest mistake came when websites put up by Midnight University and other academic circles were blocked last month. So were the BBC and CNN websites, intermittently, with their reports and analysis of the coup and the role of the Thai king in politics. That was anything but a knee-jerk response. The MICT's effort to further impose Internet censorship will tarnish the country's already battered image and reputation.

Such an alarmist mindset could further undermine freedom of expression, which was guaranteed under the now-defunct Constitution of 1997. After all, the sense of déjà vu itself emanated from the King's famous speech on his birthday in December last year, in which he explicitly said that he could be criticised if he did something wrong. This was an unusual remark by the King. Obviously, nobody in Thailand would have that kind of intention anyway.

But since March the issue regarding royal power has been widely debated. This is rather unusual in a country that rarely discusses this subject around the coffee table for fear of a lese majeste charge. This phenomenon should be welcomed rather than shunned or suppressed. A review of this archaic law should also be considered.

When various groups of respected academics, both here and abroad, raise these issues to increase public awareness, they do it in good faith and sensitively. Their arguments are civilised, constructive and objective. In fact, the public's interest in the topic should be a blessing in disguise. In more ways than one, it shows the public is attentive over the future of the Thai monarchy.

This was demonstrated visibly in the several months preceding the coup. The outpouring of affection and reverence for the current King should not be a cause for concern but one of jubilation.

The Thai authorities, especially the Council for National Security, should interpret this as a sign that royal topics can be discussed more widely.

Thus, it is a discouraging sign when the interim government tries to rush through 28-article legislation on computer-related crimes. Article 13 of this draft bill specifies that those who post online content considered as a threat to national security, an offence under the national security law, or a cause for damage to the reputation of a third party can be jailed for five years and fined up to Bt100,000.

It would be wise to allow civilised debate on respected websites on all issues, including the monarchy. Trying to ban signed articles and views - not anonymous ones, as appeared on banned sites - would rub salt into the wound, which has already been swollen many times over. The government should learn from our three-decade-old political experience that polarisation should be prevented at all costs.

In cyberspace the public does not have to choose between the royal domain or the public domain because both can co-exist and complement each other.

Kavi Chongkittavorn