Content Regulation / Censorship, Gender Expression, Indecency / Obscenity
The State v. Momar Sowe and Alieu Sarr
Closed Contracts Expression
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
In November 2010, Thailand’s Censorship Committee and the National Film Board banned the screening of the movie “Insects in the Backyard,” directed by Tanwarin Sukkhapisit. The film, which has been shown in a number of film festivals, concerns sexuality and gender identity in Thai society. The ban, however, found it against public order and morality because it contained scenes of sexual intercourse and prostitution by boys and girls while wearing student uniforms. In particular, it includes a three-second scene in which the main character is watching pornography.
Upon the denial, the director brought an action against the committee and the board in the Administrative Court of Thailand. In December 2015, the court dismissed the action on the ground that the movie was pornographic because of its scene depicting sexual intercourse. Pursuant to Article 287 of the Criminal Code, pornography is illegal because it is considered to be against public order and morality.
Columbia Global Freedom of Expression could not identify the official legal and government records on the case and that the information contained in this report was derived from secondary sources. It must be noted that media outlets may not provide complete information about this case. Additional information regarding this legal matter will be updated as an official source becomes available.
“Insects in the Backyard” is a drama movie on LGBT rights; it concerns a family relationship in which the father is openly transsexual. However, he does his best as a father for his two children after his wife passed away while giving birth to the second child of the family. The two children, uneasy about their father’s gender identity, inform others that he is their sister. On November 4, 2010, Thailand’s Censorship Committee denied issuing permission to screen the movie, finding it against public order and morality. Then on November 23, 2010, the committee again denied the request filed by the film’s director, Tanwarin Sukkhapisit.
Subsequently, on December 18, 2010, the directer appealed the denial to the National Film Board of Thailand. The board affirmed denial on the grounds that the movie, among others, contained scenes of sexual intercourse and prostitution by boys and girls while wearing student uniforms. He then brought a lawsuit against the board in the Administrative Court of Thailand. She submitted the following arguments against the ban:
The Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit. It considered the movie as pornography, which is against pubic order and morality and illegal under to Article 287 of Thailand’s Criminal Code. This consideration was primarily based on the film’s three-second scene showing its main character watching a movie that contained sexual intercourse. While the Court did not find the film was intended to create sexual arousal, the impugned scene made the entire film illegal. It further ruled that the film could be given permission to be shown to individuals of at least 20 year of age if the director removed the scene and submitted the request to the National Board again.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
The case marks the first case on film censorship under the Film and Video Act B.E. 2551 (2008) that has reached the Administrative Court of Thialand.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.