webfact Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Website editor's trial in Thailand a test case for media freedom The editor of the popular Thai website Prachatai.com faces up to 50 years in jail for hosting comments that the government charges undermine national security. By Simon Montlake Bangkok, Thailand: -- In a closely watched test case for media freedom in Thailand, a website editor went on trial Friday over antimonarchy comments posted on a Web forum. Under Thailand’s tough cybercrime law, website administrators can be held liable for hosting illegal content, including material that undermines national security. If found guilty on 10 counts, Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the editor and webmaster of Prachatai.com, faces up to 50 years in jail. She denies the charges and says that she cooperated with government requests to remove offensive postings. A verdict in the trial is expected by early April. A close US ally, Thailand was once seen as an outpost of media freedom in Southeast Asia. But its reputation has fallen sharply in recent years. Crackdowns on political street protests have been accompanied by increased restrictions on online media, with tens of thousands of websites blocked by court order or under emergency military rule. Media-freedom activists say Ms. Chiranuch’s case is part of this broader trend of censorship and has helped to chill online debate. Prachatai closed its online forums last year and other popular sites have either closed forums or restricted the use of anonymous comments. Web operators argue that it’s impossible to screen real-time comments for illegal content. Shawn Crispin, a representative of the Committee to Protect Journalists who attended Friday’s hearing, said Chiranuch was the first Thai webmaster tried under the Computer Crime Act, which was passed in 2007 by a military-appointed legislature. “We believe she shouldn’t be held liable for content posted by an anonymous poster,” he says. Much of the wave of censorship concerns the role of Thailand’s royal family in the country’s turbulent politics. Strict lèse-majesté laws prevent open discussion of the monarchy, and scores of people have been prosecuted in recent years for offending the crown. The mainstream media rarely report on such cases, and families of the accused often prefer anonymity. During Friday’s hearing, a prosecution witness described a string of comments on Prachatai’s web forum that related to the monarchy. He claimed that the website had also hosted an audio clip by a supporter of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The same activist was convicted in 2009 of defaming the monarchy and sentenced to 18 years in jail. A separate criminal charge against Chiranuch is pending in a regional court. Under a century-old lèse-majesté law, which carries a jail sentence of up to 15 years, anyone can file a complaint for speech or words that defame members of the royal family. Foreign journalists have also faced accusations, though none have been charged. Conservatives argue that the law is justified and accuse Mr. Thaksin's supporters of orchestrating a campaign to undermine the monarchy, which is seen as vulnerable due to the ill health of the elderly ruler, King Bhumibol Adulyadej. He has been confined to a hospital since September 2009. Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/0204/Website-editor-s-trial-in-Thailand-a-test-case-for-media-freedom -- csmonitor.com 2011-02-05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted February 5, 2011 Author Share Posted February 5, 2011 Trial against Prachatai boss seen as test case on online freedom By Pravit Rojanaphruk The Nation Chiranuch Premchaiporn's trial over computer crime charges began yesterday and attracted some 40 supporters and observers, all of whom are interested to see how this case against the freedom of expression pans out. The accused is the director of the non-profit online newspaper Prachatai.com. The Information and Communication Technology Ministry is charging Chiranuch of violating the computer crime law by failing to immediately remove 10 anonymous postings that allegedly defamed the monarchy from her website's webboard. According to the plaintiff, Chiranuch, as director of Prachatai.com, should be held legally responsible as she was in charge of the board. The webboard has been removed since last July. If found guilty, she could face a combined prison term of up to 50 years. "Obviously, it's an important test case where Internet freedom in Thailand is concerned. Obviously, the prosecutor is trying to take the case down the lese majeste track," said Shawn Crispin, the Southeast Asia representative for the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). Crispin, who was present at the trial as an obsrerver, said that since Chiranuch is a third party in the alleged crime, she should not be held responsible for anonymous users who cannot be prosecuted. "It is at this juncture where the right to freedom of expression and information will be determined," Chuwat Rerksirisuk, editor of Prachatai.com, said. The first witness to testify and be cross-examined yesterday was Aree Jiworarak from the ICT Ministry. He told the four judges that Chiranuch should have screened the comments before allowing them to be posted on the website. Some observers told The Nation that this suggestion goes against the nature of online communication, which is fluid and instantaneous. In the cross-examination by Chiranuch's lawyers, Aree was asked if he could differentiate between remarks that slandered the monarchy and those that were a mere expression of opposition or disapproval of conduct related to the 2006 coup. "Thailand has been able to survive so far because of the monarchy. We have a big debt of gratitude and what can be endured [without speaking out] should be done," Aree told the court. In response to this, one Thai observer told The Nation that criticism should not be confused with libel. During the testimony, Aree also warned that there were "many more" cases against Prachatai.com in the pipeline. While Chiranuch appeared calm and in good spirits, observers remained divided as to what will happen in the end. "This case will be used as an example [to scare others]," an observer who asked not to be named said. The next hearing is on Tuesday and both sides have 13 witnesses lined up. -- The Nation 2011-02-05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swifty5x5 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Banana republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boater Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 they would be very stupid to sentence her to a prison , would look like Thailand was going backwards ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBill Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 The Great Democracy! Seems like Thailand's government doesn't understand how bad this makes Thailand look in the eyes of the civilized world. They just keep taking steps backward into thrid world status. I compare them to Mexico in countries that just dont get it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truethailand Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 After Prems alleged comments to the American Ambassador...will he be next Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDrinker Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 The fact that it's even gone to trial means the damage is done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janverbeem Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 they would be very stupid to sentence her to a prison , would look like Thailand was going backwards ! You were almost correct in your comment,only it will not look like but it will demonstrate that Thailand is going backwards for a period of time already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marquess Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 they would be very stupid to sentence her to a prison , would look like Thailand was going backwards ! It is not a matter of Thailand going backwards, it has already gone backwards! It is just a matter of seeing how much further back it intends to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 After Prems alleged comments to the American Ambassador...will he be next He did not make them in public, but in a private conversation. It makes no matter if the corespondent was from USA or Thai, saying something privately is not illegal. The ones to prosecute are those that a stole those conversations and those that published them illegally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddiefalcon Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 they would be very stupid to sentence her to a prison , would look like Thailand was going backwards ! THailand is and has been going backwards for the last 5 years sicne the 2006 coup. DIdn't you notice. Compare it with all other Asean countries and it has slipped in every way, not least morally and ethically. Then look farther afield and see the booms occurring in Brazil etc and whilst these were once countries considered third world they have made massive leaps forward whilst Thailand steps backward because of small-minded thinking, a talk not do attitude, poor English skills and a xenophobia that is beyond belief! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDrinker Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 they would be very stupid to sentence her to a prison , would look like Thailand was going backwards ! THailand is and has been going backwards for the last 5 years sicne the 2006 coup. DIdn't you notice. Compare it with all other Asean countries and it has slipped in every way, not least morally and ethically. Then look farther afield and see the booms occurring in Brazil etc and whilst these were once countries considered third world they have made massive leaps forward whilst Thailand steps backward because of small-minded thinking, a talk not do attitude, poor English skills and a xenophobia that is beyond belief! Sadly Eddie I agree with you utterly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truethailand Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 After Prems alleged comments to the American Ambassador...will he be next He did not make them in public, but in a private conversation. It makes no matter if the corespondent was from USA or Thai, saying something privately is not illegal. The ones to prosecute are those that a stole those conversations and those that published them illegally. It is my understanding that you can have a conversation in private with somebody or know of a conversation where the law was broken and any individual can make a complaint. It is then the job of the accused to prove he did not say them. Does the law make exceptions for things said in private. Please enlightem me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 It is my understanding that you can have a conversation in private with somebody or know of a conversation where the law was broken and any individual can make a complaint. It is then the job of the accused to prove he did not say them. Does the law make exceptions for things said in private. Please enlightem me Don't get me wrong, I think the LM laws are a major cause of Thailand's problems. BUT, a conversation in private really becomes a "hearsay" issue. How can you prove that YOU did not say something that ONE person says that you said? It should be on the complainants to prove that you said something, not on the accused to prove that they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 After Prems alleged comments to the American Ambassador...will he be next He did not make them in public, but in a private conversation. It makes no matter if the corespondent was from USA or Thai, saying something privately is not illegal. The ones to prosecute are those that a stole those conversations and those that published them illegally. On the contrary, if I say something bad about the monarchy in Thailand and only one person hears me it is still les majeste. Technically not even one person needs to hear me but I am probably not going to turn myself in in that case. Why was it illegal to publish the document in which those comments were recorded? Which law makes it illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 After Prems alleged comments to the American Ambassador...will he be next He did not make them in public, but in a private conversation. It makes no matter if the corespondent was from USA or Thai, saying something privately is not illegal. The ones to prosecute are those that a stole those conversations and those that published them illegally. On the contrary, if I say something bad about the monarchy in Thailand and only one person hears me it is still les majeste. Technically not even one person needs to hear me but I am probably not going to turn myself in in that case. Why was it illegal to publish the document in which those comments were recorded? Which law makes it illegal? Non-democratic laws in a non-democratic country Some people want to hang whistle blowers instead the wrong doers. LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackr Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Banana republic. Sure looks that way. It's almost as if we're in another century. They're only words after all (anonymous online ones at that) but will get you a life sentence; kill somebody and there's a chance you'll get off. I think even HM would be bewildered by all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 THAILAND: Trial of webmaster charged for computer crime resumes The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is calling for court observers at the resumption of the trial of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, director of the Prachai website, who is being prosecuted under the Computer Crime Act after her arrest in March 2009. The trial of her case, after it was delayed for a variety of reasons, will again resume on February 14 to 16, 2012 at the Criminal Court in Bangkok. The details about the schedule of trial and the witnesses on which the defense would be presenting are below: Dates: 14-16 February 2012 Venue: At Court Room 910, the Criminal Court on Ratchadapisek Road, Bangkok Witnesses for the defense: 1. Professor Sawatree Suksri, lecturer of the Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law at the Thammasat University. She is an expert on Computer Crime Law. 2. Professor Jittat Fakcharoenphol, Ph.D, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University. He is an expert on IT Technology 3. Doctor Kitibhoom Chutasmith, Director of Bhusing Hospital, Sri Sakhet Province. Prachatai Webboard user 4. Mr. Wanchat Bhadungrat, Founder of Pantip.com 5. Assistant Professor Pirongrong Ramasoota Rananan, Associate Dean, Department of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Communication Arts, Chulalongkorn University. She is a scholar in Mass Media who researched on the Internet Content Regulations Continues: http://www.humanrigh...RC-UAU-006-2012 Asian Human Rights Commission . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post AleG Posted February 21, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2012 LM law is the biggest insult to the Monarchy. If lawmakers would really be interested in protecting the image of the Royal Family they'll drop them or at least thoroughly modify them. As they are now they serve the purpose of giving petty, vindictive people power which otherwise wouldn't have to attack their enemies and in the process tarnish that which they claim to protect. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueExpat Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 The details about the schedule of trial and the witnesses on which the defense would be presenting are below: Dates: 14-16 February 2012 Any update/outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) LM law is the biggest insult to the Monarchy. If lawmakers would really be interested in protecting the image of the Royal Family they'll drop them or at least thoroughly modify them. As they are now they serve the purpose of giving petty, vindictive people power which otherwise wouldn't have to attack their enemies and in the process tarnish that which they claim to protect. Don't expect any change.... it's steady the course. he urged Pheu Thai MPs to meet with the public and clarify the party's stance towards charter rewrite that it intends to amend only Article 291 so as to pave the way for the establishment of the 99-member drafting assembly, without touching Article 112 of the Criminal Code In opposing any change to the Lese Majeste law, Thaksin said that the law has existed for a long time and has not posed any problem. But perhaps something might change for cases involving the Red Shirt Leaders Edited February 21, 2012 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocN Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 It is my understanding that you can have a conversation in private with somebody or know of a conversation where the law was broken and any individual can make a complaint. It is then the job of the accused to prove he did not say them. Does the law make exceptions for things said in private. Please enlightem me Don't get me wrong, I think the LM laws are a major cause of Thailand's problems. BUT, a conversation in private really becomes a "hearsay" issue. How can you prove that YOU did not say something that ONE person says that you said? It should be on the complainants to prove that you said something, not on the accused to prove that they didn't. The same way you prove that you don't know how to write an SMS.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Don't get me wrong, I think the LM laws are a major cause of Thailand's problems. BUT, a conversation in private really becomes a "hearsay" issue. How can you prove that YOU did not say something that ONE person says that you said? It should be on the complainants to prove that you said something, not on the accused to prove that they didn't. The same way you prove that you don't know how to write an SMS.... I think it's very hard to prove that you don't know how to do something, unless you're actually trying to prove that you do know how to do something and fail. In relation to what you are referring to, "it came from your phone" shouldn't be enough to prove that someone typed in and sent an SMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Private conversations aren't covered by lese majeste? Never heard that one..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catmac Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Just 2 relevant points here. Firstly, the Computer Crime Act was passed into law by a military junta that itself had no legal foundation. Secondly, Chiranuch Premchaiporn was charged in 2009, by officials acting for Abhisit's puppet regime, which itself had no electoral mandate. Time for Yingluck to sweep the whole kettle of stinking fish into the dustbin, after all, she does have the legitimacy of actually winning an election and should govern on behalf of the people, not a coterie of self important hi-so's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Just 2 relevant points here. Firstly, the Computer Crime Act was passed into law by a military junta that itself had no legal foundation. Secondly, Chiranuch Premchaiporn was charged in 2009, by officials acting for Abhisit's puppet regime, which itself had no electoral mandate. Time for Yingluck to sweep the whole kettle of stinking fish into the dustbin, after all, she does have the legitimacy of actually winning an election and should govern on behalf of the people, not a coterie of self important hi-so's. Rather than sweeping it into the dustbin, the current government is spending more money on enforcing the act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 One can only wish the defendant Good Luck, in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Just 2 relevant points here. Firstly, the Computer Crime Act was passed into law by a military junta that itself had no legal foundation. Secondly, Chiranuch Premchaiporn was charged in 2009, by officials acting for Abhisit's puppet regime, which itself had no electoral mandate. Time for Yingluck to sweep the whole kettle of stinking fish into the dustbin, after all, she does have the legitimacy of actually winning an election and should govern on behalf of the people, not a coterie of self important hi-so's. Both self-important hi-so's Yingluck and Thaksin have said there will be no changes to the law. Self-important hi-so Chalerm has established an LM "War Room" to scrutinize for even additional offenders. This is what the "people" have got from their "legitimately won election." . Edited February 21, 2012 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 While I disagree with the law in itself, the LM case isn't a real test of the media freedom here. Everything else they report, don't report or get shot or sued over is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimamey Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 LM law is the biggest insult to the Monarchy. If lawmakers would really be interested in protecting the image of the Royal Family they'll drop them or at least thoroughly modify them. As they are now they serve the purpose of giving petty, vindictive people power which otherwise wouldn't have to attack their enemies and in the process tarnish that which they claim to protect. Couldn't put it better myself. I wonder if anyone has ever asked His Majesty what he thinks since it is him, his family and the Monarchy in general that is supposed to be being protected. Even in illness he still talks more sense than most but they don't seem to listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now