Arrest warrant issued as accused skips ruling

[Lite Beer]

Arrest warrant issued as accused skips ruling
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- AN ARREST warrant was issued for Noppawan Tangudomsuk, who has been charged with lese majeste, after she failed to show up for a Supreme Court verdict yesterday.

The defendant had posted a message on the now-defunct Prachatai webboard in 2007 that was deemed a violation of Article 112 and the Computer Crime Act BE 2550 - charges she has denied.

However, she did not show up at the court yesterday. Only her father, who acts as her bailsman and lawyer, came to the court.

He told the court that he had been unable to contact Noppawan.

The court deemed her failure to show up as intentional. Therefore, the arrest warrant was issued and the bail of Bt1 million seized.

The court yesterday scheduled another hearing on October 20 at 9.30am. Also, the bailsman-cum-lawyer was ordered to bring Noppawan to the court or the verdict would be announced in her absence.

Noppawan's father revealed that he had talked to her on the phone and asked her to attend court and she had agreed to do so. However, he has been unable to contact her since September 8 Tuesday, he said.

In January 2011, a lower court dismissed the case against Noppawan as evidence produced by public prosecutors - an IP address belonging to her computer - could not prove that she was the person who had posted the offensive message in question.

However, the prosecutors appealed against the ruling. In October 2013, the Appeals Court reversed the lower court's verdict. It noted that a prosecution witness who was a public servant had insisted that tampering with an IP address was difficult. Also, to post a message on the webboard, the user was required to provide a password, which was enough to prove that Noppawan had posted the message.

The court ruled that she had breached the Computer Crime Act and Article 112 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum five-year imprisonment. Noppawan, however, appealed against the ruling and was released on Bt1 million bail.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Arrest-warrant-issued-as-accused-skips-ruling-30268639.html

-- The Nation 2015-09-12

[ChrisY1]

Can't say I blame her for running......she probably only upset someone of "importance"......they want her gone which will most likely be years rotting in some hell hole prison because of this insideous law!

[worgeordie]

Looking at 20-30 years in jail,I would be on my toes as well.

regards Worgeordie

[jaywalker]

The LM law is .... well I do not agree with it at all.

[cgphuket]

Wow, she did this in 2007 and the case is still being processed? Speedy Thai legal systyem.

[NongKhaiKid]

Wow, she did this in 2007 and the case is still being processed? Speedy Thai legal systyem.

It was fast tracked !

[rubl]

"Computer Crime Act and Article 112 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum five-year imprisonment"

It looks like the "Article 112" part of the alleged offence is deemed minimal, as LM can easily get you 15 or more years. The CCA part I can not judge without more details.

Note that also in the Western world (and Australia) more and more one cannot just post whatever comes to ones mind.

[metisdead]

1) You will not express disrespect of the King of Thailand or any one member of the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution.

By law, the Thai Royal Family are above politics. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family.

Discussion of the Lese Majeste law or Lese Majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or speculation is made referencing the royal family.

To breach these rules may result in immediate ban.

Linking to external sites which break these rules will be treated as if you yourself posted them.

[Your Thainess]

Do these Muppet prosecutors not understand the concept of double-jeopardy?

How on earth do they have a right to appeal an acquittal?

Edited September 12, 2015 by Your Thainess

[Your Thainess]

Frankly, H.M. is the least objectionable part of the entire charade. He takes his job seriously and I wish him good health.

[ramrod711]

The court yesterday scheduled another hearing on October 20 at 9.30am. Also, the bailsman-cum-lawyer was ordered to bring Noppawan to the court or the verdict would be announced in her absence.

Convict someone in absentia? What a novel idea, I'm sure we can all think of other cases where it could, and should, be applied.

[AGareth2]

1 M v 20 years?

[springheeled jack]

to say the thai law is archaic would be a complete misnomer its so far gone a complete regenerative system would be in order to bring it up to date with the civilised world .

[waldroj]

With respect, although I am a farang visitor living in Thailand, I would like to submit extracts from two documents by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to this forum.

The first document, (http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11478&LangID=E) dated 10 October 2011, points out that “…Thailand has been a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 1996, which contains legally binding human rights obligations, including the obligation to fully guarantee the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds…”.

Although the UN does concede that “… the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities. For this reason, under certain exceptional circumstances, the right may be limited, including to protect the reputation of individuals and to protect national security”.

However the UN goes on to say “However, to prevent any abuse of this exceptional rule for purposes beyond the intended aim, any law that limits the right to freedom of expression must be clear and unambiguous regarding the specific type of expression that is prohibited, and proven to be necessary and proportionate for the intended purposes.

The UN believes that the Thai penal code and the Computer Crimes Act do not meet these criteria, suggesting that “…the laws are vague and overly broad, and the harsh criminal sanctions are neither necessary nor proportionate to protect the monarchy or national security…”.

The UN also raised concerns over the 2007 Computer Crimes Act and its use by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, in cooperation with the Royal Thai Army, to reportedly block hundreds of thousands of websites that contain commentary on the Thai monarchy.

In the second document, (http://www.ohchr.org/ch/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16310&LangID=E), dated 11 August 2015, the UN says, "…We are appalled by the shockingly disproportionate prison terms handed down over the past few months in lèse-majesté cases in Thailand. On 7 August 2015, the Bangkok Military Court sentenced travel agent Phongsak Sribunpeng to 30 years in prison for violating Section 112 of the Criminal Code (also known as the lèse-majesté law). Sribunpeng was convicted for six Facebook posts that were critical of members of the Royal Family. The sentence was initially 60 years – 10 years for each Facebook post – but this was reduced due to his guilty plea. On the same day, the Chiang Mai Military Court handed a 28-year prison term to Sasiwimol Patomwongfa-ngarm, a hotel staff, for posting seven comments on Facebook critical of the monarchy. The sentence was reduced from 56 years because of her guilty plea..."

The UN also says, "... Another particularly harsh sentence was handed down in March 2015, when the Bangkok Military Court convicted Thiansutham Suttijitseranee to 25 years in prison for posting five comments criticizing the monarchy on Facebook...”.

In the same document, the UN specifically notes, “…We are also alarmed at the spike in harsh prison terms delivered in such cases by the military courts, which themselves fail to meet international human rights standards, including the right to a fair trial. The public has been barred from entry and in many instances there is no possibility of appeal. International law requires that trials of civilians by military courts should be exceptional, and military trials must afford all due process guarantees provided for under international human rights law...”

The UN goes on to say, “…We call for the immediate release of all those who have been jailed or held in prolonged pre-trial detention for the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression. We also urge the military government to amend the vague and broad lèse-majesté law to bring it in line with international human rights standards. Until the law is amended, such laws should not be used arbitrarily to curb debate on critical issues of public interest, even when it involves criticism of heads of State or Government...”

In addition to the above, you should also see a recent (no date) article by Political Prisoners in Thailand at https://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/decidedcases/noppawan-tangudomsukbento/.

Finally, unless someone can confirm otherwise, there appears to be no Statute of Limitation on lèse-majesté in this country.

It would be nice to think that the UN will raise the issue of lèse-majesté with Tuu during his visit later this month. It would be priceless to see how the little general handles the foreign media event that follows.

[waldroj]

Do these Muppet prosecutors not understand the concept of double-jeopardy?

How on earth do they have a right to appeal an acquittal?

Your Thainess

In response to your question, see http://datab.us/i/L%C3%A8se%20majest%C3%A9%20in%20Thailand.

It identifies that, on 1 October 2013, Sondhi Limthongkul+, founder of the People's Alliance for Democracy+ (PAD) was declared guilty of lèse majesté for quoting remarks made by an opponent protesting the 2008 resumption of PAD protests+. The appeals court in so doing reversed a lower court acquittal (Thailand has no bar to double jeopardy+) handed down on 26 September 2012.

The lèse majesté had resulted from Sondhi's having quoted remarks made by (sic) Daranee Chanchoengsilpakul.

Daranee "Da Torpedo" was sentenced in April 2009 to 18 years in prison without suspension for "intending to insult" Bhumibol and Sirikit.

"Da Torpedo" had not actually mentioned the monarchs, but had criticized, among other things, the "ruling class."

The court in 2009 had held that the prosecution had "brought evidence that makes it possible to interpret that the defendant meant the King and Queen Sirikit."

The 2013 ruling reversing Sondhi's 2012 acquittal upholds prosecution for whatever words Sondhi had quoted, but for much less than "18 years in prison without suspension." Sondhi was sentenced to two years imprisonment for defaming the monarchy, then released after posting 500,000 baht ($15,935) in bail.

[NOC]

"Computer Crime Act and Article 112 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum five-year imprisonment"

It looks like the "Article 112" part of the alleged offence is deemed minimal, as LM can easily get you 15 or more years. The CCA part I can not judge without more details.

Note that also in the Western world (and Australia) more and more one cannot just post whatever comes to ones mind.

You can post whatever you want in the western world.

This story is about the assbackward CCA laws of Thailand.

[LannaGuy]

"Computer Crime Act and Article 112 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum five-year imprisonment"

It looks like the "Article 112" part of the alleged offence is deemed minimal, as LM can easily get you 15 or more years. The CCA part I can not judge without more details.

Note that also in the Western world (and Australia) more and more one cannot just post whatever comes to ones mind.

nonsense post in UK I can give my opinion about censored as I wish without fear of LM

[WhizBang]

"Computer Crime Act and Article 112 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum five-year imprisonment"

It looks like the "Article 112" part of the alleged offence is deemed minimal, as LM can easily get you 15 or more years. The CCA part I can not judge without more details.

Note that also in the Western world (and Australia) more and more one cannot just post whatever comes to ones mind.

And how long do you think it will be before we cannot say what we want too.

Oh, right. Never mind.

[elgordo38]

Do these Muppet prosecutors not understand the concept of double-jeopardy?

How on earth do they have a right to appeal an acquittal?

Is there really double jeopardy here? It seems some of these archaic laws are in a league of their own. If the rich and powerful want a certain decision well they can pound away at will till they get the desired results. I think the young lady realizes she is in a loose loose situation and headed for the hills.

[Mudcrab]

With respect, although I am a farang visitor living in Thailand, I would like to submit extracts from two documents by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to this forum.

The first document, (http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11478&LangID=E) dated 10 October 2011, points out that “…Thailand has been a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 1996, which contains legally binding human rights obligations, including the obligation to fully guarantee the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds…”.

Although the UN does concede that “… the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities. For this reason, under certain exceptional circumstances, the right may be limited, including to protect the reputation of individuals and to protect national security”.

However the UN goes on to say “However, to prevent any abuse of this exceptional rule for purposes beyond the intended aim, any law that limits the right to freedom of expression must be clear and unambiguous regarding the specific type of expression that is prohibited, and proven to be necessary and proportionate for the intended purposes.

The UN believes that the Thai penal code and the Computer Crimes Act do not meet these criteria, suggesting that “…the laws are vague and overly broad, and the harsh criminal sanctions are neither necessary nor proportionate to protect the monarchy or national security…”.

The UN also raised concerns over the 2007 Computer Crimes Act and its use by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, in cooperation with the Royal Thai Army, to reportedly block hundreds of thousands of websites that contain commentary on the Thai monarchy.

In the second document, (http://www.ohchr.org/ch/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16310&LangID=E), dated 11 August 2015, the UN says, "…We are appalled by the shockingly disproportionate prison terms handed down over the past few months in lèse-majesté cases in Thailand. On 7 August 2015, the Bangkok Military Court sentenced travel agent Phongsak Sribunpeng to 30 years in prison for violating Section 112 of the Criminal Code (also known as the lèse-majesté law). Sribunpeng was convicted for six Facebook posts that were critical of members of the Royal Family. The sentence was initially 60 years – 10 years for each Facebook post – but this was reduced due to his guilty plea. On the same day, the Chiang Mai Military Court handed a 28-year prison term to Sasiwimol Patomwongfa-ngarm, a hotel staff, for posting seven comments on Facebook critical of the monarchy. The sentence was reduced from 56 years because of her guilty plea..."

The UN also says, "... Another particularly harsh sentence was handed down in March 2015, when the Bangkok Military Court convicted Thiansutham Suttijitseranee to 25 years in prison for posting five comments criticizing the monarchy on Facebook...”.

In the same document, the UN specifically notes, “…We are also alarmed at the spike in harsh prison terms delivered in such cases by the military courts, which themselves fail to meet international human rights standards, including the right to a fair trial. The public has been barred from entry and in many instances there is no possibility of appeal. International law requires that trials of civilians by military courts should be exceptional, and military trials must afford all due process guarantees provided for under international human rights law...”

The UN goes on to say, “…We call for the immediate release of all those who have been jailed or held in prolonged pre-trial detention for the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression. We also urge the military government to amend the vague and broad lèse-majesté law to bring it in line with international human rights standards. Until the law is amended, such laws should not be used arbitrarily to curb debate on critical issues of public interest, even when it involves criticism of heads of State or Government...”

In addition to the above, you should also see a recent (no date) article by Political Prisoners in Thailand at https://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/decidedcases/noppawan-tangudomsukbento/.

Finally, unless someone can confirm otherwise, there appears to be no Statute of Limitation on lèse-majesté in this country.

It would be nice to think that the UN will raise the issue of lèse-majesté with Tuu during his visit later this month. It would be priceless to see how the little general handles the foreign media event that follows.

The UN is a waste of space, time and money and has been for many, many years.

It's only purpose seems to be as a medium to supply retirement positions for has been politicians and diplomats.

As well as a reference point for lefty/greenie sycophants who cannot handle the reality of the world we live and insist that well all love each other and will obey the "rules" of an institution that is well past it's use by date.

A hundred or more countries send thousands of taxpayer funded leeches to the UN only to have any meaningful outcomes vetoed by a very small number of countries whose power is based solely on the outcome of a conflict that concluded over 70 years ago.

Time for this archaic institution to go.

[gk10002000]

Do these Muppet prosecutors not understand the concept of double-jeopardy?

How on earth do they have a right to appeal an acquittal?

Normally I would agree with you, except even here in the USA I constantly see people getting retried. So I don't understand double-jeopardy as I think I used to

[SOTIRIOS]

....you cannot 'post whatever you want' in the rest of the world....

[sjaak327]

"Computer Crime Act and Article 112 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum five-year imprisonment"

It looks like the "Article 112" part of the alleged offence is deemed minimal, as LM can easily get you 15 or more years. The CCA part I can not judge without more details.

Note that also in the Western world (and Australia) more and more one cannot just post whatever comes to ones mind.

Oh please dear rubl, the sooner the draconian lesse majeste laws are shelved the better. The subject at hand has hinted at this on several occasions by the way.

Personally I think anywone should be able to post whatever comes to mind, providing it doesn't instigate hatred against other people.

[espinoza]

Be careful, just critisism of this law can get you jailed in the democratic Thailand with the happy people. Reconciliation, where, and how???

[espinoza]

One more nail in the coffin.

[stevenl]

Do these Muppet prosecutors not understand the concept of double-jeopardy?

How on earth do they have a right to appeal an acquittal?

Obviously you don't.

[BSJ]

With respect, although I am a farang visitor living in Thailand, I would like to submit extracts from two documents by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to this forum.

The first document, (http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11478&LangID=E) dated 10 October 2011, points out that “…Thailand has been a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 1996, which contains legally binding human rights obligations, including the obligation to fully guarantee the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds…”.

Although the UN does concede that “… the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities. For this reason, under certain exceptional circumstances, the right may be limited, including to protect the reputation of individuals and to protect national security”.

However the UN goes on to say “However, to prevent any abuse of this exceptional rule for purposes beyond the intended aim, any law that limits the right to freedom of expression must be clear and unambiguous regarding the specific type of expression that is prohibited, and proven to be necessary and proportionate for the intended purposes.

The UN believes that the Thai penal code and the Computer Crimes Act do not meet these criteria, suggesting that “…the laws are vague and overly broad, and the harsh criminal sanctions are neither necessary nor proportionate to protect the monarchy or national security…”.

The UN also raised concerns over the 2007 Computer Crimes Act and its use by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, in cooperation with the Royal Thai Army, to reportedly block hundreds of thousands of websites that contain commentary on the Thai monarchy.

In the second document, (http://www.ohchr.org/ch/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16310&LangID=E), dated 11 August 2015, the UN says, "…We are appalled by the shockingly disproportionate prison terms handed down over the past few months in lèse-majesté cases in Thailand. On 7 August 2015, the Bangkok Military Court sentenced travel agent Phongsak Sribunpeng to 30 years in prison for violating Section 112 of the Criminal Code (also known as the lèse-majesté law). Sribunpeng was convicted for six Facebook posts that were critical of members of the Royal Family. The sentence was initially 60 years – 10 years for each Facebook post – but this was reduced due to his guilty plea. On the same day, the Chiang Mai Military Court handed a 28-year prison term to Sasiwimol Patomwongfa-ngarm, a hotel staff, for posting seven comments on Facebook critical of the monarchy. The sentence was reduced from 56 years because of her guilty plea..."

The UN also says, "... Another particularly harsh sentence was handed down in March 2015, when the Bangkok Military Court convicted Thiansutham Suttijitseranee to 25 years in prison for posting five comments criticizing the monarchy on Facebook...”.

In the same document, the UN specifically notes, “…We are also alarmed at the spike in harsh prison terms delivered in such cases by the military courts, which themselves fail to meet international human rights standards, including the right to a fair trial. The public has been barred from entry and in many instances there is no possibility of appeal. International law requires that trials of civilians by military courts should be exceptional, and military trials must afford all due process guarantees provided for under international human rights law...”

The UN goes on to say, “…We call for the immediate release of all those who have been jailed or held in prolonged pre-trial detention for the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression. We also urge the military government to amend the vague and broad lèse-majesté law to bring it in line with international human rights standards. Until the law is amended, such laws should not be used arbitrarily to curb debate on critical issues of public interest, even when it involves criticism of heads of State or Government...”

In addition to the above, you should also see a recent (no date) article by Political Prisoners in Thailand at https://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/decidedcases/noppawan-tangudomsukbento/.

Finally, unless someone can confirm otherwise, there appears to be no Statute of Limitation on lèse-majesté in this country.

It would be nice to think that the UN will raise the issue of lèse-majesté with Tuu during his visit later this month. It would be priceless to see how the little general handles the foreign media event that follows.

The UN is a waste of space, time and money and has been for many, many years.

It's only purpose seems to be as a medium to supply retirement positions for has been politicians and diplomats.

As well as a reference point for lefty/greenie sycophants who cannot handle the reality of the world we live and insist that well all love each other and will obey the "rules" of an institution that is well past it's use by date.

A hundred or more countries send thousands of taxpayer funded leeches to the UN only to have any meaningful outcomes vetoed by a very small number of countries whose power is based solely on the outcome of a conflict that concluded over 70 years ago.

Time for this archaic institution to go.

"Time for this archaic institution to go." Yes, time for Australia to be done with this parasitic organisation.

[waldroj]

With respect, although I am a farang visitor living in Thailand, I would like to submit extracts from two documents by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to this forum.

The first document, (http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11478&LangID=E) dated 10 October 2011, points out that Thailand has been a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 1996, which contains legally binding human rights obligations, including the obligation to fully guarantee the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.

Although the UN does concede that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities. For this reason, under certain exceptional circumstances, the right may be limited, including to protect the reputation of individuals and to protect national security.

However the UN goes on to say However, to prevent any abuse of this exceptional rule for purposes beyond the intended aim, any law that limits the right to freedom of expression must be clear and unambiguous regarding the specific type of expression that is prohibited, and proven to be necessary and proportionate for the intended purposes.

The UN believes that the Thai penal code and the Computer Crimes Act do not meet these criteria, suggesting that the laws are vague and overly broad, and the harsh criminal sanctions are neither necessary nor proportionate to protect the monarchy or national security.

The UN also raised concerns over the 2007 Computer Crimes Act and its use by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, in cooperation with the Royal Thai Army, to reportedly block hundreds of thousands of websites that contain commentary on the Thai monarchy.

In the second document, (http://www.ohchr.org/ch/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16310&LangID=E), dated 11 August 2015, the UN says, "We are appalled by the shockingly disproportionate prison terms handed down over the past few months in lèse-majesté cases in Thailand. On 7 August 2015, the Bangkok Military Court sentenced travel agent Phongsak Sribunpeng to 30 years in prison for violating Section 112 of the Criminal Code (also known as the lèse-majesté law). Sribunpeng was convicted for six Facebook posts that were critical of members of the Royal Family. The sentence was initially 60 years 10 years for each Facebook post but this was reduced due to his guilty plea. On the same day, the Chiang Mai Military Court handed a 28-year prison term to Sasiwimol Patomwongfa-ngarm, a hotel staff, for posting seven comments on Facebook critical of the monarchy. The sentence was reduced from 56 years because of her guilty plea..."

The UN also says, "... Another particularly harsh sentence was handed down in March 2015, when the Bangkok Military Court convicted Thiansutham Suttijitseranee to 25 years in prison for posting five comments criticizing the monarchy on Facebook....

In the same document, the UN specifically notes, We are also alarmed at the spike in harsh prison terms delivered in such cases by the military courts, which themselves fail to meet international human rights standards, including the right to a fair trial. The public has been barred from entry and in many instances there is no possibility of appeal. International law requires that trials of civilians by military courts should be exceptional, and military trials must afford all due process guarantees provided for under international human rights law...

The UN goes on to say, We call for the immediate release of all those who have been jailed or held in prolonged pre-trial detention for the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression. We also urge the military government to amend the vague and broad lèse-majesté law to bring it in line with international human rights standards. Until the law is amended, such laws should not be used arbitrarily to curb debate on critical issues of public interest, even when it involves criticism of heads of State or Government...

In addition to the above, you should also see a recent (no date) article by Political Prisoners in Thailand at https://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/decidedcases/noppawan-tangudomsukbento/.

Finally, unless someone can confirm otherwise, there appears to be no Statute of Limitation on lèse-majesté in this country.

It would be nice to think that the UN will raise the issue of lèse-majesté with Tuu during his visit later this month. It would be priceless to see how the little general handles the foreign media event that follows.

The UN is a waste of space, time and money and has been for many, many years.

It's only purpose seems to be as a medium to supply retirement positions for has been politicians and diplomats.

As well as a reference point for lefty/greenie sycophants who cannot handle the reality of the world we live and insist that well all love each other and will obey the "rules" of an institution that is well past it's use by date.

A hundred or more countries send thousands of taxpayer funded leeches to the UN only to have any meaningful outcomes vetoed by a very small number of countries whose power is based solely on the outcome of a conflict that concluded over 70 years ago.

Time for this archaic institution to go.

"Time for this archaic institution to go." Yes, time for Australia to be done with this parasitic organisation.

Way off topic (both of you).

[rubl]

"Computer Crime Act and Article 112 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum five-year imprisonment"

It looks like the "Article 112" part of the alleged offence is deemed minimal, as LM can easily get you 15 or more years. The CCA part I can not judge without more details.

Note that also in the Western world (and Australia) more and more one cannot just post whatever comes to ones mind.

You can post whatever you want in the western world.

This story is about the assbackward CCA laws of Thailand.

Of course you can post whatever you want. You also take the consequences.

Not only in Thailand we have the CCA, also in the Western World. For example the UK 2003 Communication Act.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/13/jail-someone-for-being-offensive-twitter-facebook

[manarak]

Do these Muppet prosecutors not understand the concept of double-jeopardy?

How on earth do they have a right to appeal an acquittal?

LOL, what planet are you coming from?

Both sides can appeal a ruling.