9/18/2019 Case | Freedom of Expression Documentation Center | น อ ลกฎหมายและค เส ภาพ   Reference Regarding requirements for webboard use, Dr. Kittibhum said that prior to 2006, users were not required to subscribe. But after the coup, a requirement was put in place for   subscription and obtaining a password from the website. Prachatai webboard also had a special feature to have illegal posts removed including allowing webboard users to click o removal button (recorded by the Court as allowing the readers to notify the webmaster) in order to notify the webmaster about the presence of inappropriate statements. The readers who wanted any posts removed were allowed to explain their reasons to the webmaster, too. After 2006, readers were encouraged to help look after the Prachatai webboard and they could help to remove illegal posts directly. And he was one of the volunteers recruited to do the job.     Dr. Kittibhum helped to remove several articles and posts relying on his own discretion and no advice from the state.     Dr. Kittibhum further testified that prior to the 2006 coup, there were not many users in Prachatai webboard. But after that, the number of topic per day has risen sharply to 300. The Judge asked him how many comments were made per day then? Dr. Kittibhum remained silent. The Judge said the prosecutor did not object, and you could just say it. Dr. Kittibhum replied that there should be no less than 15,000 comments made per day making it impossible for the webmaster to screen every post.     At this moment, the Judge asked the witness directly that “it made the screening of comments….” And Dr. Kittibhum replied that “it was impossible”. Then the Judge added ”very difficult”, and the Judge recorded his own word.     Dr. Kittibhum further testified that in terms of the monitoring of illegal comments, if any of them are found to be “precarious” (to national security and personal safety, added by the Judge), they shall be immediately removed. On this issue, the Judge continued asking that the removal of comments rested on whose discretion? Dr. Kittibhum reiterated that it was up to his own discretion and the rules of the webboard.   At this point, the Judge simply stopped the witness examination to replace the recording machine with a new one. Presumably, the old one was broken. After the replacement, the Judge resumed the session by asking the witness to state his first name, last name, age, address, position again for the sake of recording. And then the Judge went on to ask questions to the witness and asked the witness to repeat what he had said since the beginning. But for some part that the Judge remembered, he just spoke it into the microphone without waiting for the witness to repeat himself, particularly about how Prachatai website was operated and regarding the removal button. It was recorded by the Judge himself and the contents seemed to be consistent with the testimonies given by the witness in the first place.     Then, at the same point where he paused, the Judge allowed the lawyer to ask the question and to continue the examination. As for a question regarding users of webboard, Dr. Kittibhum said that it was composed of both those pro and anti coup.     As for the screening of contents in the webboard, Dr. Kittibhum said he was not assigned to look out on any particular issues. He was aware that several members had been recruited by the webboard to help to look after it, but had no idea how many of them. He did not know any members personally, except their log in names used for posting their comments. Their role was to notify the webmaster about the removal of inappropriate posts and they were later called “voluntary webboard caretakers”.   The lawyer asked how better Prachatai compared to other webboards? The Court did not permit the question. The lawyer asked further about his use of the webboard. Dr. Kittibhum said that he had been using it from 2004 – 2010, until it was terminated with unknown reasons. But the website featuring news still remains. His involving in monitoring postings in the webboard was done outside working hours, from 21.00 to midnight.     Around 10.30 am, the prosecutor got into the Courtroom asking the Court to conduct his re-examination, but since he had no idea about what had been testified, the Judge told hi so in brief including the volunteer system to help monitor postings in the webboard.   Re-examination by the prosecutor     The prosecutor asked who had the right to remove any inappropriate posts in the webboard. Dr. Kittibhum said it was not just the webmaster, but users were also allowed to request for removal of any posts, but the final say rested with the webmaster. But normally, for obviously inappropriate posts, the webmaster shall have them removed immediately The prosecutor further asked that in this case, there were certain posts that appeared online for 11 days, and why was that so? Dr. Kittibhum said he had no idea about that.     The prosecutor had no more questions to ask.     14 February 2012 Examination of witness no.5, Ms. Sawatree Suksri (second round)   Around 10.32 am, the Judge invited Ms. Sawatree back in to testify again, and was consulting with the defence lawyers concerning the last witness in the afternoon. The Judge explained about the issues to be adduced by Ms. Sawatree and asked if the prosecutor had any objection. The prosecutor said that "we could just go by the facts. Thai laws shou be subjected to interpretation by the Thai authorities. Lawyer Theeraphan asked for the Judge’s permission to have the witness explain another issue. The Judge said “ormally, he would not allow a witness to express opinions since was like having them to teach law to the Court. “If you want to guide the Court’s opinion, you’d better write it in the closing argument. Witness examination should just concern facts. There is no use in simply stating opinions, since they are not facts concerning the case” said the Judge.     The accused tried to explain that the witness was supposed to expound on facts concerning procedure in the drafting of the CCA. Ms. Sawatree asked the Court what to do since no grace period of time for removing any illegal posts is specified in the Act? The Judge said it is subject to the discretion of the Court. “The Court does not have to believe in wha you say. The Court may consider what to consider by themselves. You’ve got to understand the Court, too. You’ve got to be fair with the Court. And the Court has tried to look for things in favour of you”.     Around 10.35 am, Lawyer Saengchai Rattanaseriwong, leading defence lawyer arrived in the Courtroom.   The accused asked the Court if it is possible to bring into the trial documents concerning the drafting of the Act? The Court said yes, but also said that “conducting examination lik this would be too abstract. The Court tried to help. And legally, a closing argument could be submitted and it is a chance to convince the Court. There is no attempt to derail the examination. But these are all about opinions, not facts”. The lawyer tried to explain to the Judge to ask him to allow the continuation of the examination of the current witness.     https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/112#circumstance_of_arrest 22/26