9/18/2019 Case | Freedom of Expression Documentation Center | น อ ลกฎหมายและค เส ภาพ Chiranuch stated that during the investigation, she denied all the charges. Later on 7 April 2009, Lt. Col. Boonlert, through her attorney, asked for an appointment with her. During   Reference the meeting, she was told that nine more counts had been added against her.     She was aware that in his testimony to the inquiry officers in the case against Ms. Nopphawan, Mr. Aree concurred that Prachatai’s Director had given cooperation to block the access and the poster.     Chiranuch further explained that if a topic is blocked, the whole topic shall be removed. But if a comment is blocked, a remark shall appear that “comment no....is blocked by Prachatai.”   She continued with the meeting organized by MICT by saying that two of such meetings were held after the enforcement of CCA. Service providers from various websites have been invited to the meetings and she could not recall all of them. Participants also included police officers and MICT officers. The meetings were held since the Royal Thai Police deemed that there were many lèse-majesté posts, and cooperation was being sought.     Guidelines were laid down after the meeting including;   1. Identifying problems faced by each service provider 2. Identifying measures   3. Since no clear guidelines were laid down, it was left to the discretion of each service provider     Chiranuch said that the officers are also supposed to inform the service providers as well, should they spot any inappropriate posts. And if no action has been taken, more notification can be further made, and maybe legal action afterwards.     It is an issue for webmasters to consider which posts should be censored or not in order to comply with CCA. Also, there were no clear guidelines as to which contents should be deemed an insult to the monarchy.  Chiranuch said that measures have been improved at Prachatai since late 2006; each member was required to fill out a form of registration and to identify her or his email address Verification to confirm the existence of the email addresses would be done, too. Screening of contents was then conducted by both the staff members and volunteers. Initially, it was set that if thee members clicked on removal button in a post, that post shall be automatically removed. Later on, it was made more stringent and one click could result in the removal of such a post.     Chiranuch stated that some posts remained online as during the highly charged political period, many of such posts have been made and thus it was possible that some of them have not been spotted and removed. As for the post in Exhibit J32, she had not received any notification about the post from MICT before.     Chiranuch further said that “bento” posted the message on 15 October 2008, and one hour later, three comments were made. No more comments were made afterwards and as a result, the post did not show up on the first page of the webboard.     Limited online duration was also imposed. After a post was made for ten days, no more comments could be made, and such a post shall remain online for up to three months only     As for links to inappropriate clips, Chiranuch said that her notebook computer was installed with Thunderbird, an email client, which can receive any emails automatically and som attached filed can be downloaded automatically, too, once the computer got connected online. The data remains there, unless the whole computer data is wiped.     Chiranuch said that she knew none of the posters personally, except Ms. Nopphawan with whom she met when she stood as a prosecution witness in the case against her.     Prachatai webboard has been terminated since the end of July 2010 due to problems in management.     Cross-examination by prosecutor   After the first couple of questions, the Judge criticized the prosecutor for making redundant and unsubstantial questions since the questions asked dealt with issues already testified by the accused. The prosecutor decided to stop the examination.     Re-examination by defence lawyer   Chiranuch stated that when more charges were filed against her, no documents were given to her to read. On 7 April 2009, she was asked to acknowledge the addition of nine more counts stemming from nine URLs and was given no change to verify if the nine URLs really existed then. Only in Feb 2010, she was informed of their contents.     In comparison, there were many of messages detected and deleted by Prachatai itself than those notified by MICT.     The witness examination was completed in around two hours. There were many trial observers from national and international media and NGOs.     11 October 2011   Examination of witness no.4, Mr. Danny O’Brien, expert on internet law from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), USA, former IT consultant to Virgin.net, The Guardian, Wired and Channel 4   The accused arrived at the Court with Lawyer Ratsada Manuratsada and Lawyer Theeraphan Phankhiri. About 15-20 trial observers, Thai and foreign, attended the witness examination today.     It was quite confusing prior to the commencement of the witness examination after the court clerk announced the postponement of defence witness examinations from 11 – 14 October 2011, as the residence of the Presiding Judge was located in flood risk zone and he was not able to come and carry out witness examinations. Meanwhile, the defence lawyers insisted that the witness examinations should go on as scheduled including Mr. Danny O’Brien since he came afar from USA, just for this witness examination, and it was the second time he has made trip for the purpose. Before, when he came here, the witness examination had also been rescheduled. Thus, the Court allowed witness examination to commence.     https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/112#circumstance_of_arrest 20/26