9/18/2019 Case | Freedom of Expression Documentation Center | น อ ลกฎหมายและค เส ภาพ   example, Prachatai had a system to block any posts and to prevent it from appearing on the website. Reference Previously, the accused had been asked for cooperation many a time to block any inappropriate posts, particularly the lèse-majesté posts, and the accused had promised to help. And despite being notified, the posts deemed lèse-majesté had still appeared on the website as per Counts 1-10 as already described. Mr. Aree also showed a table to the Court indicating dates, case no., URLs, posters’ IP addresses, posting dates and attached files. He also stated that he had not known the accused before and had not been in any personal dispute with her. He got to know her only when he asked for her help to block posts. Defence lawyer’s cross examination, inquiries made by Lawyer Saengchai Rattanaseriwong Mr. Aree stated that he had obtained two undergraduate degrees, one on computer, another on geology. His master degree is on computer and he had trained in cyber investigation and criminal record as required for a competent officer. The training took place at the Royal Thai Police with speakers from the American Embassy. He has attended cyber investigation many times, sometimes for one or two weeks. He also stated that he neither had internet related business nor operated his own internet services. He was neither involved with the drafting of CCA nor the drafting of Guidelines for Business Entrepreneurs. Mr. Aree stated that internet is a two way or multiple way communication. The communication can be done either personally or publicly via the website. Personal communication can be made via emailing, and emailing is solely subject to the control of the communicators; as one can choose to receive or not receive from another. Then the lawyer asked if in internet browsing, a user may choose to check out the whole website or part of the website. Mr. Aree replied that it depends on the browsers. And he further stated that the message can spread throughout the internet realm. Mr. Aree further testified that owners or business entrepreneurs may block any user by using the software called “username”. Also, more programming can be made via C, PHP, JAVA, HTML protocol. Or a code can be set in the server in order that when that user logs in, an SMS shall be sent to alert the webmasters. Mr. Aree further testified that websites can be different. They can be about biography, trade, communication, public services, etc. The accused’s website can be divided into two sections including news and webboard. He had no idea if it intends to disseminate information to public, and if its implementation served the interest of any particular groups. He further stated that he was aware that Prachatai does not personally belong to the accused and is a project under the Foundation for Community Educational Media. It is a lega and registered entity and guided by its statute and objectives. Mr. Aree has been monitoring Prachatai for many years since 2008 until the blockade instruction was sent. Before, he did not carefully monitor the website, but since 2008, he has given much more attention to detail. Then Mr. Aree stated that Prachatai website features social news including activities mobilized by civic groups and various organizations working on the livelihood of people in various places, but had no idea exactly which groups. It contains political news, activities, performances, entertainment, and exhibitions, good and bad. He could not recall that the website also features information about new laws or regulations. In addition, there are academic papers by both known and unknown academics, including the anti-monarchist academics. Mr. Aree said that the webmaster’s name is mentioned in the website. He is not sure if other websites show the number of page view. He paid his attention to the webboard section, which could be accessed from a direct URL without having to click any link in the homepage. But there is also a link on the homepage and he is not sure where exactly it located. Mr. Aree stated that his agency is not interested in collecting the number of page views, but any posts which are deemed lèse-majesté. The monitoring covers websites which feature inappropriate materials including pornography and any offensive materials against celebrities. His mandate covers any obscene materials, gambling, drugs, and lèsemajesté. There are no written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to adhere to, apart those described in Section 20 of the CCA. The discretion can be made by the Committee on Illegal Information and News composed of government officers from various agencies. The Committee members are appointed by the PM. Mr. Aree further testified that he was not aware of any SOPs had been drafted by the Committee. For him, if he finds anything obviously lèse-majesté, he just ordered the blockad but anything that is not entirely lèse-majesté, the matters shall be sent to the Committee. There is a five man subcommittee on lèse-majesté under the Committee. Notifications can be made to the Committee via email, phone and direct contact to its office. If it is clearly lèse-majesté, an action shall be taken immediately. Initial discretion is made by the five subcommittee members, and the matter shall then be referred to legal officers for further review. There have been very few conflicting views among the five members, and anything that could not be decided shall be referred to the Committee. Mr. Aree stated that apart from postings in the webboard, there were also statements made by academics and columnists which are deemed lèse-majesté including the publishing of censored documents such as about “The King Never Smiles”, documents concerning King Rama VIII’s death. As a complainant in this case, Mr. Aree accused Prachatai of committing an offence per one URL and the lèse-majesté offences were committed at different levels. It needed to be verified if such materials are an offence against Section 20 of the CCA, if so, the Court is pleased to mete out appropriate sanctions. As an officer reviewing lèse-majesté and non lèse-majesté materials, he relies on general impression of public. The use of royal terms or not is not as important as the intention of the posters. They cannot be reviewed just word by word. Any postings done with a malicious intent are inappropriate and the Committee also shared the view.   After opinions are made on the ten topics, the five subcommittee members shall meet and issue a letter stating that the topics could be actionable as far as Section 20 was concerned. No conclusion shall be made on materials which were clearly lèse-majesté. In addition to Prachatai, other websites were also monitored and the information was sent to the Committee. Mr. Aree cited examples of phrases referred to the Committee, some which are like spoonerisms. The lawyer asked him if the phrases could be induced to any hostile expression against either HM the King or the Queen, and were there any criteria to decide which phrases are illegal or not. Mr. Areee replied that if the matters were small, the posters would have just kept it to themselves. The lawyer asked then what are the criteria to judge if a person expresses hostility to either HM the King or the Queen? Mr. Aree replied that Thai people are loyal subjects and our Kings have fought for our sovereignty. We owe a lot to them. Some inappropriate issues should not be mentioned, and if anyone makes any suc statements, he or she can be held legally responsible. The lawyer then referred to a topic included in the plaint which mentions the appointment of Gen. Surayud Chualanond as Prime Minister and the appointment of the President of the Supreme Court. In the topic, it was proposed that two of them were involved with the Coup and any actions carried out by the military earlier. Mr. Aree replied that such a remark is inappropriate. The lawyer asked further was that because the two persons were involved with the coup? Mr. Areee said yes, as far as he followed the news. https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/112#circumstance_of_arrest 9/26