9/18/2019 Case | Freedom of Expression Documentation Center | น อ ลกฎหมายและค เส ภาพ   Reference England. During 2008-2010, he was a member of the Policy Committee of the Thai Public Broadcasting Service (Thai PBS) and was a Senator-elect from 2000-2006. Currently, h Mr. Jon Ungphakorn, 64 years, beginning 9.40 am, stated that he was an independent academic. He is a graduate from the Faculty of Electronics Engineering, Sussex University, is a member of the Subcommittee on Civil and Political Rights, National Human Rights Commission, working to receive and investigate complaints concerning human rights and political rights. Mr. Jon stated that he was one of the founders of Prachatai website in 2004, while he was a Senator. It stemmed from his impression that mainstream media in Thailand were not independent, failed to feature truths and ugly aspects such as the case of unrest in the Deep South, issues regarding land and labour, etc. He therefore thought there should be independent media space where viewpoints of the vulnerable and marginalized groups can be aired. And Prachatai website aspires to be such an alternative medium, basically free from the influence of the state and capitals. It was founded by individuals in the first place and then got registered as a Foundation with Mr. Kasem Sirisamphan as the Chairperson of the Board of Directors. The Foundation is called “Foundation for Community Educational Media”. It aims to promote democracy, emphasizes public participation and features demands of people’s sector. People from grassroots level are encouraged to write up news and get it published via the website, for example, news about more than 80 deaths during the suppression of demonstration in Tak Bai, etc. A not-for-profit organization, the Foundation works chiefly for public interest with financial support from inside and outside the country. Examples of domestic funders include the Thai Health Foundation, Community Organization Development Institute (CODI), etc. Mr. Jon further testified that issues concerning the posting of inappropriate messages in Prachatai website occurred, particularly in the aftermath of the 19 September 2006 coup. Prachatai stood for freedom of expression, and after the coup, a lot of readers of Prachatai wanted to voice their opposition to the coup. As a result, Prachatai became a channel through which more and more people used to express their political opinions. Meanwhile, mainstream media failed to provide such opportunities. Prachatai website commands about 10,000 page views per day. Its news and article section is fine. Problems happen with its webboard where the audiences are allowed to express their opinions. Prachatai can be divided into main sections. The first section is similar to ordinary newspaper featuring news and articles. The second section is akin to other webboards such as Pantip, and this is a space where people are supposed to express their views, and they do not have to share the same views. There is a lot of freedom of expression here. In addition, Prachatai never declares the directions of views that should be allowed to express. Mr. Jon stated that its objective is to “provide for freedom of expression”, since it helps to promote democratization and people can debate and exchange their opinions. Such a feature is generally upheld in various webboards around the world, and every poster is required to subscribe first. Prachatai follows a similar pattern. Initially,  Prachatai webboard allowed anyone to post any comments. When there were problems, it was required that a person needed to get registered first prior to posting any comments. After subscribing, a user has to wait for an email response to confirm the subscription and a password shall be sent to the user’s email address. Upon receiving the email response from Prachatai, th user has to reply to the email to verify the existence of such an email address. Concerning an effort to quell inappropriate statements, Mr. Jon said that initially, measures were laid out clearly. If any abusive, any message deemed offensive to the monarchy and an individual are found, they shall be blocked. A team has been set up to monitor and remove inappropriate statements. In addition, users are allowed to notify the webmaste should they spot any inappropriate posts. As more problems happened, more measures have been installed to allow readers to remove inappropriate statements temporarily and the final call shall rest with the webmaster In addition, part of the IP addresses of any posters shall be shown on the website in order to let any readers know where the posters are based. Mr. Jon further testified that In terms of cooperation with government agencies, both the MICT and the police, should there be any formal letter asking for cooperation, or should th MICT notify Prachatai of any inappropriate posts, Prachatai shall take immediate actions. In addition, Mr. Jon reiterated that despite a small team, Prachatai initially was able to cope with the problems. But as there was a huge increase of users after the Coup, the supervision could be lax since there was only one staff member assigned to monitor the posts and it was the accused who is also Director of Prachatai website. As a result, volunteers among the readers have been recruited to help notify us. Anyway, given the amount of 100-1,000 posts per day, the staff members and volunteers might still find it difficult to cope with them effective. And instant removal was not that easy. Mr. Jon explained the job description of the accused to cover; 1. Oversight of the webboard 2. Organizational management including human resources, financial resources, reporting of the Foundation for Community Educational Media and other events by the Foundation Mr. Jon said that he had known the accused since 1991 or 1992, when he was still Director of AIDS ACCESS Foundation. Then the accused came to help to educate public abou the prevention of HIV/AIDS, and later became the Head of AIDS ACCESS Foundation in the North. He finds the accused a very dedicated person despite her low remuneration. He finds her a highly responsible person and thus persuaded her to join the Foundation for Community Educational Media. Mr. Jon stated that the duties of webmaster differ from those of news editors. For the latter, all contents are subject exclusively to the oversight of the Editor and the editorial team guided by their policy. Every single article sent in is subject to screening and verification, and thus the process of featuring news and articles in this kind of media is slow, though it makes it easy to control the contents. As for electronics media and the roles of webmaster, since there is no censorship of any contents or posts before they got shown in the web pages, the communication can become instantaneous and interactive. If any censorship is put in place, it shall compromise the website’s objectives. Therefore, instant and interactive exchange is encouraged and monitoring comes in as a secondary priority. Nevertheless, when any inappropriate posts are spotted, they shall be removed. Anyone who keeps posting such a message shall be permanently blocked, or have their memberships revoked. Mr. Jon further stated that during the time he was a member of Policy Committee of Thai PBS, police officers also asked him questions about Prachatai, but did not inform him tha they were going to press charges against anyone.  He used to give information to an inquiry officer, but was aware as to who the accused was in the case he was asked about. Then, the accused was not pressed with charges yet. Mr. Jon said that Prachatai website mainly features critiques on political and social issues and as a member of the Subcommittee on Civil and Political Rights, National Human Rights Commission, he found Prachatai webboard very useful for democratization. Prachatai is a space to feature violations of people’s rights including land rights dispute, labour dispute, the environment, community, etc. Thus, it gives voices to people and most mainstream media fail to deliver such a role. As for inappropriate posts, Mr. Jon stated that he has been upset by any messages concerning the monarchy. And in many instances of consultation, he and the accused concurred that such a statement can damage the website. He had no idea about the intention of such posters, and maybe it was an attempt to destroy the Foundation. Cross-examination by the prosecutor Mr. Jon said that Prachatai has a policy to remove posts deemed lèse-majesté upon receiving any notification and in 2008, the accused was in charge of the duty. https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/112#circumstance_of_arrest 17/26