9/18/2019 Case | Freedom of Expression Documentation Center | น อ ลกฎหมายและค เส ภาพ Mr. Jon said that, during the meetings of the Foundation, it has been discussed and agreed that if any inappropriate posts are found, they shall subject to immediate removal.   Reference The prosecutor asked why the posts were found to have been shown in the website for as long as 20 days. Mr. Jon replied that such an incidence was abnormal. Maybe, there were so many posts made during the time, and some had not been spotted. In addition, the removal of any posts shall be done after reviewing the contents. Some posts may be ambiguous enough and made it difficult to decide. Nevertheless, he has never been in any meeting to review the removal of any posts. It was not his duty and the accused has never brought up any posts to ask for his opinions. Lastly, Mr. Jon said the accused was in charge of reviewing the posts. The witness examination was adjourned at 11.10 am, and many of the observers in the Courtroom are from media and international organizations. It took about one and a half hours for this witness examination. 20 September 2011 Examination of witness no. 2, Dr. Nirand Pithakwachara, co-founder of Foundation for Community Educational Media and incumbent National Human Rights Commissioner Dr. Nirand Pithakwachara, beginning from 13.30, stated that he is currently a Commissioner in the National Human Rights Commission, from 20 June until present. Prior to this, h was an MP of Ubon Ratchathani from 2000-2003 and was Chairperson of the Committee of the Minister of Social Development and Human Security and was also a member of th Media Reform Subcommittee. One of his colleagues in the Subcommittee was Mr. Jon Ungphakorn. Dr. Nirand stated that as he felt media were subject to control, he helped to found the Foundation for Community Educational Media under which Prachatai website is a project. He wanted to see concrete model of media reform to promote freedom of expression through internet. For the website, a webmaster was also appointed and a Board of Directors to monitor and supervise the operations. The website features two main sections including news and articles and web blogs (it was recorded as webboard by the Court, since it was understood that the reference was made to the section in which readers were allowed to share the views). In the blogs, Prachatai allowed their readers to post their opinions without having to subscribe as a member. No specific guidelines have been laid down concerning the proper comments, only on criterion that is the comments shall be offensive. Regarding measures to cope with inappropriate posts, Prachatai assigned a person to monitor the webboard and Dr. Nirand was aware that it was the accused. In the aftermath of the 19 September 2006 coup, politics became highly polarized and it affected Prachatai. A lot of inappropriate comments had been posted since Prachatai was an alternative media and wanted to make it a channel for people who found it not possible to air their views via mainstream media. The Board had met with the staff (including the accused) to set out ways to cooperate with MICT and he was aware that MICT used to propose ways to deal with the inappropriate posts. He used to ask the accused if she had been approached by officers from MICT, and the accused said yes and promised to remove any inappropriate comments upon receiving any request. Dr. Nirand said he stood as a witness in the case against Ms. Nopphawan in Ubon Ratchathani. Dr. Nirand said the Foundation was responsible for the policy; and Prachatai Director (the accused) for its administration. The defence lawyer handed him Exhibit J46, an inquiry report prepared by the police. In the document, name of the accused in the case was crossed out, and the name was changed from Nopphawan to Chiranuch. After reading it, Dr. Nirand said when he asked to questions of the inquiry officers in Ubon Ratchathani, name of the accused in the case was still Nopphawan and he confirmed to have signed the report when name of the accused was Ms. Nopphawan. Dr. Nirand further stated that upon identifying any lèse-majesté comments, Prachatai would have them removed immediately. In addition, a measure was put in place in order that members could help in monitoring. Contents-wise, Prachatai does not feature just political news, but it touches on social, cultural and environmental issues as well, though at a time, there was so intense exchange on political issues. Prachatai promotes freedom of expression and media in Thailand generally enjoy very low level of such freedom. The emergence of Prachatai was hoped to bring about greater freedom of expression and democratization. As a NHRC member, he was pleased with the role played by Prachatai and found their operation served well the objectives of the Foundation. The accused understood well code of conduct and he did not find her harboring any movements against the monarchy or concurring with those wanting to insult the monarchy. Th accused shall never let such posts appear in the website. In reply to a question from the lawyer, Dr. Nirand said as a NHRC member, he felt Section 112 should not have been used to destroy each other, should not have been used to justify a political cause, and there should be clear criteria as to which comments are deemed lèse-majesté in order to prevent any ramification on the monarchy and to protect the institution. No re-examination from the prosecutor. The witness examination was adjourned after around one hour. 21 September 2011   Defence witness no.3, Mr. Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the accused in this case     Judge Nittaya Yaemsri arrived in the courtroom around 10.00, and replaced Judge Kamphon Rungrat in recording the session, as Judge Kamphon came in after the witness examination had commenced for ten minutes.     Chiranuch stated that she is a professional media person and graduated from the Faculty of Journalism and Communication, Thammasat University in 1990. After that she joined the editorial team of “Khon Krung” and then worked with AIDS ACCESS Foundation from 1991-2004. She started to work with Prachatai, a project under the Foundation in Januar 2006 serving as Director of the Foundation for Community Educational Media and Director of Prachatai website, and is a staff member of the Foundation.     Concerning her job description, she included;   1. General administration including education and development of website contents 2. Human resource   3. Fund raising 4. Reporting to funders and government agencies   5. Coordinating with domestic and international organizations   6. Capacity building on media skills for various groups of participants   https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/112#circumstance_of_arrest 18/26