9/18/2019 Case | Freedom of Expression Documentation Center | น อ ลกฎหมายและค เส ภาพ   posts and comments.   Reference   The prosecutor asked further about the quantity of posts and comments and asked if any posts with the word “The King” shall draw a lot of views from users, is that correct? Mr. Wanchat said sometimes. It depends on if the readers get to read and understand the topic or not. The prosecutor protested that he did not ask about the perception of the readers. And he added to his previous question that, a topic gains many views, will the service providers get to see the topic more visbly? Mr. Wanchat said Pantip.com has no system to check the number of views per topic. But it has a system of notification when any inappropriate posts are spotted. The prosecutor said he did not mean to ask that question.     The Judge repeated the question and Mr. Wanchat said that his staff members only know where very popular topics are located in which webboard.   The prosecutor further asked how does the measure mentioned above fit the monitoring system? Mr. Wanchat said that the webboard is designed with a button to report/a phone number to notify when any inappropriate posts are spotted. In addition, staff members are also hired to monitor and have certain posts removed immediately. The prosecutor repeated the question that since there is no prescreening, but when a poster posts something inappropriate and once it is spotted, it shall be subject to removal immediately or not? Mr. Wanchat said yes.     The prosecutor gave him Exhibit J23 to view and asked once he gets to read the statements, how does he feel? Mr. Wanchat said he could not understand the meaning. Superficially, they seem to refer to different actors and are concerned with politics. Then the prosecutor gave him Exhibit J32 to view and Mr. Wanchat said that one needs to have some background to approach it as a lèse-majesté statement (recorded by the Court as it can be construed as a lèse-majesté statement, but more background information needs to be supplied). Then the prosecutor gave him more Exhibits to view, the Judge said just one should be enough. Despite that, the prosecutor asked for the Court’s permission for Mr. Wanchat to view Exhibit J31 which contain lèse-majesté statements. Mr. Wanchat said in light of Pantip.com’s regulations, such statements are deemed inappropriate, but he was not sure if they would be illegal. The prosecutor asked in light of Pantip.com’s regulation, will such a post be removed? Mr. Wanchat said all of them have to be removed. The prosecutor asked further that if any inappropriate posts are found (in a website), will the service providers be held responsible? Mr. Wanchat saud yes. But Pantip.com has a notification system.     Re-examination by defence lawyer The lawyer asked in order to post something in reference to the King, how could one manage to do so? Mr. Wanchat said the poster may use some metaphors or aliases. But those outside the circle or have never read any lèse-majesté message, may not find them an insult to the monarchy.     The witness examination on 15 February 2012 was adjourned at 10.37 am. The Judge asked about the witness for tomorrow and when learned that it was going to be Assist. Prof Pirongrong Ramasoota Rananand, he proposed that a research paper could be submitted instead of witness examination, similar to the case of Ms. Sawatree Suksri. The witness can also come to testify further in the Court. He asked and the prosecutor had no objection and the lawyers also concurred.     16 February 2012 Examination of witness no. 9, Assist. Prof. Pirongrong Ramasoota Rananand, Ph.D., Vice Dean on Graduates’ Affairs, Department of Journalism, Chulalongkorn University, as mass media expert and researcher on internet content oversight     On the last day of defence witness examination, there were representatives from embassies, OHCHR, international human rights organizations, academics and general public, about 30 of them, during the trial.     Around 13.45, Assist. Prof. Pirongrong Ramasoota Rananand, Ph.D., Vice Dean on Graduates’ Affairs, Department of Journalism, verbally certified the document submitted to the Court. Asked about her educational background, the witness answered the Court that she obtained her doctorate from Simon Fraser University in Canada and has conducted a comprehensive research in the supervision of internet contents to comply with its technology and international possibilities. The research was commissioned by Thailand Researc Fund. The research report proposes regulation to stem illegal contents in the internet and how notifications can be made and how they can be removed.     Assut. Prof. Pirongrong further testified that she is also adviser to master degree thesis on the supervision and intervention of political webboard after the 19 September 2006 cou using Prachatai website as a case study. It was found that after the coup, webmasters of four webboards including Prachatai have set out regulations to screen out contents concerning the monarchy and false information.     In addition to academic works, Assut. Prof. Pirongrong also servers in the Ad-hoc Committee to review the National Broadcast and Television Control Act 2008 and the Act on the Organization to Assign Radio Frequency Spectrum and Regulate the Sound Broadcasting, Television Broadcasting and Telecom Services 2010. (The information was recorded in the docket rather than in the witness examination report.)   The examination was adjourned at 13.58, and consultation was made regarding the day to read out the verdict with the prosecutor and the lawyers. Since the accused is suppose to have a business trip in April, the Court scheduled to read the verdict on 30 April 2012 at 10.00 am.     It should be note that the Judge told both parties along with trial observers that he will review the case based on the rule of law and facts and place importance on business interest. All should be informed that the legal defence shall not end at this level of court. The accused can also defend herself in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. The Court of Lower Instance shall manage to collect information as most accurate as possible and it shall benefit the defence in higher courts. Please be confident that personnel with sufficient knowledge in the internet system have been recruited to review the case. Criminal Court [in Thai] Thailand Awaits Pivotal Verdict on Liability for Internet Intermediaries, Electronic Frontier Foundation dated 18 April 2012 (sited on 26 April 2012) Thailand: Internet Provider Faces Lese Majeste Conviction, Human Rights Watch dated 23 April 2012 (sited on 26 April 2012) https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/112#circumstance_of_arrest 25/26