9/18/2019 Case | Freedom of Expression Documentation Center | น อ ลกฎหมายและค เส ภาพ consenting to have the opinions posted on Prachatai webboard. Reference   On the day of the arrest, charges stemming from only one posting were pressed against her. Later on, more incriminating topics were added to the plaint and altogether, she has been held liable for an offence on ten counts stemming from ten webboard topics. Eleven witnesses of the Plaintiff and nine witnesses of the Defendant have been examined during the first court trail. The Plaintiff witnesses consisted of MICT officers, evidence officers, inquiry officials, arresting officers, and a citizen. The Defendant witnesses consisted of comittees and co-founders of Prachatai website, a national human rights commissioner, cybercrime law experts, technology experts, a journalism expert, a webboard moderator, and the defendant. The Plaintiff sees Prachatai webboard as an area full of contents insulting the King. Web administrator has a responsibility to monitor illegal contents. Mrs. Chiranuch is a webboard administrator, so it's her duty and direct responsibility. An MICT officer has a view that every websites should have a measure to filter messages before each of them go published. Another MICT officer made a point that the messeges in the complaint were accessible online for a period of time, which indicates that Prachatai web administrator intentionally support or consent to an offence. The Defendant denied. Explained that Prachatai webboard has a concern on co-responsibility. It has a protection measure and put monitoring efforts to prevent content that may considered illegal. Such a content, if found, will be immediately removed. The system is designed to allow a member to volunteer as a content moderator, in which a content moderator can unpublished a content. As a web administrator, the Defendant said she had always been fully cooperative with MICT and police officers. Defendant's witness sees service provider or a web administrator is an intermediary, which should not be responsible for a content that it didn't created or published. Moreover, the police didn't has any intention to procecute those posters. From ten forum threads in the cases against Mrs. Chiranuch as a service provider, there is only an attempt to prosecute a poster of one threa -- which in the end, the court dismissed the case (read more about the case). Law expert and technology expert witnesses explained the nature of Internet system and international principle of intermediary immunity. Or if there should be a liability, there mus be a clear protocol. For example, the content should be removed within 10-14 days after notice. It should be noted that Article 15 of Computer-related Crimes Act of 2007 that stated "a service provider intentionally support or consent to an offence" is still ambiguous. MICT should issue a guideline or has a measure like "Notice and Takedown" to serve a a clear prosecution process and put both web administrators and state officers in the same picture. Circumstance of arrest   On 6 March 2009 at around 15.00, five police officers in both plainclothes and uniform (including one women police officer and one police officer in uniform) came in two cars, identified themselves and established a court warrant at the Prachatai office. The charges were related to the violation of Section 15 of the Computer-related Crime Act (CCA). The alleged offender refused to testify immediately awaiting her lawyer. As a twitter message was sent out about the arrest, about 20 Prachatai members came to visit Chiranuch while her being held in custody at the Crime Suppression Division, Royal Thai Police. Chiranuch was temporarily released the same day. Progress of case   3 March 2009 An arrest warrant was granted by the Court. 5 March 2009 A search warrant was granted by the Court for searching Prachatai office in Huay Kwang. 6 March 2009 The police raided Prachatai office in Huay Kwang, Led by Lt. Col. Nitipat Wutboonyasit, a search was conducted and the alleged offender was arrested and transferred to Lt. Col. Boonlert Kalayanamitra for further inquiry. Another positing in Prachatai webboard was also found illegal as per Section 14 of CCA. Then, the alleged offender was temporarily released at the police level. 7 April 2009 Nine more charges were pressed against her citing the same offence related to postings made from April to October 2008. Nevertheless, all ten posts had been removed prior to the pressing of the charges. 31 March 2010 The public prosecutor of the Office of Attorney General decided to proceed with prosecution. Precisely pursued by the Special Attorney General Office on Criminal Suit 8, the case was admitted as the Black Case no. O1667/2010, and the accused was held in custody in a room at the basement of the Criminal Court, while a request for temporary release wa being processed. In the same afternoon, the accused was released by the Court. Previously, Lt. Col. Boonlert Kalayanamitra asked questions to the accused, as she then stood as a witness in the lèse-majesté case against a webboarder “Bento”. Then, Chiranuch was not yet charged in this case. Mr. Aree Jiworarak also testified in the same case that the post made by ”Bento” was made online in Prachatai webboard for up to 20 days. Thus, the investigating team under the Crime Suppression Division, Royal Thai Police, had sought arrest and search warrants from the Court in March 2009 deeming that th accused, as a service provider, had committed an offence as per Section 15 of CCA. 31 May 2010 The prehearing conference to review evidence was held. 24 September 2010 As the case was ongoing, Chiranuch was arrested again at the Suvarnabhumi Airport. It stemmed from another allegation made by a man in Khon Kaen and Chiranuch was then arrested as per a warrant issued in March 2009 on a lèse-majesté offence and violation of CCA. During the arrest, Chiranuch had just returned from attending a seminar on freedom in cyberspace held in Hungary and she was taken right away to Khon Kaen province. After placing 200,000 baht as deposit, she was released. 4,8 February 2011 An examination of prosecution witness no. 1, Mr. Aree Jiworarak, Director of Bureau of Oversight on the Use of Information Technology, Ministry of Information and Communicatio https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/112#circumstance_of_arrest 3/26