9/18/2019 Case | Freedom of Expression Documentation Center | น อ ลกฎหมายและค เส ภาพ The lawyer asked further about how many other posters have been held liable (while handing him a topic included in the plaint)? Mr. Aree said that he simply performed his duty a   Reference per Section 20 of the CCA. Some of the posters had been followed for five months before getting busted. The lawyers asked have you press charges against those arrested? Mr. Aree said yes, a legal action has been launched against Khun Piren Thorarat (not from his postings in Prachatai). The lawyer asked him to point out any phrases in the topic (handed to him), if any of them are actionable as per Section 112. Mr. Aree pointed to a few phrases in the plaint and said the posts showed clearly the IP addresses of the posters and from the IP addressed, it is feasible to trace the computers from which the posts have been made. But there ha been no attempt to verify the fact. Witness examination on 4 February 2012 was adjourned around 18.00, Mr. Aree would come for the next examination. 8 February 2011 Witness examination , Prosecution Witness No. 1 Mr. Aree Jiworarak, Director of Bureau of Oversight on the Use of Information Technology, Office of the Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT), continued from 4 February 2010: Cross examination by defence lawyer Defence lawyer’s cross examination by Lawyer Saengchai Rattanaseriwong The lawyer asked for an opinion from Mr. Aree concerning a topic posted about the appointment of the Auditor General and the cabinet after the coup. To this, Mr. Aree said he ha not enough knowledge about regulations concerning the appointment and the royal assent. And that a criticism regarding the different amounts of time HM the King used in signin off the appointments could be deemed an insult. In the re-examination, the prosecutor asked Mr. Aree to clarify his statement. And according to him, he was saying that from the topic posted in the website, it implied that it took HM the King a little amount of time to sign off the appointment of the cabinet, different from the signing off of the appointment of Auditor General, which took quite a long time. The lawyer asked about incriminating evidence including a link on Prachatai webboard to an audio clip hosted in mediafire.com and anyone clicking on the link can download the clip and listen to the speech by Ms. Daranee Chancerngsilpakul. According to Mr. Aree, that the accused allowed the link to be posted in Prachatai website means the media file has belonged to Prachatai website. It could not be construed otherwise, but that Prachatai wanted to disseminate the audio clip. In addition, Mr. Aree admitted that MICT staff members helped to transcribe the audio clip downloaded from the URL to support investigation by the inquiry officers. But the lawyer argued that the signature appeared on a copy of the transcription belongs to a police officer, not MICT staff members. According to the prosecutor, Mr. Aree confirmed of having signed the transcription. Mr. Aree described how evidence was compiled. Screenshots were kept in either PDF or MS Word files, and audio and video clips were kept in his office desktop. The files he gave to the inquiry officer had already been converted into another format, not the original files, but he made sure they matched each other. The lawyer further asked among the ten incriminating topics, apart from Bento case, which had been dismissed, has Mr. Aree made any attempt to trace the IP addresses in orde to know telephone numbers of the posters? Mr. Aree gave a rather confusing account. In the end, he simply admitted to not have the posters’ phone numbers. The lawyer asked if for all ten incriminating topics, did Mr. Aree attempt to verify the information himself? He said yes. The lawyer further asked if Mr. Aree used to stand as a witness in the case against Bento, who posted one of the ten incriminating topics, Mr. Aree said he could not remember that. Then after reading documents given to him by the lawyer, he admitted to not notifying the accused to remove Bento’s topic since he was not the person to have investigated the case The lawyer showed Mr. Aree another incriminating topic in which the name of the Crown Prince and praises for him were mentioned. Mr. Aree said it was a satire. In fact, the poster wanted to insult the Crown Prince. The next topic is an insult to HM the King, the Queen and the Heir Apparent. The lawyer further asked if the accused had been cooperating after being notified by Mr. Aree. Initially, he replied yes. Later, he explained that he informed the ISP and the accused, and since the ISP had already blocked the access, he could not tell if the accused had also cooperated. Mr. Aree stated that there are many websites deemed a threat to national security in the world. He was not sure if there are “ten thousands” of them. He used to call meetings of webmasters asking them to monitor the matter and less than ten of them had attended the meetings. He had no idea if the websites had installed any mechanisms to verify the posts before having them uploaded to their websites. He gave an example of MICT’s website installed with a system to verify any postings prior to their being uploaded. MICT use to open a web page for people to write to wish His Majesty well on his birthday, but some posters had posted inappropriate messages. He also claimed that in advanced nations, a system is always installed to verify the messages prior to their being uploaded including in China and Muslim nations. He had no idea if UK, USA, Japan or Europe employ such a mechanism. The lawyer asked if MICT or any agencies Mr. Aree work for have laid down any Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) regarding the treatment of the webmasters. Mr. Aree replied that there are many things to deal with. Letting anyone post may make it likely to violate the law. It is impossible to simply rely on his agency’s oversight. For webmasters, i is very easy. They can set up warning system or block certain users and can set up auto-notification system linked up with their mobile phones. They can even call the webboarders directly warning them against posting any lèse-majesté statements. The accused had cooperated with him about 70%. Mr. Aree admitted that of the ten incriminating topics, several of them had been removed by the accused prior to his applying for blockade orders from the Court. It has been done based on mutual agreement between ISP and webmasters and the MICT. The lawyer then asked if the monitoring of Prachatai website stemmed from his belief that the website was part of a movement working against the monarchy. Mr. Aree replied tha the inquiry was made upon receiving complaints. The Court told him to answer the question. Mr. Aree said then that since he is a government officer, he does not want to answer the question. The lawyer asked for Mr. Aree’s opinion if he thinks postings in Prachatai website were a malicious attempt or related to movements of those with ill intention or those wanting to overthrow the monarchy. Mr. Aree replied that Prachatai website had allowed lèse-majesté information to be posted thus far and it was known to everyone that such postings coul be found in this website. The lawyer asked if he also monitored topics on other issues such as on social issue, Mr. Aree said yes, but by his duty, he was supposed to monitor lèse-majesté topics and sometimes he relied on google search engine. Mr. Aree explained more during the re-examination by prosecutor that Prachatai website used to run an advertisement to sell a banned book, “The King Never Smiles”. The lawye cross-examined that once you found that out, have you reported the case to your superior officers that the accussed’s website was selling a banned book?  Mr. Aree said no, sinc he was not supposed to do the job. The prosecutor asked that there was a change of Treasurer of the accused’s Foundation. Who was the previous Treasurer?  Mr. Aree said it was the accused who was in that position, and after the case had been filed against her, she was removed from the post. https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/112#circumstance_of_arrest 10/26