Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
Many New Mandala readers will already know that later today we anticipate a verdict in the lese majeste trial of Prachatai editor Chiranuch Premchaiporn. The Bangkok Post has a quick report. There are also more detailed analyses here and here.
In the Jakarta Globe there is the assertion that:
Many Thais who, due to decades of state- and self-imposed censorship of the media, have only ever heard positive news about the monarchy are fearful and feel an almost religious duty to defend their king against any alleged aggression or attacks. The emotional zeal of this devotion means the room for rational debate in some sections of Thai society is almost non-existent.
We will, with this in mind, be watching the verdict closely. Previous New Mandala coverage of Chiranuch’s legal woes is available here, here and here. And for those with an eye to history the picture of “Chiranuch behind bars” comes from this 2010 post.
Reactions from readers to today’s verdict are, of course, very welcome.
Update: I have just heard that the verdict has been postponed until 30 May 2012. I changed the title to reflect this development.
I saw the announcement on Thai TV 3 after 12:00 noon today.
0
0
The question still is … Chiranuch behind bars … for good?.
But they’ve blinked. And in doing so they’ve managed to refocus the attention of all those who were only peripherally aware of their sordid ‘little’ political persecution racket onto their tawdry selves at this point. Can that consciously be for more dramatic effect at their next wretched miscarriage of justice? They must be able to scrape together a single brain’s worth of grey cells among the lot of them. So I think (or I hope) that they are finally backing down.
Of course, petty little people that the Pu Yai are, they’re keeping poor Chiranuch hanging for another month … hoping yet to find someone who will play executioner, perhaps? Let’s keep the names of the ‘judges’ well-publicized.
0
0
Guilty!
I could NOT recall anyone, Thai or foreigner, who had been judicially tried for LM and exonerated . . . but I could be wrong.
0
0
One gets the sense that there is some disarray going on behind the scenes on how to deal with this.
Jiew’s imprisonment would damage this government badly – PT & Yingluck have nothing to gain by doing so.
There are also certainly plenty of “yellow” figures in the judiciary who would be more than prepared to sacrifice Jiew in order to damage PT.
If the govt intervenes too strongly on the case, demanding Jiew is released, they will be condemned for meddling in the justice system.
On the sidelines stand the USA and their servants in Human Rights Watch – both heavily implicated as supporters of the 2006 coup and fearful of the present government shifting Thailand to face north and eastwards towards China – the Dems and the military. Jiew being jailed would aid them all massively in damaging the reputation of the present government.
I empathise with Jiew – the Democrat and Abhisit government repeatedly tried to censor Prachatai and began the worst lese majeste witch hunt in Thailand’s history. The irony is that if she is imprisoned they stand to gain the most from that outcome. Jiew has been inadvertently caught up in all this and the long drawn out psychological impact must be taking its toll.
Let’s all hope she is found innocent.
0
0
I am reminded of a sports owner who endlessly fought the “injured reserve” system but finally gave up and exploited it to the end.
0
0
#5
What?
0
0
Is Chiranuch currently released on bail or inside the cells? According to my understanding, I thought it was the first and not the latter. I remember she giving interviews to Eric Campbell in April 2010 documentary. According to that documentary, I seemed to have taken it that she is currently not inside the cells. Anyone can confirm?
0
0
CT: According to the ‘behind bars’ article she was locked up for four hours. I would assume she’s been free on bail since then.
0
0
One thing that is noticeably absent from these discussions on LM, even on “offshore” forums such as this one, is the actual content of the comments that brought about the LM charges. Why is that? If the actual comments in question are available, it might be useful to see them here.
From what I have seen many of such comments are not political in nature and are extremely offensive and often obscene. I think the vast majority of Thais if they were to actually see these types of comments would agree that the person making them should be punished and they exceed the limits of “free speech” as they recognize it.
Let me say, before Andrew S. starts calling me neo fascist, that I do not agree with Article 112 or the Computer Crime Act in its present form and especially with the way it is enforced. There needs to be a way to separate true rational political discussions of the monarchy from the childish, obscene, and offensive comments about the monarchy that proliferate on the internet today. As I have not seen the comment that landed Chiranuch in this mess and nowhere can I find any reference to what category they may have fallen into.
0
0
John Smith
I actually don’t think the comments have much to do with this case as there is not even any question that Jiew made them. The persons who did make those comments are not on trial and the said comments were taken down as quickly as possible.
The focus of this case should the absurdity of 112 and the CCA, not what some anonymous person said online 3years and whose comments appeared for a blink of an eye.
0
0
“Let me say, before Andrew S. starts calling me neo fascist, that I do not agree with Article 112 or the Computer Crime Act in its present form and especially with the way it is enforced. There needs to be a way to separate true rational political discussions of the monarchy from the childish, obscene, and offensive comments about the monarchy that proliferate on the internet today”
Really? Why?
Which one is more a threat to “national security”? Tnat would be the former, right? (Hint: which argument is presumably more powerful?)
0
0
I have personal knowledge of a case exactly like this. Running a web board (actually he was not even the webmaster for it) that had a posting made that lasted about 2 days. It was a very nasty, offensive game about the King. Think about penguins and excrement.
Just like Chiranuch he was arrested at the airport in an arranged meeting and taken to a police station where he was granted bail. After some time, a trial was held and he plead guilty, was fined and that was it.
Two things I would like to know about this case. What were the comments and was deal to plead guilty and be fined ever offered. This case just seems to be about making a martyr out of Chiranuch, which is of course her choice. But I do think it needs to be made clear it was her choice to have the case go this way.
The laws needs to be changed, but I’m just not sure this is the way to go about it.
0
0
“John Smith”:
Before commenting on Chiranuch and this case, i would suggest to familiarize yourself with this case.
First of all – she is not just a webmaster of a webboard, she is the director of Prachatai, an independent news website founded by people such as former senator and Magsyasay award winner Jon Ungpakorn, and supported by several international foundations. Prachatai has a stellar reputation for its critical reporting, also internationally.
Secondly – there is a clear and proven history of persecution of Prachatai, with strong infringements against freedom of the media. This has been recognized by all relevant international organizations, such as Reporter without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etc.
Thridly – why on earth should Chranuch declare herself guilty, and engage in any sort of “deal”, when she believes that she is not guilty?!
This case is not making a martyr out of Chiranuch (an idea which she personally completely rejects), but about freedom of media and justice.
0
0
Mr. Smith:
You seem to be giving the onus to the accused by order of the nature of the beast. In fact, being a martyr was not her choice. Recognizing that anyone can always fold and play the game is one thing; advocating it in favor of fighting for rights is quite another.
Ascribing ensuing hardship and shell shock to a victim seems a bit mean.
0
0
Re: Andrew Spooner’s comment: “On the sidelines stand the USA and their servants in Human Rights Watch – both heavily implicated as supporters of the 2006 coup and fearful of the present government shifting Thailand to face north and eastwards towards China – the Dems and the military. Jiew being jailed would aid them all massively in damaging the reputation of the present government.”
My oh my. Do you think before you write? HRW *denounced* the coup. But I suppose there is a way of spinning this as “support” — somehow. I suppose one could argue that there is a grand conspiracy whereby one pretends to denounce, but supports. . . Fine. Go ahead. Pretend black is white.
And the idea that Jiew being jailed would help the US is, um, creative. Of course, there is not a shred of evidence that the US wants this result. You are a journalist? Why not practice . . . journalism, then, and find some empirical support for your claims.
0
0
John Smith: Regarding the nature of the various alleged LM comments, the Somyot trail has heard that the author of the ‘offensive’ articles in that case was Jakrapob http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Jakrapob-wrote-the-articles-lese-majeste-trial-tol-30181119.html
Whilst he can be a bit shrill at times, Jakrapob’s commentary isn’t usually seen a “childish, obscene, and offensive ” in the ordinary sense of those words.
Interestingly, the direct charge of LM that Jakrapob faced seems to have now been dropped: http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/3136
0
0
John Smith (JC)
Very interesting story about a person being fined for LM and the first I’ve ever heard of that.
As it was in the web era do you have a link to any details of this case and the outcome?
Your suggestion that Jiew should just admit her guilt (even if she isn’t guilty) is just completely bizarre.
You don’t work for Kristie Kenney do you?
0
0
Not quite Kristie Kenney, John Smith sounds more like Tony Cartolucci, the “Land Destroyer”
0
0
Andrew #17
No, no links but there is undoubtedly court records but I do not know if they are publicly available. He pled guilty simply because the post was LM and under the Computer Crime Act he was ultimately responsible for the breakdown in the company procedures that allowed the item to be posted. 2 other employees were also fined (and terminated by the company).
“Your suggestion that Jiew should just admit her guilt (even if she isn’t guilty) is just completely bizarre”
I f you could find your way to anything close to objectivity; you would see why the content of the posts would be important. If indeed the post were offensive and crossed the line into LM, then under the Computer Crime Act (agree with it or not) Chiranuch as webmaster and director of Prachatai is ultimately responsible to be sure such content is not allowed to be published.
Chiranuch believes she followed the Computer Crime Act as it pertains to her role as owner of the board but I haven’t seen any details as to why she believes that. The Computer Crime Act says that any service provider that “intentionally supporting or consenting” will be “subject to the same penalty”.
In the case I know about, there were strict procedures in place for items to be reviewed before being posted. These procedures were violated and item was posted. When the complaint was filed and the police investigated, this violation of the procedures was taken by the Police as an “intentional” consent. In a strictly legal context that it is hard to argue against that logic.
In her interview on February 9th, 2011 Chiranuch said she “was concerned that the internet (users) could be charged under the law.”, but somehow thought that her allowing the posts would not be considered an “intentional act” and she would not be charged. Based on what I have seen of how the “intentionally supporting or consenting “ clause of the Computer Crime Act is interpreted and the fact she admits the posts could be considered LM, she could be considered guilty. I wonder what would have happened if she had accepted that responsibility and pled guilty what would have happened.
So, putting aside all the hysteria, and accepting that fact that the Computer Crime Act is the law of Thailand, what was in the comments that caused her to be charged? Did it come out during the trial? Did anyone that attended the trial hear what they were? Where they rational scholarly discussions about the role of the monarchy or were they crude, obscene remarks about the king or his family?
Now again, let me say that I do not agree with many provisions of the Computer Crime Act or how it and article 112 is enforced. But they are both the law Thailand. That they need to be changed also cannot be disputed. I’m just not sure that using Chiranuch’s case and the comments in question is the way to go about it.
0
0
John Smith (JC)
Bad laws have never been changed by blind and slavish acquiescence to them. Otherwise there’d still be segregation in American schools and Apartheid in South Africa.
So stating that Jiew should just admit her guilt – even though she fulfilled her duty under CCA and removed the comments as quickly as possible -while saying you are opposed to both 112 and CCA is, quite frankly, bizarre.
The real question is why were Prachatai and Jiew targeted at that time by the Dem/Army government of 2008 to 2011? Well, we all know the answer to that. Prachatai were one of the few media outlets offering a more balanced account of events since the coup.
As for hysteria, isn’t threatening a 50year prison sentence for removing comments from a website a form of demented hysteria that literally beggars belief? Lese majeste is an abomination and is kept as a political tool by the elites to target and punish their critics.
I’m also not surprised you have no actual record of the case you mention. My suspicion is that it is apocryphal.
0
0
I am a Teacher. If someone comes in after I leave for the day on Friday, writes something ‘insulting’ regarding one of the figures mentioned in Article 112, and I fail to erase the board until I come back to class on Monday morning (since I have no knowledge of what is on the board, didn’t write on the board, and unaware of certainly any 112 comments on it) am I too guilty of violating LM?
This is poor law.
0
0
John Smith: The point of the charges against her is her actions as the webmaster. Knowing what the posts said doesn’t change that a bit. It is a simple point.
0
0
> “I am a Teacher. If someone comes in after I leave for the day on Friday, writes something ‘insulting’ …”
If the kid writes it on Monday morning and it’s still there on Friday afternoon, should you be looking at 50 years in jail?
0
0
Andrew S #20.
Bad laws are changed by the majority of an elected Parliament. Defiance of those laws can indeed highlight the problems with them and bring about a change.
The problem with changing the LM law and Computer Crime Act is the fact that if asked if a person making a comment about the King’s (or his families) sexual pervasion or bodily functions, or the webmaster that allowed such comments to published should be punished, I have little doubt the majority of Thais would say yes.
Perhaps somebody could do a poll.
1.Should Chiranuch be punished under the current Computer Crime Act for allowing a post on her web board that was a crude obscene reference to the king and where excrement should be placed on his body? ( I have no idea what the actual comments were and nobody seems the slightest bit interested in what they actually were so I have assumed they are similar to ones I have seen currently on the Internet)
2.Should Somyot be punished under Article 112 for publishing an article in his magazine that stated the King directly ordered the shooting and killing of hundreds of Thai people in 1992?
Now, perhaps I do not associate with scholarly elite in Thailand, but I certainly work and associate with a broad spectrum of Thai middle and working class people and have done for some 10 years now and I am fairly certain that in almost every case their answer to the two questions above would be in the affirmative.
This is the problem for PTP right now. They cannot propose changing these laws, because once they do, and their voters see what in most cases is actually being prosecuted, they will not support any changes in the law and would support the prosecution of people that write and post such material.
Andrew, you can doubt the authenticity of the case I mentioned all you want and since it goes against everything you think about the prosecution of the LM cases it is not surprising.
But one only needs to some simple Google searches with the Kings name and just about any profanity or obscene word to see what is proliferating out there. Then imagine what a Thai middle aged, middle class person would think when they saw it. If they thought the site was from Thailand, many would file a complaint and want to see those responsible for it punished.
I have no doubt that you seriously disagree, but all I am trying to do is put a different perspective on the issue. I truly believe that perspective is reflective of the majority of the Thai people and therefore should not be ignored as it is so often.
0
0
Teacher #21
I am a Teacher. If someone comes in after I leave for the day on Friday, writes something ‘insulting’ regarding one of the figures mentioned in Article 112, and I fail to erase the board until I come back to class on Monday morning (since I have no knowledge of what is on the board, didn’t write on the board, and unaware of certainly any 112 comments on it) am I too guilty of violating LM?
If as the teacher you are responsible to lock the classroom after hours and you intentionally leave the door open then, yes, in your scenario, you could be held to have “intentionally allowed” the insult to have been seen.
If you had locked the door and it was broken down in order to write the insult, then no, you are not intentionally allowing the insult.
A bad law, yes, but one that in the minds of many one that makes sense to try and stop such behavior.
0
0
John Smith
The problem with LM is that it doesn’t allow any kind of free discussion or expression of more nuanced views on the Thai monarchy so your “let’s have a poll” idea is spurious as even if people did have “different ideas” they would be too scared to express them.
The other key point about LM is that it doesn’t operate purely at the level of a legal device to protect the monarchy from a direct false accusation. It also allows prosecution for an accurate accusation.
LM is designed to strike fear and terror in anyone daring to fully discuss any aspect of the monarchy, even if they are speaking a verifiable truth.
As for childish scatological abuse, surely an institution that is universally revered, powerful and respected should be able to fend off and ignore such stuff without resorting to throwing people into prison for 50years? Where would we be if we all had the power to throw someone in prison every time a “poo joke” was made? It might be distasteful and offensive but people everywhere make such comments about the powerful as it is often the only way of releasing anger and pent up frustrations.
0
0
Perspective is one aspect of the issue, certainly. After all, ostensibly if you can’t appreciate the validity of someone’s viewpoint (from his or her way or looking at it) then you can’t really make an impartial decision about it. However, validity does not only arise from personal viewpoint or belief, but from fact and rights. These two are sadly neglected and maligned in Thailand, and not just by those with vested interests. The unappreciative and ignorant are also guilty of proliferating abuse of the lese majeste, computer Crime Act and criminal defamation laws by shoving what they believe down the throats of others and then, adding insult to injury, intimate or plain out accuse “vile others” of asking for what they got.
There is a diametric to the Illuminati, perhaps we can call them the obscuratti, those who obscure what it to make it what they want it to be. And us the force of anti-constitutional and extrajudicial means to make sure their version stands. Some of these people are righteous, nationalistic, royalist and other ilk who feel that their perceptions are worthy of forcefully applying to others. that is the real issue here – not just being loyal or disloyal, aware or unaware, Thai or not.
0
0
#26
At an intellectual level, I agree almost completely, except you seem to think making such “jokes” is an acceptable means of blowing off steam.
That may be true for you, but do you think the majority of Thai people agree with you? Let’s not forget, it is their country and we are non-participatory, supposedly objective, culturally neutral commentators on it.
Still waiting to see what the content of the LM posts were. I would find it amazing that none of the LM experts here know. Why won’t they say? The silence makes my point.
0
0