SEAPA Report: Self-regulation seen as Better Way to protect Cyber Liberty in Thailand

Excessive use of defamation and lese majesty charges by opposing political groups and authorities in Thailand to curb free expression on the Internet has forced a coalition of Internet users comprising media reformers, human rights campaigners, webmasters, bloggers, and operators of online news publications, to form a civic network called the Thai Netizens Network, designed to promote and protect cyber liberty.

The non-partisan group, officially launched on Dec. 2, 2008, was a spin-off of an earlier initiative called Freedom Against Censorship in Thailand but its mission is much broader than its predecessor’s that is, to campaign at the national policy level to promote and protect Netizens’ rights, freedom of online media as well as civic journalism, and at the same time to promote a self-regulatory framework to ensure responsible use of internet.

According to the network’s coordinator, Supinya Klangnarong, about 400 URLs have been banned over charges related to criminal defamation and lese majeste pending the court’s hearing. “The problem is that cyber-crime police find it difficult to proceed with these cases in court because they could not arrest the suspected offenders,” said Supinya.

The Thai government put in place the Computer-Related Crime Bill in 2007, almost two decades after the Internet communication was introduced into Thailand, in response to a proliferation not only of indecentInternet and blogs and rising computer crimes like pornography, but also pictures, remarks and information deemed as insulting to the monarchy or threats to national security. But, the network finds many articles in the laws problematic. According to the group, Article 19 of the law gives cyber crime officers too broad an authority to determine the offenses that could allow an imposition of wrongful judgment of the offenses and exploitation by any group. Article 15 of the law also overburdens web masters and ISP providers as it requires them to heavily filter or self-censor what might be defined as offenses under this law. They are also required to keep electronic files of clients dating back to at least 90 days after they have posted into the system, causing a heavier load in their database.

One of the group’s prime tasks is to lobby for an amendment to the one-year-old law to separate free expression from ordinary computer crimes. “There should be a parameter or a definition of criminal offenses specified under the anti-cyber crime bill. “

Expressing opinion, right or wrong, should not be a criminal offense in the first place,” Supinya said.

The group will work closely with other media professionals and other civil groups to improve the application of defamation laws to ensure that free speech and press freedom are protected. The group also called on all concerned to clearly define what constitutes lese majeste so it would not be exploited out of proportion to the extent that it undermines free speech and free and equal access to information.

From a few thousand at the start, the number of Internet users in Thailand has grown to some 13 million users in 2007, according to a survey conducted by the National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (Nectec). It is estimated that the number of users may have gone up to 15 million at present, accounting for some 16 percent of the country’s 64 million people.

In the past eight years, the Internet has become a vibrant and alternative medium for debates on political reform and some culturally- sensitive topics or taboo issues, including the role of the monarchy. The mainstream media has deliberately restrained itself from openly discussing this latter topic. More and more newspapers also go online as a way of gaining a wider audience as more people especially the young turn to the Internet as a faster and convenient medium of communication. But, the country’s severe political rivalry between those who support populist former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who is currently in exile abroad after being ousted from power in the military coup on September 19, 2006, and those who are against him, has a profound impact on free expression on the Internet in particular, and press freedom in general. The two opposing political camps have been waging a cyber war against each other, exploiting the loose definition of lese majeste and loopholes in the application of defamation laws to eliminate each other.

“Netizens are currently fearful of expressing their opinion since whatever they post on the Internet could easily land them in jail,” said Chiranuch Premchaiporn, manager of Prachathai. com, the political and social online news website.

It is a culture among net users to hide their real identity.

“But disproportionate use of laws will drive them to a dark corner where they would be more difficult to monitor,” Chiranuch said.

While agreeing that freedom and responsibility should go hand in hand, the Thai Netizens Network argues that responsibility cannot be enforced by the use of laws alone. It should rather be encouraged and fostered by allowing the network itself to build social relationship and norms among its members.

“The current political standoff shows the people’s need to find an outlet to express their opinion and seek information, without which people are not informed enough to make their political judgment,” according to Sarinee Archwanathakul, a committee member. “Thai society should learn how to take opposing views. With censorship imposed, people will not learn on their own how to express properly their comments or opinions that will appeal to other people. Nor they will learn how to separate sensible or useful views from the others,” said Sarinee who owns a blog herself.

 “Instead of pointing out that someone is right or wrong, we want parties concerned to look at the ultimate goal of the Internet, which is to promote a healthy and participatory democracy,” said Sarinee,. She said there are a lot more values that the Internet can contribute to the democratization process – including open access to information, freedom of participation, transparency, talent and innovation, social equity and decentralization of authority.