The second and the third readings of the amendments to the Computer Crime Act were scheduled to be debated in the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) yesterday.

Ahead of the NLA meeting, the Thai Netizen Network had presented over 360,000 signatures gathered through the website Change.org from those opposing the law. Its campaign said that this law was a reincarnation of the earlier proposed Single Gateway.

The government and the drafters of the law, however, denied their accusation.

While the Network, through all its channels, asked the people to follow the live broadcast of the NLA debate, it also shared what was being discussed.

“Peace and order, or morality, who can define it? It is so broad and no law can define it,” Thai Netizen quoted an NLA member as saying.

Communication arts academic Warat Karuchit wrote on Facebook about the three controversial Articles that faced opposition – Article 14 (1), which takes action against anyone who posts false information that can damage the country such as fake websites; Article 16 (2), on the destruction of false information according to court’s order; and Article 20 (4), which authorises a five-member computer data screening committee to filter content that might not be illegal but may breach “public order” or the “moral high ground of people”.

“If you want to attack these five people, should you wait until we see who they are?” he wrote.

“In conclusion, sometimes we have to give and take. We give something in exchange for something. We are always complaining that there is trash, dangerous content, scams as well as provocative content. We complain that we can’t do anything, but when there will be some laws for us to change, we have to adjust. We cannot enjoy the same freedom we have had all along; we oppose and brand it as dictatorship,” he wrote.

Achara Deboonme wrote: “If you need the power to examine, you have to [draft the law which] includes penalty for authorities who abuse the power, and the remedy.”

The Computer Crime Act was discussed widely since late last month. Yesterday afternoon, the Facebook page Anti-Single Gateway: Thailand Internet Firewall #opsinglegateway asked its supporters to visit the Web page of the Royal Military Finance Department and press F5 for Distributed Denial of Service attack.

@kafaak wrote: “I saw some tweets [inviting people to] hack government offices’ websites to protest against the Computer Crime Act. The more you do so, the more there will be valid reasons why the Computer Crime Act is necessary.”

@ARMdhiravath wrote: “Actually those who should be moaning about the Computer Crime Act are the media, the distorting media who write fake news and instigate people, publish graphic pictures. Ethics cannot control.”

@Gozzilawtf: “I like this comment – the reply to those who say we don’t have to be afraid as we do nothing wrong is: Try depositing your house keys with anyone you think is a good person.”

@washimario: Computer Crime Act [is] the law that authorises five people to decide for the citizens of the country on what they should or should not do, what is allowed to be seen and what is not.

@Fringer, one of the campaigners against this bill from Thai Netizen Network, wrote: “The Computer Crime Act is not a Single Gateway physically but it is in keeping with the aim to ‘control the information’ through legal authorisation (Web blocking centre/ decryption).

@T3thee posted a tweet of @I0I93 last year that, “Thailand should follow the US in the way it builds its people’s database. It [the US] can take action against anti-government people so quickly. We should follow.”

@irichmillion wrote: “Singapore is very strict in controlling prohibited content on the Internet. It’s the first country in the region that has strictly controlled information since 1996. [Prohibited content] must be deleted within 24 hours.”

Pattanadesh Asasappakij wrote: “The information in this country is so messy. On the Computer Crime Act, the opposers said, ‘We don’t want Single Gateway’, and the other side said this is not Single Gateway but just to control the people who irresponsibly post remarks offending others. I don’t care. I [ironically] am always polite.”