Besides the defamation charge, the company also filed a lawsuit against 28-year-old Pratch for alleged violation of the computer crime law.

The case is still ongoing, with Pratch being the first defendant and The Nation newspaper the second.

But the young journalist is not alone in facing such a predicament. A number of politicians and political activists have shared the same fate for alleged violation of the controversial Computer Crime Act in their fight against the state, powers that be, and big companies.

The legislation has long been a subject of debate, having been exploited many times along with defamation lawsuits to hinder activists from fighting for their causes.

For one thing, law experts and rights advocates insist the two laws overlap. For another, an accuser could make a complaint from anywhere given the online content, causing difficulties for the defendants. But the committee vetting the law has said that this was about to change as they revisited the law, which came into effect late last month.

Since the revision came under fierce attack, the committee had always insisted that Article 14, which has often been exploited in defamation cases, would be revised. They promised to ensure that accusers would no longer be able to file complaints on computer crime law for the aforementioned debate.

Police General Chatchawan Suksomchit, chairman of the vetting committee, said originally Article 14 had been written broadly, making any input of false information into a |computer a computer crime. As a result, many people used it along with a defamation lawsuit.

However, he said: “Now it is clear that the false information entered into the computer is a crime when it comes with the intention of deceiving people. So it is no longer about defamation.”

Chatchawan said that some judges had been in the meeting to consider the amendment. He quoted them as saying that the case would be |dismissed if Article 14 was used in relation to defamation.

Similarly, the pro-rights organisation Internet Law Reform Dialogue, or iLaw, said on its website that the contentious article saw improvement in at least three areas – and one drawback.

In preventing misuse of the law for defamation charges, iLaw wrote the contentious Article 14 had been improved, by stating clearly that the input of false information when sued under this Article must also |have an intention to deceive.

According to iLaw, such a statement puts more weight in guaranteeing that the intention of the law is to deal with the online scamming and phishing, not the exercise of freedom of expression.

Secondly, a stipulation to allow settlement when the crime only affects an individual and not the |public has been added to the Article 14. iLaw said that this could solve many problems, especially when the accuser agreed to not take the proceedings any further. The case could end immediately, iLaw wrote.

Another good point seen in the revision was the new stipulation which said when the crime was against one individual, not the |public, it could be punishable by three years’ jail or a fine of up to Bt60,000. iLaw noted the sentence was less severe than the normal defamation charge.

One potential remaining problem, according to iLaw, was the term “distortion of facts”. It said this made a broader interpretation possible than the term “false information” and it depended largely on how the |prosecutor defined it, without |concrete official guidelines.

The committee also said the amendment was to serve the changing circumstance where use of the Internet, including in commerce, has become increasingly popular. They said it sought to protect rather than limit people’s rights.

Article 4, for instance, prohibits the sending of computer data that would cause disturbance to other users, without allowing the recipients of the data to cancel it. The violation is punishable by fines of up to Bt200,000.

Paiboon Amornphinyokiat, a computer law expert and an adviser to the vetting committee, said the stipulation aims to improve protection of online consumer rights. It |prevented undesirable ads that came in many forms such as lengthy comments unrelated to the post, online texting, emails, and short messages on mobile phones, he said.

+++++++++

Crimes punishable under amended law

1. Advertisements under Instagram posts

In a case where the account owner writes clearly that he or she does not allow the ads, the online shop owners cannot display them. If there was no such prohibition and some sellers posted undesirable ads, the account owner has the right to ask for removal. Failing to comply with the request is a crime under the Computer Crime Act, carrying a punishment of up to Bt200,000 fine.

2. Advertisements in emails

Emails offering goods and services to involuntary recipients must include a clear option to cancel receiving such emails.

3. Advertisements in personal online texting

Often sellers will text potential customers, offering goods and services. Under the amendment which came into effect last month, repetition of the offer after rejection is a violation of the law.

4. Short messages on mobile phones

Advertisements coming into a mobile phone must also include a statement to allow cancellation.