Internet Politics in Thailand after the 2006 Coup
87
level of political polarization. In this highly volatile context, four major legal measures
have been used to control online communication:
1. The Council for Democratic Reform ’ s Order No. 5/2549 (2006)
17 on the Ministry
of Information and Communication Technology ’ s control of information disseminated through information technology systems (known as the CDR ’ s Order No. 5).
2. The Computer-Related Offenses Act B.E. 2550 (2007).
3. The Emergency Decree on Government Administration in a State of Emergency
B.E. 2548 (2005) and the Internal Security Act B.E. 2551 (2007).
4. L è se-majest é provisions.
Since the CDR ’ s Order No. 5 was enforced concurrently with martial law in the period
immediately after the coup, it will not be discussed here.
The Computer-Related Offenses Act B.E. 2550 (2007)
The Computer-Related Offenses Act B.E. 2550, better known as the Computer Crime
Law, was the very fi rst legislation to be passed by the CNS-appointed National Legislative Assembly (NLA), an interim legislature after the coup.
18 Although the initial drafting of the law began in 1996, it was not actually passed until 2007, following an
international controversy in April 2007 when the junta-appointed minister of MICT
banned video clips deemed insulting to the Thai king and threatened to sue YouTube
for carrying them. This threat of a lawsuit came after failed requests to YouTube to
take down the problematic clips.
19
Since its enactment, the computer crime law has been controversial, particularly
its negative implications for online freedom of expression. Unlike conventional cybercrime law, which does not regulate content,
20 the Thai Computer-Related Offenses Act
classifi es content offenses committed on a computer as another major offense category
in addition to offenses committed against computer systems or computer data. Section
14 of the law defi nes offenses as the import into a computer system of
• forged or false computer data, in a manner that is likely to cause damage to a third
party or the public.
• false data in a manner likely to damage national security or to cause public panic.
• data constituting an offense against national security under the penal code; and
pornographic data in a manner that could be publicly accessible.
21
According to recently published research on online censorship through law and policy
in Thailand, two major types of offenses can be delineated from prosecution charges
fi led under the 2007 Computer-Related Offences Act:
22 (1) offenses against computer
systems or data and (2) offenses against content published online. Statistics in the
three years since the new law came into effect show that 45 cases fall into the fi rst
87
level of political polarization. In this highly volatile context, four major legal measures
have been used to control online communication:
1. The Council for Democratic Reform ’ s Order No. 5/2549 (2006)
17 on the Ministry
of Information and Communication Technology ’ s control of information disseminated through information technology systems (known as the CDR ’ s Order No. 5).
2. The Computer-Related Offenses Act B.E. 2550 (2007).
3. The Emergency Decree on Government Administration in a State of Emergency
B.E. 2548 (2005) and the Internal Security Act B.E. 2551 (2007).
4. L è se-majest é provisions.
Since the CDR ’ s Order No. 5 was enforced concurrently with martial law in the period
immediately after the coup, it will not be discussed here.
The Computer-Related Offenses Act B.E. 2550 (2007)
The Computer-Related Offenses Act B.E. 2550, better known as the Computer Crime
Law, was the very fi rst legislation to be passed by the CNS-appointed National Legislative Assembly (NLA), an interim legislature after the coup.
18 Although the initial drafting of the law began in 1996, it was not actually passed until 2007, following an
international controversy in April 2007 when the junta-appointed minister of MICT
banned video clips deemed insulting to the Thai king and threatened to sue YouTube
for carrying them. This threat of a lawsuit came after failed requests to YouTube to
take down the problematic clips.
19
Since its enactment, the computer crime law has been controversial, particularly
its negative implications for online freedom of expression. Unlike conventional cybercrime law, which does not regulate content,
20 the Thai Computer-Related Offenses Act
classifi es content offenses committed on a computer as another major offense category
in addition to offenses committed against computer systems or computer data. Section
14 of the law defi nes offenses as the import into a computer system of
• forged or false computer data, in a manner that is likely to cause damage to a third
party or the public.
• false data in a manner likely to damage national security or to cause public panic.
• data constituting an offense against national security under the penal code; and
pornographic data in a manner that could be publicly accessible.
21
According to recently published research on online censorship through law and policy
in Thailand, two major types of offenses can be delineated from prosecution charges
fi led under the 2007 Computer-Related Offences Act:
22 (1) offenses against computer
systems or data and (2) offenses against content published online. Statistics in the
three years since the new law came into effect show that 45 cases fall into the fi rst