Skip to main content
ShareThis

 And you got worried when the Minster of Information and Communication Technology said that hitting ‘like’ or ‘share’ on a potential lèse majesté posting on Facebook would land you in court. That should be the least of your worries, as a recent prosecution reveals.

One strange fact about the Uncle SMS case which has not received wide publicity is that Ah Kong was prosecuted under 2 laws: Article 112 of the Criminal Code dealing with lèse majesté; and the Computer-related Crime Act (CCA).

He was found guilty of violating both. But since the penalties under the Criminal Code are more severe, he was, by the Criminal Procedure Code, sentenced under that law alone.

But where was the computer in this case? Ah Kong claimed in his defence that he didn’t even know how to send an SMS. He has never had or used a computer, no computer was found in his possession and, I am quietly confident, he wouldn’t have the first clue about how to turn one on. How on earth could he be guilty of illegally using a piece of equipment which was never mentioned in the evidence?

Well, the CCA has a conveniently broad definition of ‘computer system’. One unofficial translation gives it as ‘a piece of equipment or sets of equipment units, whose function is integrated together, for which sets of instructions and working principles enable it or them to perform the duty of processing data automatically’.

Since a mobile phone is integrated in function with other mobile phones and processes data automatically by a set of instructions (i.e. your ‘send’ button), then it apparently qualifies as a ‘computer system’. Abuse it and you run the risk of a couple of carloads of cyber cops pouring through the doors and windows.

And it’s not just mobile phones.

An American tourist, Jeremiah Walker, known by his initial, had been warned by a helpful friend of the annual pre-New Year police crackdown on wayward pedestrians. He was therefore careful to cross Ratchadamri Road recently at a pedestrian crossing controlled by a traffic light. However, just as he pressed the button to get a signal to cross, he realized he was going in the wrong direction and needed to retrace his steps.

He therefore failed to cross the road when the traffic was stopped by the red light he had activated. Unusually, one vehicle, obeying the official traffic laws, had actually stopped. This was promptly shunted up the rear end by another motorist obeying normal Bangkok driving protocol (Rule #1 ‘Never stop for pedestrians’).

A predictable contretemps ensured on the well-rehearsed question of whether a driver can be faulted for obeying the traffic laws in a manner likely to cause an accident. However in this case, the police officer on the scene was alerted to the fact that the accident was caused in the first instance by Mr Walker’s failure to cross after he had, by pressing the button, indicated his intention to do so. The zealous officer chased Mr Walker almost to the BTS station and promptly arrested him.

For violating the CCA.

The public prosecutor argued in court that the traffic light constituted an integrated system, comprising two buttons either side of the street and a set of traffic lights, operated by a set of instructions, namely the pressing of a button. Mr Walker was found guilty under Section 14 (2) of the Act. He had ‘imported into a computer system [the traffic lights] false computer data [the intention to cross the road when he did not in fact cross] in a manner likely to damage the country's security or cause a public panic [on the part of the first driver, by stopping for a red light, and the second driver, by crashing into the first one].

The court took the position that unless an example was made in this case, such behaviour might proliferate and become a danger to national security. ‘Although the prosecution failed to prove that Mr Walker intended to cause an accident, Mr Walker failed to prove that he did not so intend; he is therefore found guilty’ read part of the verdict.

Mr Walker was given the max of 5 years and 100,000 baht.

The US Embassy expressed ‘concern’ and promised to visit him in Bang Kwang.

โฆษณา - Advertising
Prachatai English's Logo

Prachatai English is an independent, non-profit news outlet committed to covering underreported issues in Thailand, especially about democratization and human rights, despite pressure from the authorities. Your support will ensure that we stay a professional media source and be able to meet the challenges and deliver in-depth reporting.

• Simple steps to support Prachatai English

1. Bank donation via the "Foundation for Community Educational Media (FCEM)", Krungthai Bank, account number 091-010-4328, Swift Code: KRTHTHBK

2. Or, Transfer money via Paypal, to e-mail address: [email protected], please leave a comment on the transaction as “For Prachatai English”