Freedom of speech, abuse of power by the government, and the new norms of a democratic society empowered by the Internet were all topics discussed by a wide variety of speakers at a seminar on the third anniversary of the Computer Misuse Act, often known as the Cybercrime law, hosted by the Thai Netizen Network, Media 4 Democracy and the Southeast Asia Press Alliance. [continued in original]

สำนักกำกับการใช้เทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศ สำนักงานปลัดกระทรวง ไอซีที เผยยอดปิดเว็บหมิ่นสูงสุด แตะหลักหมื่น ตามติดด้วยเว็บลามก 1.3 หมื่น และเว็บพนันกว่า 2 พัน URL…

เมื่อวันที่ 13 ส.ค. นายอารีย์ จิวรรักษ์ ผู้อำนวยการสำนักกำกับการใช้เทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศ สำนักงานปลัดกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร หรือ ไอซีที กล่าวว่า เมื่อเร็วๆ นี้ กระทรวงไอซีที ได้ดำเนินการสั่งปิดเว็บไซต์ที่เข้าข่ายการกระทำผิดกฎหมาย โดยแยกเป็นเว็บหมิ่นมากที่สุดจำนวนหลักหมื่น URL เว็บลามก อนาจาร จำนวน1.3 หมื่น URL และเว็บการพนันกว่า 2 พัน URL

ผู้อำนวยการ สำนักกำกับการใช้เทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศ สำนักงานปลัดกระทรวงไอซีที กล่าวต่อว่า สาเหตุที่เว็บผิดกฎหมายเพิ่มขึ้น เนื่องจากปัจจุบันการเปิดเว็บไซต์ทำได้ง่าย สำหรับขั้นตอนการสั่งปิด เริ่มตั้งแต่ การแจ้งเบาะแสจากประชาชน และการมอนิเตอร์ของทีมเจ้าหน้าที่ โดยขอความร่วมมือจากผู้ให้บริการอินเทอร์เน็ต หรือ ไอเอสพี ปิดกั้น จากนั้น ก็ส่งเรื่องไปที่ศาลอาญา ให้ออกคำสั่งโดยตรงถึงไอเอสพี เนื่องจากมีบางเว็บไซต์ ที่ไอเอสพีต้องรอคำสั่งศาล จึงจะสามารถปิดได้

Three years after its arrival, the controversial Computer Crime Act has done little to protect internet users against online threats such as hacking. Instead, it has been largely used to threaten and prosecute political dissidents.

While the demand from a circle of web masters, internet users and free speech advocates to have the act amended grows, conservatism from within the government and parliament continues to pose a challenge to their efforts to push for liberalisation of this law.

"Under the current political climate, it seems very difficult to push for changes through legislation," said Supinya Klangnarong, secretary-general of the Campaign for Popular Media Reform.

Running to counter the effort for the act's amendments aimed at promoting better human rights protection is a movement from conservative groups which prefer the inclusion of more severe punitive measures against so-called national security threats, she said.

"We believe that pushing for amendments to the law in parliament now means risking it being changed in the opposite direction, leaning towards harsher punishment for violation by internet users," said Ms Supinya.

Since legislation took effect in July 2007, law enforcers have mostly applied Section 14, which stipulates punishment for national security threats under the Criminal Code. This section has been criticised for its broad statement which does not provide a specific definition on what constitutes a breach of national security, leaving much room for law enforcers to bring broad charges against internet users.

The act also allows authorities to track down users' whereabouts based on their IP (internet protocol) addresses. Punishment extends to those who store, publish or forward national security threat information on computers. Lese majeste is among those considered a threat to national security under the Criminal Code and it has been mostly applied against users for "computer crime" under the act.

Some people have been arrested, detained or charged for posting messages considered lese majeste or, for web masters, allowing such postings to be displayed. Thousands of websites have also been shut down. Notably, enforcement of this law has mostly been made against supporters of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), which the government has more or less accused of hatching a plot to overthrow the monarchy; or against UDD sympathisers.

Recent developments from elements within both the government and parliament have made it more worrisome for advocates of liberal changes to the act, like Ms Supinya. They worry that there will be a setback to their efforts.

For one thing, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has thrown his support behind a so-called "online scout project" to monitor improper content on the internet which poses a threat to national security and the highest institution.

Under the current political divide, this project is seen by many as a new tool to exploit the act. It will add to the attempts to censor the 'net and hunt down online "enemies of the state".

Anan Worathitipong, head of the Senate's panel overseeing the drafting of amendments to the act in parliament, admitted that any push for a complete liberalisation of the law would be very difficult.

Within the Senate, a panel has been formed for the specific task of protecting the monarchy and monitoring anti-monarchy movements, he said. The police are also setting up a special force to monitor online actions deemed in violation of the act, he said.

These developments underline the state's unwillingness to compromise with the call for liberal changes. Critics have called for the removal of Section 14, since this has most often been used without specific or adequate explanation from the authorities.

"The content [on national security] itself is very vague and broad, giving room for people to use it as a tool against their opponents," said Sarinee Achawanantakul of the Thai Netizen Network.

"If the act won't be amended, there must be clauses providing clear definitions of what are deemed as threats to national security," she suggested.

Since critics of the act have found that pushing for an amendment through legislation would be a huge challenge, they proposed alternatives such as the introduction of ministerial regulations to assign punishment for certain computer-based offences under more specific laws.

The government must change its mindset, Ms Sarinee said, when it comes to internet censorship. Social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter or YouTube and webboards are not part of mainstream journalism, thus they do not have the same level of professional standards. "The government needs to understand that the internet is a space that its citizens use to express their opinions and it should respect this constitutional right," she said.

Opponents are also concerned that the ongoing application of this law across a broad spectrum could foster intolerance within society towards controversial issues branded as immoral or improper by the conservative sector in society. They fear this could make it difficult to bring about online public debates regarding controversial subjects such as abortion.

"If there is an environment that fosters free speech, we will have an environment that fosters tolerance," said Roby Alampay of the Southeast Asian Press Alliance.

While the responsibility of those expressing their opinions on the internet should be taken into account, the public's surrender to censorship by the government usually means the democratic environment starts to become very bad, Mr Alampay said.

Suranand Vejjajiva, a former minister of the PM's Office under the Thaksin Shinawatra administration, has urged the government to let go of its tight control over the internet because the medium has proven to be uncontrollable.

"The government should instead create mechanisms to give the public immunity against internet threats," he said.

Freedom of expression is being seriously challenged as the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva uses the Emergency Decree as its main mechanism in dismantling the supporting apparatus of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and its red shirt movement.

The clean-up operations are extensive and affect not only those with ties to the red shirts but also the many who dared to speak out against the government. The Computer Crimes Act and lese majeste law have also been invoked in a wide and sweeping manner.

Some of the offences are real in nature and, under normal circumstances, would be dealt with by whoever is in government. However, by relying on the special powers of the Emergency Decree, the transparency which normally would be assured within the judicial process, is thereby obscured.

For instance, no specific charges were lodged against the red shirts' People's Channel or various owners and talk show hosts of community radio stations that were closed down. Beyond the legal boundaries, many were threatened and harassed.

Particularly hard hit is the internet. The cyber world has usually been a flourishing forum for free expression. However, under the Emergency Decree, thousands of websites (40,000 as estimated by the Thai Netizen Network) have been reportedly closed, many specific postings were traced back to origin, leading to arrests and charges both against individuals, websites or web-board operators, even internet service providers.

Recently, Prachathai, a popular news and web-board site announced the closure of its web-board, after long bouts of resisting attempts to shut the website down since the coup d'etat of Sept 19, 2006.

It finally succumbed to charges of lese majeste. The offending remarks were not written by the website operators but in a posting by one of its members.

Since television and regular radio stations are state-owned, news and talk shows are controlled mostly through "self censorship" or lobbying by officials. Only the established mainstream print media remain relatively free, protected by law after decades of struggle against closure and censorship imposed by various military regimes.

This is probably why Mr Abhisit is now doing his "press tour" to meet and talk to various owners and editors.

As for the red shirts' newspapers and magazines, they have all been closed down under the charge of being "false" media. The government has accused them of being merely propaganda tools of the UDD.

But does control and censorship work?

Apparently the government and the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES), the main enforcer of the Emergency Decree, think so.

For them, a sense of control seems equal to a sense of security, at least for the government if not the general public.

In the short run, through suppression the government may claim a return to normalcy. It also hopes that with the red shirts' voices stifled, the government's one-sided propaganda can break through and change the hearts and minds of people who "see red". The message is about the protection of the revered institution of the monarchy and unity for the common good so the nation can return to peaceful and normal ways.

Hardly anyone in Thailand would like to be chastised as "disloyal" or intent on wreaking havoc. If they do not fall in line, most will just keep quiet.

But over the longer term, such an approach could backfire, and it will.

First, the heavy-handed tactic creates even more animosity towards the government on the part of the anti-government groups. They view this as the government's attempt to avoid answering the question of what really happened during the violent incidents of May - what circumstances led to the death of 90 people and who should be responsible. So far, the evidence gathered and culprits caught are questionable and insufficient to complete the picture, as the red shirts feel that the government is not only covering up its own mess but is setting up the opposition as the ultimate fall guy.

Second, by using this all-encompassing authority, the government further alienates itself from the public. It will lose trust and its own credibility which are essential for reconciliation. Revoking the Emergency Decree and letting the regular judicial process operate would serve to back up the government's proposed reconciliation plan, without which Mr Abhisit's pretty words are just empty mouthings.

Third, the government has become more paranoid by the day. Such forms of political expression as the recent "red Sunday" activities led by Sombat Boon-ngamanong are symbolic acts of protest calling for justice by tying red cloth to the Ratchaprasong junction sign. Mr Sombat was earlier arrested and held without charge for two weeks for this very act. Upon release he continued his quest as a growing crowd of supporters showed up. So, this past Sunday the Royal Thai Police was at the junction in full force, of course not to support Mr Sombat but to maintain order. They arrested Natee Sornwaree who shouted aloud, without a megaphone, calling for justice, and fined him 100 baht for "being noisy and causing annoyance".

In a separate incident, the police in Chiang Rai charged three students, aged 23, 24 and 16, who together held simple hand-written signs with the words: "I see dead people at Ratchaprasong" and "Emergency Decree must be maintained to hide the truth." The arrests reflect the low level of tolerance this government has for free speech. More challenges to the Emergency Decree will certainly come.

Fourth, the atmosphere of suppression has a dumbing-down effect. The Think Positive Network, a non-political group of professionals in various fields, made a television commercial to make the point that no one is to blame for the political crisis but that all of us share the blame, and suggested how we could work together to fix the problem. The commercial is thought-provoking but it was not permitted to be broadcast. Representatives from the major television channels decided to self-censor the ad, citing wide ranging excuses. This is in contrast with other commercials by the government that have been aired, with songs for peace and unity.

Censorship is not a basis for reconciliation and democracy. By curbing debate and continuing to enforce suppression, discontent will brew. Once it reaches boiling point, even the power of the Emergency Decree will not be able to save the government.

Suranand Vejjajiva served in the Thaksin Shinawatra cabinet and is now a political analyst.