A coup is a process that is not democratic and that worldwide, as well as through most of Thai society, will not accept. It is bound to damage the country’s image, damage cooperation with other countries, and increase economic problems of the country. The conduct of General Prayuth and group who declared seizure of power thus conflicts with Article 68 of the Constitution. Orders of the NCPO during the time when there was still no Royal Proclamation appointing any NCPO head, are thus illegal orders. I continue to confirm that I will use what rights and freedom I have to appeal for our land to be a democracy, beginning with an appeal to the NCPO to quickly return democracy to the people and allow elections according to democratic rule. In this, anything that I do will be peaceful and in compliance with Article 2 and in compliance with just laws.16 Chaturon’s speech was clearly not seditious, but was only a criticism of the coup. Chaturon’s speech does not pose a reasonably clear and imminent risk of violence, as the speech did not use inflammatory or provocative language, but was rather an opinion – and a fact-based reading of the political situation at the time. On the contrary, Chaturon explicitly stated that he would only act through peaceful and legal means. The case is currently ongoing at Bangkok Military Court, with a slow process of witness hearings. Case study 2: Sombat Boonngam-Anong17 Sombat Boonngam-Anong, a social service worker and a former leader of anti-coup social movements, was arrested by the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) and charged with sedition and under the Computer Crimes Act on 5 June 2014 for posting messages on Facebook urging people to protest against the coup in a peaceful manner and to flash the three-finger salute (as popularised in the film series Hunger Games) as a symbol of defiance against the military junta. Currently, the case 16 Prachatai. (2014, 28 May). Chaturon Chaisang’s speech before the arrest. Prachatai English. https://prachatai.com/english/ node/4048 17 “Sombat Boonngam-Anong: 116”. Freedom of Expression Documentation Centre. https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/604 has already conducted 10 witness hearings, and is still ongoing in Bangkok Military Court. The urging of peaceful protest and the flashing of a symbolic salute directly shows that there was no counsel to violence nor was it an advocacy of violence. The three-finger salute, while viewed as controversial by the NCPO, is merely an expression of opinion. Under the bail agreement with military courts, Sombat was prohibited from participating in any political movements and travelling abroad without permission. The court procedure and the verdict may not mean to the society as much as the NCPO can keep Sombat under silence. Case study 3: Ponlawat18 Ponlawat was arrested on 27 March 2015 for distributing leaflets with the message “Wake up and rise now, all democracy lovers! Down with dictatorship! Long live democracy” and a picture of the three-finger salute. The leaflets were distributed at public places, including a kindergarten, a park, a school, a bus stop and a technical college in Rayong Province. The inquiry officer stated that the messages in the leaflets could cause conflict and confusion in society and could lead to violence. The case is currently being tried in a military court and the first witness examinations are being conducted. The messages in the leaflets can be construed as advocating to pro-democratic sections of the public to overthrow the dictatorial NCPO regime and institute a democratic government in its place. However, Ponlawat’s messages do not specifically contain any advocacy of violence, force, or the threat of violence to overthrow the government. Moreover, Ponlawat was not advocating for concrete action (as he did not provide specific plans to overthrow the government); his leaflets could be better described as advocating his belief or his principle of overthrowing governments. 18 “Ponlawat : Dropped leaflets in Rayong”. Freedom of Expression Documentation Centre. https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/659 THAILAND / 125