expectation that giving food and flowers to a demonstrator who was part of a peaceful protest would result in violence or lawlessness. The sedition charge was dropped, which indicates that the courts do understand the definition of advocacy. Case study 6: Rinda Paruechabutr21 Rinda Paruechabutr, a single mother of two children, was charged with sedition for posting a rumour on social media that General Prayuth, the head of the NCPO, had transferred 10 billion baht to an offshore bank account in Singapore. She was imprisoned for three days after the military court in Bangkok ordered her pre-trial detention. She was then given bail, with the bail bond set at 100,000 baht (USD 2,800). However, the accusation of sedition was withdrawn. She is currently facing a charge under the Computer Crimes Act in civilian court. Similar to the case of Preecha, this is also one of the clearly repressive uses of the sedition charge. A rumour about the prime minister does not constitute advocacy of violence or lawlessness. The idea that posting a negative rumour about the Prime Minister might lead to chaos and public disorder is an unsubstantiated link. Case study 7: Theerawan22 Theerawan, 57, was arrested on sedition charges for posting a photo of herself holding a red plastic bowl that was inscribed with Thai New Year greetings from former Prime Ministers Thaksin Shinawatra and Yingluck Shinawatra. The inscription read: “Although the situation is heated, it’s hoped that brothers and sisters will be soothed by the water in the bowl.” What Theerawan actually did was to take her own photo with the red bowl and send it via the LINE mobile messenger application. But the photo was forwarded and a reporter at Thairath, a leading newspaper, put the photo on the front page during the time that the public was discussing the gift from the former prime ministers. 21 “Rinda: posted a rumor that Gen. Prayuth transferred money to Singapore”. Freedom of Expression Documentation Centre. https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/682 22 Human Rights Watch. (2016, 30 March). Thailand: Sedition Charge for Red Bowl Photo. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/ news/2016/03/30/thailand-sedition-charge-red-bowl-photo She faced a pending trial at a military court and was looking at seven years in prison. Her bail bond was set at 100,000 baht (USD 2,800). To confirm that her charge was not a gross mistake by the judicial system, both the prime minister and deputy prime minister publicly justified the charge. Deputy Prime Minister Pravit Wongsuwon stated that her charge was “not groundless” and that she had clearly “violated the law”, while Prime Minister Prayuth declared that her crime was a “national security” offence. Her charges have since been dropped. The Computer Crimes Act 2007 The Computer Crimes Act or CCA was first issued in 2007. The law was widely used to criminalise online expression along with the Penal Code. On 16 December 2016, the rubber-stamp National Legislative Assembly unanimously revised the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, and criminalised broad forms of conduct and expression online. While the redrafting of the 2007 version of the law was expressly intended to combat phishing and online theft, it has been widely observed23 that the rewriting of the new law will be used to silence critics of the NCPO and the monarchy. The distinct change of the new amendments from the 2007 law is Section 18, which stipulates that law enforcement authorities can access “traffic data”, encrypted data and computer systems. In addition, in Section 20, the new amendments stipulate that a “Computer Data Screening Committee” will be formed. It will consist of nine members of a government-appointed panel. The committee has the power to recommend an authority to apply for a court order to block or remove “offensive” content which sometimes does not have to violate any law. The new amendments that will importantly restrict freedom of expression are in Section 14, 15 and 20.24 Section 14 states: Any person who commits any of the following crimes shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five years, or a fine of not exceeding one hundred thousand baht, or both: (1) dishonestly or deceitfully bringing into a computer system computer data which is distorted or forged, either in whole or 23 Bangkok Post. (2016, 15 December). Computer bill deeply flawed. Bangkok Post. https://www.bangkokpost.com/archive/ computer-bill-deeply-flawed/1160845 24 English translation sourced from: https://thainetizen.org/docs/ cybercrime-act-2017 THAILAND / 127