cannot be settled through compromise. Even if a settlement is made by a complainant and a defendant, the offence under Section 14(1) still remains. This creates an impact on the defendant and also unnecessarily makes cases pile up in the court process. No regard for good faith or public interest: According to the Penal Code, Section 329-330, any alleged defamation deemed to be an opinion or statement expressed in good faith or any imputation proved to be of benefit to the public shall be considered of having a reasonable cause for exemption from guilt or penalty. However, under Section 14(1) of the CCA, neither the exercise of an individual’s right to freedom to express his or her opinion in good faith, nor a criticism made in the public interest, can be claimed as a reason. Threat to freedom of the media: Online media have been hugely increasing nowadays and even the mainstream media have adopted online channels as another medium of communication; thus, when a defamation charge occurs, Section 14(1) is likely to be integrated in the charge. This causes a greater burden to the media as well as to the accused. Also, the tendency for the media to be prosecuted under Section 14(1) is continually increasing, affecting the atmosphere of freedom in the society. After the amendments, in the new version of the CCA enforced since May 2017, the phrases “dishonestly or deceitfully” and “but not constituting a crime of defamation under the Penal Code” were added to show the intention of the National Legislative Assembly drafting sub-committee to stop the enforcement of Section 14(1) against online criticism and comments. The compoundable and less harsh punishment conditions in paragraph two also show a good sign for online expression. However, the word “distorted” was added at the last minute by the drafting sub-committee to maintain the possibility of charging online opinion with Section 14(1). The new Section 14(1) has created confusion for interpretation. We have not yet seen any court’s decision on the new Section 14(1) that benefits the future interpretation. On the other hand, cases under Section 14(1) in the court process are still going on and the number of cases is not decreasing. Case study 1: Royal Navy vs. Phuket Wan26 A journalist and an editor of Phuket Wan, a small local English news website in Phuket Province, were charged with criminal defamation and with Section 14(1) of the Computer Crimes Act for publishing an 26 “Thai Royal Navy vs Phuketwan news agency”. Freedom of Expression Documentation Centre. https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/ case/554 article that accused the Thai Naval Force of being involved in and benefitting from trafficking of the Rohingya people. The Thai Royal Navy authorised a naval officer to report the case to the police. The defendants argued that the news story published on the website actually referred to a Pulitzer Prize-winning report by Reuters. They had no intention to ruin the reputation of the Thai Royal Navy but were simply carrying out their journalism work. Moreover, when the Navy published its clarification on the report, Phuket Wan also publicised the Navy’s statement. Later, the court dismissed the case, reasoning that Reuters is a reliable agency and therefore the information can be seen as truth. Case study 2: Canned fruit factory vs. Andy Hall27 Andy Hall is a British researcher and a human rights defender. His studies focus on human rights violations against migrant workers. He was sued after publishing research on the violation of labour rights of migrant workers in the international private label products industry in Thailand. This case started in 2013, the court accepted the case in 2015 and the witness examinations began in 2016. Hall fought the case on the grounds of academic rights and freedom of expression. The information published in his research was from interviews with 12 migrant workers who had already left the country because of fear of intimidation by the company. The plaintiff argued that the information provided by Hall was false and he had failed to verify the information with the company before publishing it. The Court of First Instance sentenced Hall to a fine of 150,000 baht (USD 4,200) and three years in prison with a suspension. The company also filed another three cases against Hall based on different grounds but on the same topic. Hall is now not in Thailand. Case study 3: Thai industrial employer vs. labour union member28 In mid-2010, Songkram Chimcherd, an employee of Thai Industrial Gases Plc and a member of the Thai Industrial Gases Labour Union, was accused 27 “Andy Hall: Computer Crime case”. Freedom of Expression Documentation Centre. https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/469 28 “Songkram Chimcherd: member of the Thai Industrial Gases Labor Union (TIGLU)”. Freedom of Expression Documentation Centre. https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/177 THAILAND / 129