‘Common sense’ approach to FB enforcement

Pressing “like” on a defamatory message posted on Facebook is certainly not a crime, as such a message is only a record of past actions.To clarify, a Facebook post is equivalent to a video clip, showing a record of an action that has already been carried out. Facebook users who either approve or disapprove of the video will not affect what has already been shown in the clip, and the same logic applies to pressing “like” on a Facebook status. According to common sense, this is not the same as cheering for a murderer who is trying to kill someone, as the action of the latter is still ongoing and observers would be able to intervene to save the victim.
Thus, a “like” does not show support for the poster or even the message, because the action behind the original post was carried out before other people online even had a chance to see it.
This explains why pressing “like” on a Facebook status should not violate Article 14 of the 2007 Computer Crime Act, which is meant to punish those who propagate false information regarding national security and stability, or information that pertains to obscenity. In reference to the Article, pressing of the “like” button cannot be counted as intentionally sharing the information. It is true that if a person presses “like” on a status, the action could be displayed to Facebook friends on the user’s timeline. However, Facebook’s design prevents users from setting their preferences to control how their “likes” are displayed or with whom they are shared.
Sarinee explained that this is the social-media company’s marketing strategy to manipulate the activities of users, which are considered as products by the company, to automatically spread posts and messages without their full awareness. This is a strategy to turn users into instant advertisers.
It is not certain whether Facebook will practise this business strategy indefinitely, Sarinee said, and thus it could not be said for certain that “liking” a post would always be the equivalent of sharing that post.
It should also be remembered, she said, that Facebook posts can always be edited by the person who posted the original message, and thus the full significance of “likes” cannot always be conclusively evaluated.
There have also been concerns that the Computer Crime Act has been interpreted as an umbrella law that is paired with existing laws on defamation to widely limit people’s activities online. Some academics, Sarinee said, think that the Act should be used to only deal with cyber crimes specifically.
There is also a more general problem with charging anyone for defamation in relation to social-media posts, Sarinee said. Messages posted on social media are the equivalent of people’s real-life conversations, in which people share their thoughts and feelings with each other without necessarily knowing whether those ideas represent absolute facts.
Therefore, Sarinee said, the current implementation of the Act to punish posts on social media could be seen as being fundamentally against natural human communication patterns. Legal action instead should be directed at online content that demands a higher level of responsibility, such as news reports, but should not cover the general spectrum of people’s online communication.
The Kingdom’s current political situation could encourage a biased interpretation of the law that results in unjust outcomes, Sarinee said, adding that the Act’s current application is far beyond the original definition of the Act and therefore could be considered “dangerous”.
The international community has also highlighted the conviction of Thanakorn Siripaiboon, who is accused of Computer Crime Act and lese majeste violations, because Facebook “likes” have never been prosecuted in any country before, Sarinee said. For that reason, domestic critics are not being over-sensitive given the worrying international precedent.
Sarinee said the government does not bring defamation charges based on the social status of the accused. Thus the police should not claim that their interpretation of the Computer Crime Act is necessary to maintain social equity. Serious consequences, she said, could follow if Thanakorn is sent to a military court and prosecuted as a defendant under the Act. For instance, Facebook might reconsider its services offered in the Kingdom.
It may be hard for citizens to understand the police’s role, Sarinee said, because the actions taken against Thanakorn seem so dubious in most people’s eyes. It was also impossible to figure out, she said, how pressing “like” on a Facebook post, even if there were a massive number of “likes”, could ever pose a significant threat to the country.