General Monitoring Obligations in Thailand: A Reform Proposal Based on the Mere Conduit Principle and Insights from China and beyond
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Globally, intermediary-liability frameworks seek to balance freedom of expression, national security, and privacy by limiting monitoring obligations. However, Thailand’s Computer-Related Crime Act imposes proactive obligations, raising concerns over disproportionate burdens. This study proposes adopting the mere conduit principle from private law to balance freedom of expression with national security and privacy obligations in Thailand. We recommend: (1) clearly defining the mere conduit principle; (2) implementing a case-specific approach to takedown requests that consider intermediaries’ size and technological capacity; and (3) requiring court orders for national security-related takedowns while permitting individual notice mechanisms for privacy-related obligations
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Anansaringkarn, Pattamon, and Ric Neo. “How Can State Regulations over the Online Sphere Continue to Respect the Freedom of Expression? A Case Study of Contemporary ‘Fake News’ Regulations in Thailand.” Information and Communications Technology Law 30, 3 (2021): 283–303.
Balkin, Jack M. “Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society.” New York University Law Review 79, 1 (2004): 1-55.
_______. “Old-school/New-school Speech Regulation.” Harvard Law Review 127, 8 (2014): 2296–2342.
Einwiller, Sabine A., and Sora Kim. “How Online Content Providers Moderate User‐generated Content to Prevent Harmful Online Communication: An Analysis of Policies and Their Implementation.” Policy and Internet 12, 2 (2020): 184–206.
Frosio, Giancarlo F. “Why Keep a Dog and Bark Yourself? From Intermediary Liability to Responsibility.” International Journal of Law and Information Technology 26, 1 (2018): 1–33.
Gillespie, Tarleton. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018.
Haberkorn, Tyrell. “Dictatorship as Occupation in Thailand.” The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 49, 3 (2017): 338–352.
He, Tianxing. “Online Content Platforms, Copyright Decision-making Algorithms and Fundamental Rights Protection in China.” Law, Innovation and Technology 141 (2022): 71–94.
Heins, Marjorie. “The Brave New World of Social Media Censorship.” Harvard Law Review Forum 127, 8 (2014): 325–330.
ILaw. Announcement from the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society: Internet Service Providers Must Remove Unlawful Content within 24 Hours, Discontinuation of the Appeals Process [Online]. Available URL: https://ilaw.or.th/node/6322, 2022 (November, 24).
_______. Chiranuch Premchaiporn: Director of Prachatai [Online]. Available URL: https://www.ilaw.or.th/articles/case/23450, 2016 (December, 2).
International Commission of Jurists. Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression and Information Online in Thailand. April 2021.
Klonick, Kate. “The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech.” Harvard Law Review 131, 6 (2018): 1598–1670.
Koltay, András. New Media and Freedom of Expression: Rethinking the Constitutional Foundations of the Public Sphere. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2019.
Kuczerawy, Aleksandra. “From ‘Notice and Take Down’ to ‘Notice and Stay Down’: Risks and Safeguards for Freedom of Expression.” in The Oxford Handbook of Intermediary Liability Online, edited by Giancarlo F. Frosio. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
La Rue, Frank. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression [Online]. Available URL: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/706200?v=pdf, 2011 (May, 27).
Leyland, Peter. “The Struggle for Freedom of Expression in Thailand: Media Moguls, the King, Citizen Politics and the Law.” Journal of Media Law 2, 1 (2010): 115–137.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).
Nizam, Fuad. “MCMC to Take Legal Action Against Meta over Noncooperation to Remove Undesirable Contents from its Platform.” New Strait [Online]. Available URL: https://www.nst.com.my/news/crime-courts/2023/06/923358/mcmc-take-legal-action-against-meta-over-non-cooperation-remove, 2023 (June, 23)
Office of the Council of State. Memorandum of the Office of the Council of State Accompanying the Draft of the Computer-Related Offenses Act B.E. Report No. 257/2548, 2005.
Office of the Council of State. Memorandum of the Office of the Council of State Accompanying the Draft of the Computer-Related Offenses Act B.E. Report No. 919/2558, 2015.
Pimton, C. Liability of Service Providers as Intermediaries: Notification of Computer Data Suspension and Removal from Computer Systems. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University, 2018.
Prachatai. Netizen Network: Summary of Movements Internet Case and the Liability of the Intermediary “Director of Prachatai” [Online]. Available URL: https://prachatai.com/journal/2012/04/40258?__cf_chl_rt_tk=ROeVBqo5Fo9moenYiJAeBh09Bs2_hF0Sn08NHP5_SUQ-1700208807-0-gaNycGzNEtA, 2012 (April, 27).
Royal Thai Government. Notification of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society Re: Procedures for Notification, Suspension of Dissemination of Computer Data, and removal of computer data from computer systems, 22 July 2017.
Royal Thai Government. Notification of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society Re: Procedures for notification, suspension of dissemination of computer data, and removal of computer data from computer systems, 26 October 2022.
Scanlon, Thomas. “A Theory of Freedom of Expression.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1, 2 (1972): 204–226.
Schauer, Frederick. “Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the Chilling Effect.” Boston University Law Review 58 (1978): 685–732.
Shao, Guosong. Internet Law in China. Kingston Upon Hull: Chandos Publishing, 2012.
Southeast Asian Press Alliance. SEAPA Submission to Study on Social Media, Search, and Freedom of Expression [Online]. Available URL: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Opinion/ContentRegulation/Seapa.pdf, n.d.
Suksri, S. Law on Computer and Cyber Crimes. Textbook and Teaching Material Project. Bangkok: Faculty of Law, Thammasat University, 2021.
Suwannakit, Methinee. The Protection of Privacy and Private Information in the Digital Age: A Comparative Study of English and Thai Law Applying to Individual Media Users. Glasgow: University of Glasgow, 2023.
Tao, Qian. “Intermediary liability of website operators in privacy cases in China.” Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology 51 (2011): 105–118.
Timmermans, Louise. “The Role of Internet Intermediaries in the Protection of Freedom of Expression and Personal Data: Human Rights in a Digital Age.” Master’s thesis, University of Montpellier, 2017.
TLHR. January 2024: A Total of 1,947 People Has Been Politically Prosecuted Resulting in 1,268 Lawsuits [Online]. Available URL: https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/64902, 2024 (February, 19).
Tortermvasana, Komsan and Online Reporters. Facebook Faces Immediate Shutdown Threat [Online]. Available URL: https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/politics/1250114/facebook-faces-immediate-shutdown-threat, 2017 (May, 16).
_______. Statistics of Lèse Majesté Cases with Court Rulings in Thailand [Online].
Available URL: https://tlhr2014.com/archives/46268, 2022 (March, 28).
Van Hoecke, Mark. Epistemology and Methodology of Comparative Law. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2004.
Wattanachiwakul, Rapeeporn Liability Issues of Internet Service Providers as “Intermediaries” under the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E., 2550. Judicial Official Development Institute, Office of the Judiciary, 2014.
Xiao, Baiyang. “Making the Private Public: Regulating Content Moderation under Chinese Law.” Computer Law and Security Review 51 (2023): 1–16.
