[ad_1]
26 November 20 – In courtroom 811, Criminal Court, Ratchadapisek Rd., The court reads the order of the Court of Appeals. Faculty of Social Sciences Kasetsart University The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Songklod Chuenchupol, or the leader of Poo Khem, the National Team Guard Party (TWG), as a defendant of public defamation. Under Penal Code, Section 326, 328, the case of Ms. Chalita, the plaintiff expressed his opinion on the amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, but Colonel Zongklod accused the plaintiff of being a rebel. Instigate separatism
The plaintiff’s complaint indicates the defendant’s circumstances in 4 cases as follows: 1. On October 2, 2019, the defendant posted a message on Facebook. “Captain Crab Sated” invites people to Kasetsart University Submit complaint letter to plaintiff to president Alleged that plaintiff caused unconstitutional land separation. 2. On October 3, 2019, the defendant Facebook Life at Kasetsart University Say several words to insert the plaintiff (There are rude words and they discover that there is a conspiracy concept) 3. On October 3, 2019, the letter from The defendant’s complaint requested the creation of a committee for the disciplinary investigation of the complainant. Alleged actions, the plaintiff hinted that there was a separation from the state. Or encourage discrimination AND add fuel to the situation in the three southernmost provinces and 4. On October 31, 2019, the defendant posted a message “Posing as academic freedom to divide the land. Should the head be decapitated, is it true? Chalita? ”The defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff to be disrespectful, hateful, false.
In this case, the Court of First Instance issued an order on March 17, 2020 to dismiss the case at the first hearing. Because he saw that Such statements, although it is a somewhat harsh word. It is considered to be just speaking rude and profanity Not so defamatory to the plaintiff OR causing the plaintiff to lose his reputation in some way The defendant’s action was not a crime of defamation
Subsequently, Ms. Chalita, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the order. Today the plaintiff went to court. In which the Court of Appeal examined the case for consultation and that the plaintiff and the defendant have the same rights and freedoms to express their opinions in accordance with the Constitution. As long as it does not infringe the rights of others. It appears that the defendants did not criticize or comment on the content of the defendants’ dialogue. But to express opinions that damage the reputation, dignity and value of the plaintiff’s social status. In this class you cannot yet hear how to express honest opinions. Or criticize with justice The plaintiff’s appeal is heard that the case has data. Therefore, it was deemed sealed to accept the case for further consideration.
After hearing the order, Ms. Chalita gave an interview in which she was happy because she did not believe that the Court of Appeals issued such an order. Designed to support the Court of First Instance Make you feel more confident about the justice process. Personally, he thought that such a case should not happen to anyone else.
The reporter reported that the court subsequently made an appointment to examine the defendant’s testimony. Check the evidence on February 8, 2021 at 9:00 am
[ad_2]
