[ad_1]
The Court of Appeals Reversed Accepting a Lawsuit ‘Pue Khem Leader’ accuses Chalita of Kasetsart University of being an inciting conspiracy to divide the land Cita for the defendant’s test on February 8 next year
On November 26, in room 811, Criminal Court, Ratchadapisek Rd., The court reads the appeal order of case number Black Tor 2890/2562 from Ms. Chalita Bantuwong, Deputy Head of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology. 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. According to the Penal Code, articles 326, 328
Follow the news, press follow the line fresh news
In the case of Ms. Chalita, the plaintiff expressed his opinion on Constitutional Amendment Section 1, but the defendant accused the plaintiff of being a rebel. Instigate separatism
The plaintiff’s indictment indicates the defendant’s circumstances in 4 cases as follows: 1. On October 2, 2019, the defendant posted a message on the Facebook page. Submit a complaint letter to the plaintiff to the president Accused the plaintiff of inciting unconstitutional land separation
2. On October 3, 2019, the defendant Facebook Life at Kasetsart University Say several words to insert the plaintiff (Having rude words and looking for conspiracies)
3. On October 3, 2019, the respondent’s letter of complaint requested that the complainant’s disciplinary investigation committee be established. Alleged actions, the plaintiff hinted that there was a separation from the state. Or foment discrimination AND stoke the situation in the three southernmost provinces
AND 4. On October 31, 2019, the defendant posted a message that Impersonating academic freedom to divide the land should he be beheaded to connect him to the truth? Chalita? The defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff to be insulted, hated and untrue.
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 said message, although it was 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 action of the defendant was not a crime of defamation.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the order. The Court of Appeal examined the expressions and consulted each other. That the plaintiff and the defendant have the right to Equal freedom of expression according to 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 verdict, Ms. Chalita interviewed that she was happy because she did not believe that the Court of Appeals would make this type of judgment. 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 appointed an examination of the defendant’s testimony. Check the evidence on February 8, 2021 at 9:00 am
Some Facebook photos Zongklod Chuenchuphon
[ad_2]
