Court concludes hearings in defamation case against Prachatai, verdict set for 25 Nov

The Criminal Court has concluded hearings in the defamation case filed against Prachatai by the company that produced the “2475 Dawn of Revolution” Animation. The verdict is scheduled to be delivered on 25 November. 

Nakraphiwat, the producer of “2475 Dawn of Revolution,” filed a defamation lawsuit against Prachatai, its former editor-in-chief, and three other people, claiming that its news article of March 2024 contained false information about the company’s relationship with the Army. 

Launched on 9 March 2024 and later released online, the animation was produced by Nakra Studio with the copyright owned by Nakraphiwat Co Ltd. After its release, the animation was criticized by pro-democracy netizens for misinterpreting the events of 1932 and for painting those behind the revolution in a bad light.

There were also reports that several army units were screening the animation to conscripts and officers, including the 2^nd Signal Regiment, whose Facebook page reported that the animation was screened to soldiers in the Regiment and their families to raise the “right awareness” about the revolution and build a “love of the nation, religion, and King.”

The lawsuit stems from a report on 15 March 2024 by Prachatai that, according to the analysis of the Anti-Corruption Organisation of Thailand, the Army had previously commissioned 11 media production projects from the company. 

On 23 October, Prachatai received a court summons stating that the company had filed a lawsuit against the Foundation for Community Educational Media (FCEM), which runs Prachatai, its former editor-in-chief Senator Tewarit Maneechai, former FCEM President Dr Kasem Sirisampan, and three other people who shared the news article, for defamation by publication and bringing into a computer system and sharing false information in violation of the Computer Crimes Act.

The witness examinations were held on 6-7 August, and 27 October. The verdict will be delivered on 25 November.

In this case, the fact that the Nakraphiwat Company entered into 11 media production contracts with the Army, as reported by Prachatai, was not contested. However, the company argued that the information was presented in such a way as to lead the public to mistakenly believe that the animation itself was also funded by the Army, when, according to the company, it was actually funded by private companies.

What was the prosecution and defence testimony?

The animation’s producer Wivat Jirotgul testified that the Army had indeed commissioned 11 media projects from the company as mentioned in the article, but the animation itself was funded by private companies, not the Army.

Although he acknowledged that the article did not state that the Army funded the animation, he insisted that the public was led to understand mistakenly that the Army was behind the animation’s funding, as evidenced by several comments on the post.

Wivat claimed that the alleged damage to the company stems from the news article’s cover image, which lists 11 projects commissioned by the Army under the poster for the animation.  

The news article also stated that the company secured its contracts with the Army by a ‘specific method’ or ‘direct purchase’ Wivat argued that this led the public to misunderstand that the company received the projects through privilege.

Defendants No. 4-6 were among those who shared the article to their Facebook accounts. While Defendants No. 4 and 5 added comments, Defendant No. 6 simply shared the post. It remains unclear , why the company chose to sue these three defendants from among over 1,000 shares.

Prachatai editor-in-chief Mutita Chuachang testified on behalf of the FCEM President, saying that a news article’s cover image typically highlights the most important elements, and using the company’s logo alone would not communicate this to the general public. The animation poster was therefore included, as the article referred to the company behind the animation, which was the centre of a debate in society at the time. Meanwhile, the list of the 11 contracts was intended to inform the audience that this company had entered into 11 contracts with the Army.

Senator Tewarit Maneechai, Prachatai’s former editor-in-chief, testified that the ultimate goal of the news article was to question the Army. At the time, there was public debate over the animation’s interpretation of the 1932 Siamese Revolution, an issue that fell within Prachatai’s editorial interest. He noted that examining the issues being discussed by the public is one of the duties of media professionals. 

In addition, in the early 2024, there was an ongoing debate after it became widely known that several Thai influencers had been hired by the Army for promotional purposes, and at the same time the Army had encouraged military personnel and the general public to watch the animation. The former editor-in-chief said these were unusual phenomena, raising significant questions as to why the Army had such a strong interest in this animation. Tewarit maintained that Prachatai had no intention to cause damage to the company.

In terms of the ‘specific method,’ he clarified that this is one of the procurement procedures commonly used by government agencies. The reason it was included in the news article was that it was the most frequently used by the Army, and this type of procurement has long been criticised for its lack of transparency. 

Defendant No. 4, a musician who shared the article and added a comment, admitted that he understood that the animation was funded by the Army, using taxpayers’ money. At the time, there was public discussion about the government budget. However, he asserted that he had not criticized the company, but rather questioned the Army’s use of taxpayers’ money.

Defendant No. 5, a postgraduate student, testified that he questioned the relationship between the company and the Army. He said he understood that the news article was not about the animation itself.

Defendant No. 6, a writer with over 40,000 followers on her Facebook page, testified that she merely shared the post to her Facebook feed so that she could read it later. She later discovered that she had been named as a co-defendant in the case.

Kittidej Chantangkul, Director of the Anti Corruption Organisation of Thailand (ACT), testified that the fact that the company received 11 media production contracts from the Army was neither false or misleading.

The information cited in Prachatai’s news article was obtained from the ACT AI website. He noted that the information on the website resembled the procurement records of the Comptroller General's Department, but the ACT AI presented them in a more user-friendly format.

He asserted that the website has never been subjected to any legal proceedings since the information is based on the official government records. 

He further explained that the ‘specific method’ is a Thai government procurement procedure which allows government agencies to select a single company with whom to enter into a contract. One intention of the specific method was to provide flexibility, but some government officials reportedly exploited the procedure to award contracts to their associates.