The Administrative Court hold the trial in the case of Voice TV filing against NBTC.


On 20 February 2019, at 10.00 a.m. the Administrative Court held the trial in case of Voice TV filing against NBTC. As there was a shutdown order from the NBTC that suspended Voice TV’s broadcast for 15 days between 13 and 27 February 2019. Earlier, the Administrative Court scheduled emergent examination so as to seek a temporary injunction against the order of NBTC. Therefore, the Administrative Court released the temporary injunction for Voice TV that enabled it continue to broadcast during the examination.

At 10.10 a.m. both litigants were in the courtroom No. 3  Voice TV as a complainant consisted of Voice TV chief executive officer Makin Petplai, senior director of Voice TV Prathip Khongsib, modertor Atukkit Sawangsuk, moderator M.L. Nattakorn Devakula, the representatives of Southeast Asian Press Alliance: SEAPA, and a lawyer of Voice TV coming the Court to explain. For the defendant side, there was the board of the NBTC. The defendant was director of the NBTC Sombat Leelapata along with two persons authorized as an explainers.


1065 เมฆินทร์ เพ็ชรพลาย ประธานเจ้าหน้าที่บริหารสถานีโทรทัศน์วอยซ์ ทีวี


At 10.30 a.m. a judge who sought and gathered fact (the judge who gathered fact), and a judge who made conclusion started the trial. The judge who gathered fact said that in this case, there was a frame of time for 15 days according to the shutdown order of the NBTC.  If the normal court procedure was adopted, the trial would be delayed. Therefore, the Court adopted a new regulation that was declared on the government gazette on 5 February 2019 as aforementioned. Now, the Court had to consider about illegality of this order, and today, the trial would carried on the trial until reaching the conclusion that the Court was able to inquire. The judge who made conclusion would make a statement on the date of the verdict announcement which was on 25 February 2019, in the afternoon.     


For the fact, if both litigants viewed that there was additional fact, they could send additional fact or explanation, on 21 February 2019.


For the issue of illegality, the temporary injunction against the order of NBTC was counted as the basic judgment identifying that “It was probably unlawful.” The Court emphasized that the Court used the word “probably unlawful” after that the Court asked Sombat, the representative of the NBTC, that whether he had prepared the testimony.   

Sombat answered that he had organized documents already, plus submitting three explanations.

1. For the trial proceedings in case of the administrative order, the NBTC took every legal step such as informing the charge to Voice TV, made a list that which and when programs were broadcasted, let Voice TV clarify fact and gather evidence to submit to the conference of the NBTC broad. When the broad considered that the content was against the law, thus the administrative order was released.


2.  According to the testimony submitted today, it identified content in programs that the NBTC received complaint and explanation from Voice TV. Which part and what reasons was against Section 37 of the Broadcasting and Television Businesses Act.


3. The NBTC exercised power according to Section 16, 64 and 37 of the Broadcasting and Television Businesses Act, along with the NBTC announcement of 2012 about the principles allowing to broadcast and television for considering whether content of Voice TV against Section 37 of the Broadcasting and Television Businesses Act. The Act had authorized the NBTC for switching off or revoking a license.  If a licensee allowed to broadcast content which was against Section 37,  caused damages according to Section 64(2), and committed offences again and again or caused great damages according to Section 64(3), the NBTC viewed that it had to stop using the license. Voice TV had broadcasted content against Section 37 of the Broadcasting and Television Businesses Act, following with Section 64(2) and still committing offences again which violated the condition under Section 64(3).

Voice TV claimed that resolution of the NBTC was against Section 35 of Constitution of Thailand. Section 35 prescribed that “A media professional shall have liberty in presenting news or expressing opinion in accordance with professional ethics. The closure of a newspaper or other mass media in deprivation of liberty under paragraph one shall not be permitted. ”   


Furthermore, the part which prescribed that the closure cannot be permitted was not the case of exercising power without boundary. It could present news freely, but it must under the law and ethics. Voice TV gave additional explanation that Voice TV was a member of the News Broadcasting Council of Thailand 2010 (NBCT)and media professional ethics for Radio and Television in Section 7


 (4) Media must present news as well as information that related to the public based on the objective by holding the truth to be the highest without any bias.


 (6) Media must present and broadcast news as well as information taking into consideration about the benefit of the public.


 (8) Media must be neutral with its presentation to every party.


(10) Media must not present or broadcast news that was relevant to itself or a group which had conflict of interest. If media professionals had conflict of interest regarding to news, they had to notify and reported during presenting and broadcasting immediately.


The authority viewed that Voice TV’s presentation was in a manner that distorted the truth rather than express opinion based on the media professional ethics for radio and television. For example, during Wake up news, on 21 January 2019, moderators used words and sentences such as “We”, “Those”, “These” or “We had to prepare.” This kind of manner was not neutral and placed themselves contrary to those referred people. Moderators did not present news as media professional. However, the moderators presented news as if they had been people who resented toward the government’s working which violated the principle of media professional ethics to be neutral.  


Another episode of Wake up news, on 29 January 2019, was about presenting the policies of the Pheu Thai Party, a picture of the Pheu Thai leader, and analysis as well as criticism toward the policies. Panthongtae Shinawatra was the committee of Voice TV and the member of the Pheu Thai Party. Presentation about policies of the party was in the manner of having conflict of interest. If they cannot stop broadcasting, they had to inform conflict of interest to audiences. As aforementioned, the NBTC viewed that content of Voice TV was against Section 37 of the Broadcasting and Television Businesses Act, which led people to confusion. Therefore, revoking the license to stop broadcasting was reasonable and fair for Voice TV.     


For happening damages, the NBTC viewed that not only did Voice TV cause damages to national security or peace, but Voice TV also caused damage to the management of broadcasting and television which Voice TV committed offences again and again. The NBTC thus informed that before suspending the operation of TV, the NBTC had considered about complaints for several times and warned by summiting letters, but Voice TV did not follow the regulation. Previously, the NBTC used to ban the airing of content, especially Wake up news and Tonight Thailand. However, it cannot prevent Voice TV to commit offences again.


For the agreement between the NBTC and Voice TV, Voice TV identified that it was not conditional. The NBTC thus explained that Voice TV was the one who required to make the agreement and consented to follow the regulations.


The lawyer of Voice TV said that the NBTC alleged the action of Voice TV against the law, according to Section 37 of the Broadcasting and Television Businesses Act. Therefore, according to Section 64(2), this Section authorized the NBTC to consider and revoke the license. If the licensee aired content which violated Section 37 and caused great damages, the element of crime must be complete. Firstly, content violated Section 37; secondly, it caused great damages. This provision was counted as the provision that restricted the right and liberty of individuals, so it cannot be interpreted widely.


The NBTC issued the administrative order by virtue of the NBTC itself about the principle of broadcasting and television of 2012. Section 20 prescribed that “ If a licensee receiving order from the authority in accordance with Section 19 felt dissatisfied with that order, he could appeal to the board within 15 days since the date of having notification about the order. The decision of the board must be final.”  It must consider Section 19 as well, prescribing that “If a licensee violated and did not follow conditions of the order or the principles imposed by the board, the authority could warn in form of written document, ordering the licensee to stop that actions, editing content, or properly and correctly performing within the frame of time, including of authorizing power to explain and to submit the document as well as evidence for consideration”


The argument was that looking at the order issued between December 2018 and January 2019, the administrative order of the NBTC was not based on Section 19. As the order was issued by the NBTC board, thus, it was not “ an authority ” according to the definition of this order.


Section 20, in the second paragraph, prescribed that “ If a licensee neglected to perform duty which also causes great damage to the public, the board can stop or revoke the license. However, the license could be revoked only 1 time per month.” Therefore, Voice TV required to explain about the repeat actions and strong words. The level of severity of using words must be levelled off.


If they said that Voice TV did not follow the regulation of the NBTC, it did not mean that Voice TV did not practice every regulation. Furthermore, the level of damage must be similar to damage of private sector as well.   


The judge, who gathered fact, concluded that there were main legal authorities which were Section 64(2), (3) of the Broadcasting and Television Businesses Act. By Section 64(2), the two elements were that content violated Section 37 of the Broadcasting and Television Businesses Act and must cause great damage. Also, Section 64(3), it would consider about recidivism for each part.


Sombat said that the NBTC issued the administrative order to ban airing content of Voice TV according to 64 (2), (3) of the Broadcasting and Television Businesses Act. By Section 37, last paragraph, it was blinded with Section 64(2), and if there was another violation again, it would be considered according to 64(3).


The judge who gathered fact asked that if Wake up news and Tonight Thailand programs had not been warned before, it was counted as recidivism or not.


Sombat answered that regarding “an authority” in accordance with the NBTC order about the principle of broadcasting and television of 2012, there was no appointment of “an authority” because the broad of the NBTC took this responsibility. Also, for warning, it happened several times. Latest, the resolution of the NBTC conference of 23/2018 on 12 December 2018 had warned on 8 January 2019 about content of Wake up news and Daily dose.


The resolution of the NBTC of 1/2019, on 8 January 2019, asked for editing content of Tonight Thailand and sent warning to Voice TV, on 5 February 2019. In this case, Voice TV was summoned to explain on 4 December 2019. According to the content subcommittee of the NBTC, they viewed that it was a presentation in the manner of criticizing, but Voice TV said that if the board watched the whole program, the moderators had criticized every party.


The lawyer from Voice TV said that the exercising power of NBTC according to Section 64(3) of the Broadcasting and Television Businesses Act was avoidance. As this provision was in Section 64(2) in case of having little damage and committing offense again. For example, in case of   recidivism, the NBTC accused of broadcasting audio tape of Pol.Gen Seripisut Temiyavet, the leader of Thai Liberal Party, whcih led to confusion. The lawyer said that content was not within the element of crime and lacked violence. The NBTC sentenced minor offence more than 1 time to stop broadcasting the program like this. It was such a strange interpretation that caused great injustice.


The judge who gathered fact asked that according to Section 20 under the NBTC announcement about the principles of broadcast and television of 2012, it must be a violation of “conditions,” but Voice TV viewed that it was “an agreement.” and asked the NBTC for more explanation that how voice TV violated conditions as well.


Sombat said that the NBTC had condition blinded with the last part of license that imposed for the licensee to examine, edit, and improve content in the manner that might overthrown the administration and negatively affect the state security, peace and order. For the agreement between the NBTC and Voice TV, it was acceptance to carry on broadcasting after it was shut downed according to the NCPO order No. 15/2014 which was one of conditions in the license.


The lawyer of the NBTC said that the conditions of agreement, blinded with the last part of the license, was not in the form of order and cannot be further edited.


M.L. Nattakorn Devakula said that whenever the NBTC punished Voice TV, the NBTC exempted the stage which was able to send this issue to the media professional association. The NCPO order No. 103/2014 allowed to submit this issue to the association of professional to consider. This process would be more fair.  To explain more, whenever they were invited to explain about content of program, it was like a seminar, how to organize the program including of criticism toward the perspective of moderators. However, they never said which part of content led to sedition against ethics.


The NBTC could use their own discretion in either way anytime without proving to the society that how content violated law. Therefore, the order of the NBTC might violate Section 35 of Constitution of 2018.


Prathip said that we had consideration for the NBTC’s discretion as the head of the NCPO order No.41/2016 exempted the punishment of the Criminal Code, the Civil code, and discipline for the NBTC. It concerned us that the exemption of all punishments would result in carelessness of using discretion.   


Makin Petplai said that the administrative order including conditions in the agreement was like enforcing only Voice TV. The question was that whether it was enforced with other TV stations fairly. Fairness in this situation meant that whether the order was fairly and equally enforced with other digital TVs like Voice TV.


Sombat answered that the agreement like this was made with other television businesses as well such as TV 24, peace TV, Blue Sky which were the TV stations according to the NCPO order No. 15/2014, which Voice TV was the only digital TV. For enforcement according to the NCPO order No.97/2014 and 103/2014, the NBTC enforced the order with every TV station. For example, on 4 October 2016, an administrative order was released to fine The Nation TV, accounting for 50,000 Baht, and on 20 July 2016, there was an administrative order to ban airing of Spring news channel.


Mekin said that if they considered the agreement as an administrative order, it should be applied to every TV station. Another thing was the qualification of the NBTC.  We perceived that the NCPO issued an order to inhibit recruiting the broad of the NBTC until there was a new order. Furthermore, a personnel who had ability to analyze content had resigned intermittently.


Atukkit said that the board of the NBTC had a representative from the association of professional which was Supinya Klangnarong. However, there was a reason that she had to leave her position without new recruitment. Therefore, at present, there was no representatives from the association of professional in the NBTC at all, which could affect to lack of understanding about media professional. Previously, the consideration toward content never brought Voice TV to the Court before. Therefore, how they could allege that Voice TV committed offences repetitiously.


M.L. Nattakorn said that the atmosphere during explanation, it was so rush. The content subcommittee did not open a chance to let us explain. In conclusion, this kind of act was in a manner rushing everything to gather information and summarized that they had warned Voice TV already and issued some orders afterward.


The judge who gathered fact asked the NBTC to answer about this rush explanation that they followed every step of the law and the NCPO order No. 103/2014 or not.
Sombat said that submitting content to the association of professional to consider must be in case of violating media ethics. However, this was against the NCPO order No. 97/2014. Also, the head of the NCPO order No. 41/2016 prescribed that content which violated the NCPO order No. 97/2014 was against Section 37 of the Broadcasting and Television Business Act as well. Besides, this Act was still under the authority of the NBTC, so it was considered that it did not need to send this issue to the association of professional.  


Furthermore, the explanation was rushed or not. It had to explain that we followed every step. We let Prathip be an explainer because we viewed that he was authorized. Also, the NBTC rushed the process or not. Whenever the NBTC warned Voice TV to edit the programs, the NBTC did not think that Voice TV would commit offences again.

At 13.20 p.m. the Court continued the trial from the previous trial in the morning.


The lawyer of Voice TV said that the NBTC did not submit content of Voice TV to the association of professional for consideration because it was not about the ethic problems. Thus, he would argue that it was not true about neutrality, so the association of professional  had authority to examine this issue.


The judge who gathered fact asked the NBTC that they would answer in this issue or not. Sombat rejected to answer. The judge who gathered fact thus asked about Wake up news broadcasted on 21-22 January 2019.


The person authorized by the NBTC said that content of Wake up news on 21 January 2019 was transcribed and sent to the Court already. In conclusion, in the program, there were following three points that led to confusion.

1.    The survey about the election and economy: “People viewed in a similar way that if the election was postponed, it meant cancellation. The authority also acted as if they did not want to hold the election as well. To be honest, most people thought in that way. We did not know what the authority was thinking, but general people viewed that the authority did not want to hold election.” As we know, in Thailand, we had to set a new important event which was the Coronation of the King Rama X. Later on, Wissanu Krea-ngam, the Deputy Prime Minster, came out to explain but would not give further details.


1067 การนำเสนอข้อมูลจากสวนดุสิตโพลในรายการ Wake up news


2.    A moderator said that there were a lot of unseen capitals. The election was not completely free and fair, and most people get bored. Therefore, it might lead audiences to understand that Palang Pracharat Party gain more advantages due to having members being the representatives of the government; some parties could take advantages from this.


3.    The CP group was a concessionaire of the high-speed sky train Phase II. The moderators said in the manner that it should wait for the government that had legitimacy from the election to consider this. Therefore, it led people to understand that the State Railways of Thailand illegally gave advantages. 


Having considered the NCPO order No. 97/2014, it would be seen that Wake up news, broadcasted on 21 January 2019, presupposed to cause confusion regarding the duty and performance of state officials, no matter it really led to confusion or not. The NCPO order used the word “presuppose” which was kind of providing information incorrectly, despite accessing other sources of information.


Wake up news, broadcasted on 22 January 2019, was about Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra advising the solution of air pollution. It was just general information. The NBTC had considered already; it was not against the law.


M.L. Natthakorn said that when he was young, teachers will teach us to “read for comprehension.” However, in this case, the NBTC did not “read for comprehension”, but the NBTC listened and “ read to look for trouble” instead. Each of issues was not relevant. The postponed election caused everyone confuse that what the date of election exactly was. Everything that was said in the program has come from primary source of information, and on 20 January 2019, there was the Suan Dusit Poll as well. If the NBTC watched every channel and newspapers, not nitpicking only Voice TV that led audiences to confusion, they could see that the Suan Dusit poll was original source, not Voice TV.   


In conclusion, it showed effort of the NBTC to look for trouble. Confusion did not come from presenting news in the program. The confusion originated from the Suan Dusit Poll itself. The conclusion of the NBTC showed unprofessional performance as media.


Regarding the CP group, while presenting news, we would show the headline of other newspapers as well. For example, Post Today newspaper published that the high-speed sky train would continue the use in phase II. Also, there probably would not have auction. To show newspaper in the program was effort to present all news and all aspects, not just the perspective of the moderators.


The judge who gathered fact concluded that the presentation in the program was to show the poll and to criticize it as the moderator were supposed to do as usual.


Sombat said that the issue, which the NBTC viewed the presentation of Voice TV leading to confusion, came from a statement that the election would be postponed or not; it depended on the authority which was exaggerated, apart from the poll. Presenting the poll was a normal thing. Another issue was that according to Voice TV information about the high-speed sky train, it led to confusion that the State Railways of Thailand had no auction and allowed the CP group to continue its work.   


M.L. Natthakorn said that the speech which led to confusion was just the conclusion of the NBTC. It was noticeable that why the NBTC had to offend about the word “The authority.” Post Today newspaper and Bangkokbinews also published in the manner that the CP group could gain the high-speed sky train Phase II without auction. If the moderators really alluded to the private sector, it would be the responsibility of the private sector to sue us. He did not understand why the NBTC so offended with this, instead of the CP group. As above-mentioned, it seemed like witch hunt.  


The official of the NBTC emphasized again that in the program, Sirote Klampaiboon, one of the moderators said in the manner that the authority did not want to hold the election despite lacking this issue in the poll.


M.L. Natthakorn explained that there was a lot of dramas during the presentation because of our gesture and speech to entertain audiences, but still proper manner. After having read their interpretation, it was obvious that they interpreted by the intention to look for trouble. Content was written that this was real, but in the show, there were non verbal languages as well by bringing Post Today newspaper, and said that “this was real”. It meant that content really came from newspaper. Sometimes, he brought other issues of newspaper as well for criticizing with discretion as that source of news.


The presentation in the program was to show content of newspaper and what audiences paid attention to. The moderators did not intend to conclude in particular way. Also, Lt.Gen. Peerapong Manakit, the borad of the NBTC showed attitude to manage the program by himself instead of moderator.


The judge who gathered fact said that after having explained some parts of content already, he asked a representative of SEAPA for giving further opinion.


Tess Ballgala, the representative of SEAPA introduced himself that he was the administrator of SEAPA. SEAPA was an organization working to defend and promote genuine press freedom in the region. He was so glad to hear that the Administrative Court issued the injunction to protect Voice TV which let it broadcast during this time, along with supporting the principles of universal human rights.


The judge who gathered fact said that he had to explain first; the Court must examine according to the Thai law that whether Thailand followed the principle.


Tess said that Thailand had adpoted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCPR) which prescribed about the freedom of expression [ everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.]


For the reason of the NBTC which banned Voice TV to broadcast, SEAPA viewed that the NBTC provided insufficient reasons. They used what kinds of standards to consider content as sedition. The opinion criticizing Gen Prayuth Cha-O-Cha, the head of the NCPO, was seen as unfairness in the NTBC’s perspective and led to confusion. These opinions were judged by what kinds of standard and whose standard. If opinions were strong enough to stop broadcasting, it would be unreasonable punishment.  A variety of analysis played a significant role for the society of media pluralism. It was the principle to encourage and support people to respect different opinions. 


Sombat asked that in case of committing offences by media, how SEAPA would react and take action in Thailand.


Tess said that SEAPA had missions in terms of promoting freedom and worked as members and network. We worked in Indonesia, Vietnam, and Philippines and followed the human rights and liberty issues; we would make a statement whenever it had violation of human rights. There was a training which encouraged the media potential, including of holding a meeting on January 2019. SEAPA once held the meeting and invited Voice TV to discuss as well.    

The judge who gathered fact said that has he ever watched the controversial program or not and what was his opinion toward the program?
Tess said that there was a discussion with Thai co-workers. This was a responsibility to know what was the truth through the debate and consideration before having made statement.


The judge who gathered fact asked that was the standard of SEAPA used in other countries?


Tess said that SEAPA had worked for 7 countries in the South East Asia. We kept following the situations that violated media everyday. Apart from making statements, there were other ways such as holding discussion and inviting representatives to participate as well. We believed that having discussions played a vital role and built mechanism for curbing media itself. In Philippines, this mechanism was set up. If there was a dispute, a complainer did not need not to go directly to the state agency or the court, but he could complain through the media council  instead. Therefore, this was the reason why the government should not need to intervene the media, and it was the way that media would not fell in the sense of fear.


Sombat said that he wanted SEAPA to send information about media ethics, especially the context of political media that it banned politicians involve with this or not.
The judge who gathered fact said that in this case, it would extend this issue further. Only fact was enough. However, the judge required Tess to explain his status during the testimony today, by submitting a power of attorney within tomorrow as well as asking the NBTC for explaining content.


The official authorized by the NBTC said that Tonight Thailand, broadcasted on 16 December 2019, after having examined the program, found that the moderators referred to Sudarat Keyuraphan, the candidate of Phue Thai Party.


Teepagorn Wuttipittayamongkol, a moderator, said that “The advantage and disadvantage still had. For instance, when a party campaigned in Sisaket province, people who wanted to meet the party were restrained. If they came to meet Phue Thai Party, their budget would be reduced which was an illegal exercise of power by officials who took side the government. The campaign faced difficulties because of soldiers who kept following. Even though we did not complaint about this, it was not appropriate to stop people or the party to meet each other.  The law had allowed already, but it was fine. We will continue to work.”


After that, the interview of Sudarat was broadcasted which lacked the fact that the moderator had mentioned in the program. For example, people were threatened by soldiers; it probably led to confusion toward the military institution that military exercised power to threaten people. Also, villages which did not receive budget might lead people to understand that they did not get budget because of meeting with Phue Thai party. Prathip Kongsib, the senior content and program executive of Voice TV station had explained about this issue. By this, the NBTC said that during broadcasting, it cannot broadcast the full version of interview; if there was a new evidence, he could submit additional evidence to the NBTC. Nevertheless, Prathip did not inform that in the full interview, whether Sudarat said according to the moderator referring to.   


Prathip said that before reaching conclusion, this was the example of using discretion by the content subcommittee who lacked knowledge. It was said that the moderator exaggerated beyond what Sudarat said. In terms of writing a script for the program, the message that Sudarat spoke did not need to broadcast in the full version. Furthermore, journalists presenting in that area did not interview all the time. In fact, it could be proved that the moderator did not exaggerate beyond the source of news or distorted the truth as well as led to confusion. Other sources of media also had common point that Sudarat was followed by soldiers, and there was the state authority to prevent her campaign unlike other parties.      


1069 การนำเสนอข่าวของสุดารัตน์ เกยุราพันธุ์ แคนดิเดตนายกรัฐมนตรีพรรคเพื่อไทย


The judge who gathered fact asked that why he did not submit evidence to the NBTC in this case. 


Prathip said that when he went to explain, he might not include every aspect, but it was fact. There was no any distortion, and this issue was reported in other media sites as well. 


The judge who gathered fact concluded that for this explanation, it explained the whole picture of content presentation.
Makin said that the explanation was based on a principle which workers in this field might understand. To create programs was to collect information and to organize content. All collected fact must be in the responsibility of that TV stations. We had attempted to explain as much as we could. However, official inspector had enough personnel to deal with this issue or not.


Atukkit said that “ Cannot answer all question, This was hard to talk.” It came from Sudarat’s speech. However, when we read in the NBTC order, it seemed that the speech came from us, but actually we did not say it. Sudarat gave interview, and we read everything she said or summarized it from newspaper of Matichon, Naewna, and The Manager.


The lawyer of Voice TV said that by the principle of organizing programs, recorded interview would not be brought up again if a moderator had said already. Also, during fieldwork, journalists cannot record all voices. Some of them had done the interview, recorded voice, and then continued to discuss with the content subcommittee. There were many times that we came to explain; they spoke to us by using rude and threatening words as well. It was not similar to this situation that we were explaining to the Court right now.  
The judge who gathered fact said that according to the explanation, he asked Voice TV to send further document to prove that news also appeared in general.


Atukkit said that the NBTC caught wrong point due to lack of understanding about media. For example, a moderator criticized the ECT curbing media. It was a false conclusion that distorted the intention of the speaker. Actually, we concerned on the regulation about equality of the debate. What was the equality? Matichon would hold the debate but be afraid of equality, so it was cancelled. This regulation caused media to concern about exercising their own freedom. We did not say that this regulation benefited on media control. We disagreed and proposed new perspective instead.   

1.    For TV stations owned by the private sector, the government should support when they exploit media.

2.     We viewed that it was useless to give 10 minutes for our channel to broadcast.  Actually, nowadays, most audiences probably watched through Facebook live. However, we did not reject this perspective.

3.    We argued that what was neutrality. In the USA, the media like CNN attacked Donald Trump, but Fox News supported Trump. If we used the principle of neutrality limitedly, it would become problem. 

4.    Another thing was the extreme control of the ECT, which finally led to no competition. For instance, the selection of 250 senators carried on quietly.   
All in all, it could be assumed that the NBTC did not understand and cannot catch up content which led to confusion. Also, the board lacked understanding of media as well as neutrality. If they interpreted that everything led to confusion, freedom of expression would be limited.
The judge who gathered fact said that to not waste more time, both litigants wrote specific explanation in the list about issues still not explained, within 21 February 2018 at 16.30 a.m.


The Court would summarize all fact and send to the judge who made conclusion. After 22 February 2019, the Court sent conclusion through email to both litigants, and on 25 February 2019, at 10.00 a.m. the judge made statement and announced the verdict in the same day. 

Article type: