I will only comment on the law.

In the absolutist states, the law to protect the monarch, head of state, is generally pinned with the law of treason. In Thai history, Prince Prisdang (Jumsai clan) who petitioned for a constitution during the reign of king Chulalongkorn fled the country by the treason law, not the lese-majeste law as we know nowadays. Since in the old day, any challenger who wanted to topple the head of the state would have to kill the kings (like Cromwell, etc.), the threat to injure, rather than to insult was at the centre of the treason law. In normal circumstances when the state transited into a constitutional democracy or a democratic republic, one would expect to see the lese-majeste transferred to be coded with the Liable law which practically deals with offences and defamatory insults. There's a problem with the law itself when it's integrated to the Criminal code. The use of article 112 is getting even more mirky when it is linked with the internal security act. It was this act that prohibited public hearing on Miss Daranee's case; but given the content of her speeches, the closure of the trial was not unreasonable.

Suwicha Thakor was charged with the computer crime act, but convicted and sentenced by the code of article 112.

Debate on the lese-majeste law won't be able to reach a common consensus as its language centres on the institution majority Thais love and hold in high respect. Personal value and passion will always be part of the debater's process of reason. In my opinion, there's a problem with this law; but the reform of it is impossible.