I beg your pardon: Is this constitution edible?

The controversial clause that triggered the case is the Second Paragraph of Section 6 of the law that prohibits anyone from “distorting facts” and presenting their views in a “violent, rude, instigating and threatening manner”.
The Office of the Ombudsman had submitted the question with the question: Doesn’t that run counter to Section 4 of the Provisional Constitution of 2014 that “guarantees the liberty and freedom of expression” for the Thai people?
The Constitutional Court, in a brief press release, came down with a unanimous verdict to the effect that the provision in question doesn’t contravene the provisional charter. That, of course, is seen as a purely legalistic interpretation of the wording. The confusion surrounding the “political interpretation” of that part of the referendum law continues to haunt the activities leading up to the August 7 vote on whether or not to accept the charter draft.
No official agency is in a position to say for certain what constitutes “instigation” or “rude language”. Neither can anyone be sure whether telling someone else that you will vote in favour or against the charter draft constitutes a violation of the law or not.
You aren’t supposed to “campaign” for or against the draft constitution – which raises the tricky question of how one can “inform” the public on the content of the country’s most important legal document if one isn’t allowed to explain the pros and cons of the gist of the new draft.
The Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) and the Election Commission (EC) have been making some amusingly confusing statements on what can and can’t be uttered publicly.
Thousands of “teachers”, classified into A, B, and C have been trained to “explain” the content of the constitution draft to members of the public at all levels. But what can they “teach” if they aren’t sure what they say could be construed as being supportive or going against the draft?
What’s even more mind-boggling is what questions can or cannot be raised by the local villagers about the new charter?
Some of the obvious questions – none of which could be seen as being “provocative,” “rude” or “inciting” could be “too sensitive” – if local officials start to get nervous about every utterance in the local forum on the issue:
Some of the “innocent” questions may include:
1. Why do we need a new constitution in the first place?
2. How will the new charter improve our livelihood?
3. Why do some politicians say this new charter is aimed only at undermining their careers?
4. How will the quality of politics get better under the new constitution.
5. What happens if the charter isn’t approved by the majority of the people casting votes in the referendum?
6. Is this a referendum on the new constitution or on the prime minister?

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-Cha has more or less responded to the last question by saying that he wasn’t trying to persuade the public to either vote for or against the draft. Officially, he says he has no hand in the drawing up of the charter anyway. And if the draft is rejected, he would arrange for a new group of experts to draw up yet another draft, this time it could be a “mixing up” of parts of the previous constitutions.
Is there an “ideal” draft that he wants to see adopted? The question hasn’t been put to the premier and even if that’s raised, I doubt that he will respond, unless he is really in a good mood, in which case I suspect he might employ his usual “You-tell-you” tactics to avoid having to reveal his real intention.
But the most down-to-earth question that has been posed so far, not directly by any member of the grass-roots community, cited by Deputy Premier Wisnu Krau-ngarm as one of the queries he has encountered: Is this constitution edible?
I hope the EC and CDC won’t interpret this question as being “provocative” or “rude” or “divisive.”
And don’t shoot it down as being “too naive” either.