(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is 29 November 2004 Article 19 press release: ARTICLE 19 ANALYSES THAI DEFAMATION PROVISIONS ARTICLE 19 has published a Memorandum analysing Thailand’s criminal and civil defamation provisions (1), as set out in the Penal and Civil Codes, against international and comparative standards in this area. The criminal defamation provisions are […]
(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is 29 November 2004 Article 19 press release:
ARTICLE 19 ANALYSES THAI DEFAMATION PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 19 has published a Memorandum analysing Thailand’s criminal and civil defamation provisions (1), as set out in the Penal and Civil Codes, against international and comparative standards in this area. The criminal defamation provisions are harsh and provide for imprisonment, in clear breach of international standards. The civil rules are less draconian but, as recent events in Thailand have shown, still include loopholes which can be exploited to chill free speech.
Thailand used to be a champion of freedom of expression in Asia but the situation has changed dramatically in recent years. Of particular concern is the increase in defamation cases against the press and civil society. A prominent case illustrating the problems highlighted by the Memorandum is that of Supinya Klangnarong, charged with both criminal and civil defamation for comments suggesting that the profits of Shin Corp, a media conglomerate, had increased significantly since its founder, Thaksin Shinawatra, became Prime Minister. It is clear that, regardless of the truth of these allegations, they bear on a matter of great public importance. Laws which restrict open public discussion about such matters need to be reviewed very critically.
ARTICLE 19 is of the view that defamation should never be criminal in nature since civil defamation laws provide adequate redress against harm to reputation and the criminal law is a disproportionate means of addressing this problem. In any case, the Thai criminal defamation provisions fail to provide for adequate defences and allow for imprisonment for defamation, a grossly disproportionate and unjustifiable sanction.
The civil defamation laws are less problematical than their criminal counterparts. At the same time, the scope of these laws needs to be clarified, in particular in relation to opinions, and the system of defences should be enhanced. Importantly, measures should be taken to ensure that strict limits are imposed on the amount of damages that may be obtained for harm to reputation caused by defamation.
1. The full analysis is available at: http://www.article19.org/ViewArticle.asp?AreaID=32&SubAreaID=97&PageID=144&ElementID=70&ArticleID=1767&Comment=