Over 25,000 cases have been filed since 2015, as the law is increasingly weaponised to silence critical voices.
This statement was originally published on article19.org on 29 October 2024.
ARTICLE 19 provides in-depth analysis of Thailand’s defamation laws in its new report Silencing Dissent: Defamation Laws and the Fight for Free Expression in Thailand, underscoring an urgent call for reform to protect freedom of expression and align the country’s legislation with international human rights standards. Thailand’s criminal defamation laws, particularly the notorious lèse-majesté provision, continue to criminalise criticism of the monarchy, contributing to an escalating crackdown on journalists, activists, and whistleblowers.
“Thailand must join the global movement towards decriminalising defamation and bring its legislation in line with international human rights standards,” said David Diaz-Jogeix, ARTICLE 19’s Senior Director of Programmes. “By undertaking comprehensive reforms, Thailand can uphold its commitment to human rights, foster a vibrant democracy, and create a more just and equitable society.”
To support the efforts of local activists and human rights defenders, ARTICLE 19 first outlines the legal framework governing defamation in Thailand, particularly focusing on the Criminal Code and the lèse-majesté law (Section 112). This law has been used to suppress dissent and silence critics, leading to a significant chilling effect on public discourse.
Since the release of our previous 2021 study calling for the decriminalisation of defamation, the situation has deteriorated sharply. Over 25,000 cases have been filed since 2015, increasingly weaponised to silence critical voices. As ARTICLE 19 notes, these laws have been strategically used to stifle dissent, with lèse-majesté prosecutions surging particularly against pro-democracy activists since a moratorium on its enforcement ended in 2020.
“Thailand’s defamation laws violate international freedom of expression standards. Criminal defamation is both disproportionate and unnecessary — civil defamation laws are far better suited for protecting reputations,” said David. “Legislators must also confront the misuse of SLAPPs, which intimidate and silence critics. Legal reforms are essential to protect individuals from such lawsuits.”
This report aims to serve as a roadmap for essential legislative reforms, addressing how Thailand can repeal provisions within its Criminal Code that infringe on free speech, introduce safeguards against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), and establish a framework for civil defamation laws in compliance with global standards.
