Report Warning Issued: Even Indirect Defamation Remains Illegal Under Thai Law

[black tabby12345]

Even lesser freedom of speech, under the Democratically Elected regime(than previous military govt).

 

[black tabby12345]

57 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

So how does this effect a forum like this, where users regularly defame individuals in Thailand and Thailand itself? Should the rote Thai bashing be banned?

 

Is this web space legally in Thailand?

Or it is from somewhere else?

If so, it isn't bound by Thai Laws though.

 

[soalbundy]

2 hours ago, Nickcage49 said:

These are laws that need to be relaxed if this country can ever be a true Democracy.

What would change in a 'real democracy' (which doesn't exist anywhere). Would the homeless be housed, would American health care be affordable, would the NHS suddenly have no huge waiting times, would the wealthy suddenly have to pay tax, would the huge wealth disparity disappear, would child poverty be a thing of the past, would political promises made before an election have to kept? I don't think so. Thailand manages OK, it's a Goldilocks system, not too hot, not too cold, I prefer things here to the UK.

[lordgrinz]

22 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

What would change in a 'real democracy' (which doesn't exist anywhere). Would the homeless be housed, would American health care be affordable, would the NHS suddenly have no huge waiting times, would the wealthy suddenly have to pay tax, would the huge wealth disparity disappear, would child poverty be a thing of the past, would political promises made before an election have to kept? I don't think so. Thailand manages OK, it's a Goldilocks system, not too hot, not too cold, I prefer things here to the UK.

 

Your definition of a "real democracy" is anything but, you're describing something akin to a Utopia, it doesn't exist, it never will. 

[Lorry]

Try to use the word "prostitute" (in writing) or a Thai equivalent (when speaking) to the most hardened Thai prostitute and you will see that she considers it defamatory.

 

"I am not a prostitute" is ok.

"I am a freelancer" is ok, too.

*"I am a prostitute" is an ungrammatical sentence in Thinglish. You cannot combine the words "I" and "prostitute".

*"You are..." is defamatory and a criminal offence.

[Zapitapi]

17 hours ago, edwinchester said:

Nonsense. All that has happened is that the incitement to violence and the promotion of hatred has rightly been criminalised in some cases.

thats NOT nonsense.. 4000 ish went to jail actually..very similar in germany where a guy went to jail for 8 month for a meme posted online..the net is tightening in many countries..one should not dismiss that and live in a world that was 30 years ago

[Zapitapi]

11 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

 

Your definition of a "real democracy" is anything but, you're describing something akin to a Utopia, it doesn't exist, it never will. 

if you read the post the poster made it quite clear that it does not exist

[Yagoda]

1 hour ago, wensiensheng said:

Hmm, well it’s off topic but I can think of two recent well publicized cases where students were held in detention for doing just that.

Lie. You mean two farang on student visas? 

 

Here, you are in Thailand, go stand on a corner and scream about certain people, deportation would be the least of your worries.

 

Dont come into my house for a beer and then start screaming Im an arschole for not giving you Beer Lao

[Evil Penevil]

Thai laws on defamation are stricter than corresponding laws in Western countries.  Basically, a defendant in a Thai court can be found guilty of defamation if his statements, whether true or not, have injured the complainant's reputation or damaged his family's honor.   Unlike the U.S., the truth is not an absolute defense against defamation in Thailand.   It's the likely effect of the statement on the reputation of the complainant that counts in Thailand.

 

Legal experts agree it is easier for a complainant to file and win a defamation suit in Thailand than any other country in the world. That's why board rule 5 is so important:

5. Thailand-Specific Laws

As a website operating under Thai jurisdiction, we are obligated to comply with local laws, particularly those concerning defamation, respect for the monarchy, and illegal activities. Any content that violates these laws will be removed, and appropriate action will be taken to protect the platform and its members.

 

Outside of the particularly sensitive areas, the Thai judicial system has not shown itself very willing to get involved in cases where non-Thais writing in a foreign language may have defamed each other.  Posters on non-Thai boards need to be careful and stay aware of Thai defamation laws, but there's no reason to get paranoid.

[trainman34014]

They constantly talk of wanting to be the 'Hub' of this and the 'Hub' of that but they will never be the 'Hub' of anything worthwhile to themselves or The World until they stop all this nonsense and take criticism.    Being Cowards whilst hiding behind Draconian Laws ensures that Thailand will lag behind the majority of Free Speaking Countries for Decades to come !

[Your Uncle Bob]

So can we call them freelancers or business ladies without risk?

[edwinchester]

2 hours ago, Zapitapi said:

thats NOT nonsense.. 4000 ish went to jail actually..very similar in germany where a guy went to jail for 8 month for a meme posted online..the net is tightening in many countries..one should not dismiss that and live in a world that was 30 years ago

They didn't go to jail for defamation they went to jail for violent behaviour and inciting racial hatred amongst other serious crimes.

[TedG]

6 hours ago, wensiensheng said:

Hmm, well it’s off topic but I can think of two recent well publicized cases where students were held in detention for doing just that.

 

But back to Thailand….

Link?

[Dexxter]

On 5/21/2025 at 1:11 PM, JoePai said:

Only goes to show the Thai legal system is an ar$e

 

Be careful because saying that is probably defamatory.

[blaze master]

What a backwards country with stupid laws. 

 

Go ahead sue me i don't give a ffffff.

[Andycoops]

I guess if you aren't in Thailand you post whatever you like as it's non of their business what you say about them while a resident of a foreign country.

[metisdead]

On 5/22/2025 at 8:14 AM, newbee2022 said:

How are the rules for this here on AN?

 

7. You will not post defamatory or libelous comments. Defamation is the issuance of a statement about another person or business which causes that person or business to suffer harm or loss. A statement does not have to be false to be defamatory. Libel is when the defamatory statement is published either as a drawing, picture, painting, motion picture, film, or letters made visible by any means or by broadcasting, dissemination or propagation by any other means. Defamation is both a civil and criminal charge in Thailand and elsewhere in ASEAN.

[metisdead]

Off topic deflection posts and replies about defamation in the USA and UK have been removed.

[newbee2022]

56 minutes ago, metisdead said:

 

7. You will not post defamatory or libelous comments. Defamation is the issuance of a statement about another person or business which causes that person or business to suffer harm or loss. A statement does not have to be false to be defamatory. Libel is when the defamatory statement is published either as a drawing, picture, painting, motion picture, film, or letters made visible by any means or by broadcasting, dissemination or propagation by any other means. Defamation is both a civil and criminal charge in Thailand and elsewhere in ASEAN.

Thank you

[jesimps]

On 5/21/2025 at 3:29 PM, Magictoad said:

Here in the UK over 45 thousand people have been investigated and cautioned with on line offences under new laws  

introduced by the new Labour government. Many people have been put in prison. For tweets. Teams of police; 6 at a time storm into people's houses and confiscate their computers and phones. Only this week a court confirmed a very long sentence for a mother of a small child. The mother lost her appeal. Free speech is dead in the UK.

Not to mention "Non-crime Hate Incidents", where a bunch of police officers come and knock on your door and give you a strict warning to the effect that although you haven't committed a crime, someone has brought you to their attention for doing or saying something which they didn't like. The police won't divulge who that person was or what non-offence you have committed, but you go onto police records as having done so. This could prevent you getting a job, opening a bank account or any number of other things which could seriously affect your life. The person who reported you of course remains anonymous. Stasi tactics or what? Thailand is a free and open society by comparison.

[Drumbuie]

On 5/21/2025 at 7:03 PM, edwinchester said:

Nonsense. All that has happened is that the incitement to violence and the promotion of hatred has rightly been criminalised in some cases.

Au contraire. The UK government tried to ban this woman for holding a placard outside a courtroom.

The placard,  far from inciting violence or promoting hatred, simply  *restated a principle of the English legal system* . 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9gkwxkwwko

[Mr Meeseeks]

On 5/21/2025 at 3:03 PM, edwinchester said:

Nonsense. All that has happened is that the incitement to violence and the promotion of hatred has rightly been criminalised in some cases.

 

Apparently only against indigenous Britons though. 

 

Muslims can parade through the streets with machetes and call for jihad and submission of non-Muslims without fear of prosecution. 

 

Waken up. 

[spidermike007]

The defamation laws were written by sold out cowards, to protect rotten players from reprisals, due to bad service, faulty products and bad business. They have no place in today's world. They represent a heinous over reach of toxic power. 

 

Thailand deserves whatever comes its way as a result of this. Those insane and cowardly defamation laws have been around way too long. They were written and passed by sold out politicians, for men who sell inferior products, offer inferior services, and steal alot of money. And do not intend to be answerable to anyone. Perhaps some of that will change. 

 

For those of us who have been here a awhile, we know that positive change only happens here through utter embarrassment, humiliation, and a loss of face. It never happens because it is the right thing to do, or due to fairness or equity. So, it must be thrust upon them, such as in this incident. 

 

The lack of vision prevents them from seeing it coming. Egg on the face can be a cure for many diseases and weaknesses. May they all be called out by name. Defiance in the face of cowardice and ignorance is a courageous and righteous form of action. 

[mikeymike100]

On 5/21/2025 at 3:29 PM, Magictoad said:

Here in the UK over 45 thousand people have been investigated and cautioned with on line offences under new laws  

introduced by the new Labour government. Many people have been put in prison. For tweets. Teams of police; 6 at a time storm into people's houses and confiscate their computers and phones. Only this week a court confirmed a very long sentence for a mother of a small child. The mother lost her appeal. Free speech is dead in the UK.

Quite, 30 people a day are arrested in the UK for social media posts, I didn't believe it but its true.

I don't think Thailand is anywhere close to that, I don't think any other country is?

[Evolare]

Isn't this post a bit defamatory? 😅 🤔 🫢

[oustaristocrats]

The explanation given by Sam Altman is striking even when the question was a bit in a suggestieve style, just look ...

 

We asked :

"How do you call a law which enables the leaders of a country to enable censorship in a way to suppress freedom of speech, but call it a defamation law  ?"

 

Reply:

A law that enables censorship under the guise of protecting against defamation, but is actually used to suppress freedom of speech and dissent, is often referred to as a:

 

"Repressive defamation law" or "abusive defamation law"

 

In legal or political analysis, it may also be described with terms like:

- "Defamation as a tool of repression"

- "Weaponized defamation law"

- "Politicized defamation law"

- "Criminal defamation law (with authoritarian application)"

 

Such laws are often criticized because they:

- Blur the line between protecting reputation and silencing criticism.

- Are vaguely worded, allowing broad interpretation.

- May carry disproportionate penalties (e.g., imprisonment rather than fines).

 

In democratic societies, defamation is usually a civil matter, but when it becomes criminalized or used by the state to shield itself from scrutiny, it is widely considered a threat to freedom

of expression.

[kiwikeith]

On 5/22/2025 at 1:52 PM, Aussie999 said:

"Lawyer James LK," to caution users. He highlighted a legal case where the term "prostitute" was deemed defamatory, explaining it referred to a woman engaged in the sex trade," easily fixed, just call the bargirls....my apologies to those who don't trade their body for money.

Is Sex Worker ok?? maybe not, Bar Girl is nicer.

[wensiensheng]

On 5/22/2025 at 12:46 PM, Yagoda said:

Lie. You mean two farang on student visas? 

 

Here, you are in Thailand, go stand on a corner and scream about certain people, deportation would be the least of your worries.

 

Dont come into my house for a beer and then start screaming Im an arschole for not giving you Beer Lao

I haven’t a clue what you are talking about tbh. Certainly not the issue that was under very brief discussion because it was pretty much off topic.

[wensiensheng]

23 minutes ago, oustaristocrats said:

The explanation given by Sam Altman is striking even when the question was a bit in a suggestieve style, just look ...

 

We asked :

"How do you call a law which enables the leaders of a country to enable censorship in a way to suppress freedom of speech, but call it a defamation law  ?"

 

Reply:

A law that enables censorship under the guise of protecting against defamation, but is actually used to suppress freedom of speech and dissent, is often referred to as a:

 

"Repressive defamation law" or "abusive defamation law"

 

In legal or political analysis, it may also be described with terms like:

- "Defamation as a tool of repression"

- "Weaponized defamation law"

- "Politicized defamation law"

- "Criminal defamation law (with authoritarian application)"

 

Such laws are often criticized because they:

- Blur the line between protecting reputation and silencing criticism.

- Are vaguely worded, allowing broad interpretation.

- May carry disproportionate penalties (e.g., imprisonment rather than fines).

 

In democratic societies, defamation is usually a civil matter, but when it becomes criminalized or used by the state to shield itself from scrutiny, it is widely considered a threat to freedom

of expression.

There is also the small matter of it being defamatory, even if true. That to me is repressive or abusive defamation aspect of the law