By Puttanee Kangkun in Prachatai
The Thai Ministry of Justice’s Rights and Liberties Protection Department (RLPD) recently called for a public discussion on a new draft bill entitled “The Act on the Prevention of Strategic Litigation to Suppress Public Participation.” The bill seeks to address, or at least reduce, the abuse of judicial harassment in Thailand—an endemic threat that looms over human rights defenders and others involved in speaking truth to power who often face privately brought lawsuits accusing them of defamation or similar serious crimes under Thai law. I know this threat well, having faced judicial harassment first-hand.
Back in 2020, a hefty court summons of more than 100 pages landed on my doorstep with a thud that has resounded in my life ever since. The document detailed a series of criminal defamation suits lodged against me by Thammakaset company, a Thai poultry producer that launched at least 37 lawsuits against 22 individuals since 2016. My case involved 21 social media posts I had made expressing solidarity with fellow human rights defenders facing abusive judicial harassment by the company. After four years, my first (and hopefully my last) encounter with judicial harassment, known in my specific instances as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP, ended with a full acquittal.
Although very welcomed, my victory seemed pyrrhic in the face of the frustration, fear, desperation, and anger I experienced, not to mention the time, energy, and money expended to fight the case. Unfortunately, many others have shared in this nightmarish experience. Articles 326 and 328 of the Thai Criminal Code, as well as the infamous Computer Crimes Act, are regularly used to judicially harass people standing up for their rights and the rights of others in Thailand. According to a recent U.N. study, between 1997 and 2022, more than 400 people were targeted by 109 SLAPP cases in Thailand. Initiated by both private companies and state-owned enterprises, the targets of these suits are largely human rights defenders and journalists.
Instead of protecting human rights activists and community leaders who expose corruption, environmental degradation, and similar corporate and private crimes, Thai laws all too often allow those who commit such crimes to use the law to silence their critics with frivolous defamation suits that can take years and large amounts of money to adjudicate, effectively silencing the activists.
Given the impact and reach of SLAPP in Thailand, I was not alone in my eagerness to review the draft bill aimed at changing the current dynamics in Thailand. Upon initial review, the bill appears aimed at protecting speech made in good faith and as “matter of public interest.” Introducing a “public interest defense” to the charge of defamation could be a major step forward in the fight against SLAPP. The draft bill proposes to empower public prosecutors and judges to dismiss SLAPP suits before they make to the courtroom if they are considered as a frivolous abuse of judicial procedures. If implemented judiciously, these measures could help prevent what happened to me from happening to others in my position.
Despite these new legal protections, notably the draft bill fails to decriminalize most forms of defamation, meaning that individuals facing defamation charges will continue to face the twin specters of incarceration and a permanent criminal record. This major deficiency in the bill also means that Thailand’s legal regime with respect to defamation will continue to contravene international human rights law. Unless this fundamental flaw is rectified, regardless of the new protections extended under the law, Thailand will continue to fail to uphold its international legal obligations every time a defamation case arises—which is not a rare event.
The bill also oddly does not define SLAPP, which could create challenges for courts and public prosecutors to identify and prevent SLAPP. In addition, the bill focuses only on defamation laws found in the criminal and civil codes, leaving other statutes used to harass human rights defenders, such as Thailand’s infamous Computer Crimes Act, unaddressed. Furthermore, the bill fails to protect against common SLAPP tactics, such as allowing multiple suits based the same social media message posted across multiple platforms or filed in multiple court jurisdictions–tactics that were used to harass myself and many other activists for our human rights postings.
Despite these shortcomings, I and my fellow human rights defenders look to the future and remain hopeful that this bill, with the appropriate amendments, could end the abusive use of SLAPP, and our experience with SLAPP suits a part of Thailand’s unfortunate past. For now, the bill marches along through the process of public consultations—and we will be watching every step its journey to parliament with anticipation that the end of judicial harassment in Thailand might be near, and that we will be protected as human rights activists rather than face constant legal harassment from abusive SLAPP suits.
This article was originally published in Prachatai.