Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing "SLAPP" lawsuits in Thailand. First of all, what does SLAPP stand for?  It stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Now for those who are unaware, there are a number of rules in Thailand regarding restrictions if you will, of speech. They run the gamut - there is a spectrum of this issue that runs in many ways, it hits different aspects of the law. Two aspects that we see very common are defamation and certain aspects of commercial speech. So like commercial speech, you can't say, "Oh buy this toothpaste, it will make your hair grow or something." You can't engage in false advertising. But there are also issues associated with defamation. Thailand has some pretty serious defamation laws. That said, again it's the notion of public participation. One of the defenses to defamation is that whatever the utterance that occurred, it occurred in furtherance of the public interest. Somebody said something because they were worried that people could be detrimentally impacted by the actions of another. That's just one example. There are also other examples in a more political context, but all of this seems to be a concern of the Thai Supreme Court.

I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Nation, that's nationthailand.com, the article is titled: Supreme Court President urges Courts to curb SLAPP- style criminal lawsuits. Quoting directly: "The President of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations urging Courts to screen and dismiss bad-faith criminal cases." Not to get into details here, but I myself have been subject to some of this. It's not fun, it is expensive, it's time-consuming and when they say "bad-faith" I find it especially concerning when people file a suit against you and they won't even show up. You talk about bad faith and SLAPP lawsuits, I can't think of a better example of that than somebody who will file a suit against you and then not even show up to Court on it. Again, as I have discussed in other videos, Thailand doesn't have the same notions of the Confrontation Clause or notions encapsulated in what we call the Confrontation Clause in an American constitutional context; their system just isn't set up that way. But there are ramifications for filing a lawsuit against somebody and then not ever showing up. And then the question becomes, well is that being done in good faith or is it just being done because he wants somebody to stop saying something you don't like them saying? That may not in and of itself be illegal, but you just don't like what they have to say. Quoting further: "Including SLAPP-style lawsuits targeting activists, whistleblowers and public-interest campaigners. The President of the Supreme Court has issued new recommendations urging Courts to screen and dismiss bad-faith criminal lawsuits including SLAPP-style lawsuits, in a move aimed at preventing the Justice System from being used to harass activists, whistleblowers, public-interest campaigners, and officials performing their legal duties."

Yeah, I think that this is good thinking. This is wise policy here because look, there are people, I have been one of those people in the past that have said things that purely - I've discussed it in prior videos - I view it almost as a civic duty. The public is not aware that there are shenanigans going on out there and it needs to be brought up, and if it's in the public interest, that is not necessarily something that can be criminally punished, and nor really should it, and nor - from what I'm gathering from what the Supreme Court is saying here - nor should folks of that ilk be harassed for doing the right thing basically. 

That said, quoting further: "The recommendations, titled "Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court on Proceedings Brought in Bad Faith in Criminal Cases, B E. 2569 (or 2026) were published in the Royal Gazette website on May 29, 2026. They were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice and are intended to guide Courts in applying section 161/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 161/1 gives Courts the power to examine whether a criminal complaint has been filed in good faith or whether it is being used to exploit, harass or unfairly disadvantage a defendant." Yeah, and again having had some personal experience with this myself, it is especially disconcerting when you see people filing cases against you and they won't even show up to press the case. I mean if it's so terrible, what the heck? Meanwhile, again if something is being said in furtherance of the public interest, why should the person who uttered that utterance be punished by an unnecessarily long and drawn-out lawsuit? That said, quoting further:

Courts told to Screen Bad-faith Complaints. The recommendations say Court should carefully screen criminal lawsuits to ensure that the right to bring a case is exercised honestly and in line with the spirit of the law. A case may be considered to have been filed in bad faith if it distorts facts, is intended to harass or take advantage of the defendant or seeks an outcome beyond what the plaintiff may legitimately obtain under the law." And the question posed by me, especially in matters pertaining to 'foreigners behaving badly' in Thailand, especially those who are operating in direct contravention of violation of the restricted occupations, and especially those who have no underlying qualification whatsoever, that brings up the question, "beyond what the plaintiff may legitimately obtain under the law." How can there be damages to somebody who isn't what they purport to be? That is sort of the line of thinking that one can get into when looking into these types of matters. 

Now exactly what this means in terms of practical implications I don't think we're going to see for a little while. I think it's going to take some time for this to sort of propagate through the system, but it's clearly a major change, and it has been published in the Royal Gazette. It comes from the President of the Supreme Court so this really - not unlike the way that our Supreme Court in the United States sets precedent through rulings, through what is called the notion of stare decisis or "let the decision stand", what we call Common Law what we call precedent - again, not an apples to apples comparison but again what the President of the Supreme Court has done is now issued guidance that will have an impact on Lower Courts moving forward especially associated with these types of "SLAPP" cases. What it could mean is a dramatic decline in the number of defamation cases even brought before the Courts. Again, it remains to be seen how all this plays out but we will certainly keep folks updated on this channel as the situation evolves.