Following an incident in which a minister clarified the matter to the House of Representatives in late 2568 regarding allegations against him, which led to criticism, he filed a lawsuit against the public.More than 200 cases Then came the major news story: a politician from the eastern region sued the executives and editors of a local media outlet that had covered a bribery case involving the sending of Thai workers to pick berries in Finland in early 2569, demanding compensation for missing funds. 50 million baht

This has brought the issue of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) back into the spotlight.

The line between filing a lawsuit to 'defend rights' and using it as a strategy to 'silence' becomes clearer with careful understanding, as it's not as difficult to grasp as some might think.

Furthermore, it highlights the problem of "using" the justice system to silence the media, politicians, activists, and civil society groups who rise up to defend their own rights and the rights of their communities—collectively known as "whistleblowers"—who expose corruption, abuse of power, and the destruction of resources and the environment, by burdening them with heavy legal responsibilities.

This article discusses the 'crisis' of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), which are increasingly severe in Thai society – from secretly filing lawsuits to now openly announcing how many hundreds of cases have been filed, or threatening to file more if people don't stop speaking out or investigating.

The act of "slapping" (silencing) those who try to speak out about the abnormalities in Thai society, both by those in power and by capitalists, has resulted in the burying of countless scandals – something difficult to estimate.

What is SLAPP (Security Lending Practices) taking away from Thai society? This isn't a problem specific to any one individual or profession, because those being sued to silence them are people trying to speak out for the common good, not for personal gain.

1. Why is the SLAPP situation in Thailand considered 'worrying'?

• Definitions
• The difference between SLAPP cases and general defamation cases.
• Number of cases

While there are various definitions of what constitutes a SLAPP (Self-Legal Action Against Public Participation) lawsuit, it is generally based on three key elements: 1. The lawsuit is filed in court, whether directly or through an investigator; 2. The purpose is to intimidate, retaliate, or stop an action, particularly criticism or opposition; and 3. The dispute involves an issue of public interest.

The Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA) once organized...reportRegarding the SLAPP issue, a publication from 2019 stated that SLAPP cases would fundamentally alter three aspects of the fight for the public interest.

• Turning the conflict into a legal dispute:
• Changing the battleground: From the public arena to the justice system.
• Shifting the topic: From public harm to personal harm.

Another important difference between SLAPP cases and general human rights cases is the 'objective' of the lawsuit, which the United Nations Development Programme in Thailand (UNDP Thailand) has previously summarized in...reportThe SLAPP problem, as clearly published in 2562, is as follows:

"Lawyers in SLAPP cases are not seeking justice or expecting to win the case. Their sole objective is to intimidate, silence, or harass opponents by draining their resources. This includes forcing defendants to spend money on pointless legal battles, reducing their efficiency, activities, and morale, and creating emotional pressure until the opponents become weakened and cease criticizing or protesting."

Currently, at least seven organizations have released reports summarizing the SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) situation in Thailand. Although the difficulty in accessing data, differing definitions and focuses, and the timeframe for data collection result in varying numbers of SLAPP cases compiled by each organization, a closer look reveals some commonalities: SLAPP lawsuits are on a worrying upward trend.

– The Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA) collected data between 2540 and 2562 and found that: There is at least one. 212 cases

- The Environmental Journalists Association, citing data from HRLA, has matching figures but adds details about cases involving the media.

– The United Nations Development Programme in Thailand (UNDP Thailand) collected data between 2540 and 2565, focusing on plaintiffs from both the public and private sectors, and found that: There is at least one. 109 cases

– Protection International Thailand collected data between May 2557 and February 2568, compiling 13 common offenses used to silence dissenters (SLAPPs). The findings were: There is at least one. 595 cases

– Article 19 cites data from the iLaw (Legal and Freedom of Cases Information Center) which found that between 2557 and 2563… There are at least 58 cases.

– Fortify Rights compiles the total number of defamation cases, including SLAPP cases, between 2558 and 2563. As many as 26,085 cases.

– The Clooney Foundation's TrialWatch project collected data between 2562 and 2566. There are at least 36 cases.

Even as of the date of writing this article, lawsuits falling under the category of SLAPP (Sectional Loan Agreements and Parole) continue to be filed. Just in early 2569, there were cases such as the Election Commission (EC) suing those who monitored issues with barcodes on parliamentary election ballots, and the Department of Provincial Administration suing former EC commissioners and IT experts who revealed that the data of 53 million eligible voters had been hacked and sold on the black market, etc.

2. "If you're innocent, what are you afraid of?" The problem of waiting for a verdict.

• How much are the media subjected to SLAPP?
• Examples of cases related to the media.
• Analysis of the SLAPP problem.

When SLAPP became a tool used by those in power, both in the public and private sectors, to silencing criticism, it was inevitable that almost all of those sued were those who had spoken out to scrutinize or question those individuals or organizations, including members of the media.

And the trend of media outlets being sued under SLAPP (Self-Related Lawsuits) is increasing.

If you don't believe it, please consider the following information.

According to data compiled by HRLA, between 2540 and 2562, out of 212 SLAPP (Security Guard Procedure) cases, nearly...One in tenThe media will be the defendants. According to information compiled by the organization Article 19 between 2557 and 2563, there were 58 cases in which journalists or news outlets were sued. Up to 12% Statistics compiled by the Clooney Foundation's TrialWatch project on 36 SLAPP cases between 2562 and 2566 show that the defendants were media outlets. Up to 28%

This presents a new challenge for media organizations in the modern era, especially professional media outlets that must operate under the principle of being a 'watchdog,' constantly monitoring and 'barking' at wrongdoing occurring in society.

One common misconception is that even in a SLAPP (Self-Lawsuit Against Liability) case, if you're innocent, there's nothing to fear, and the court will eventually dismiss the case ("If you're innocent, what are you afraid of?"). On one hand, this way of thinking isn't entirely wrong, as many cases have been dismissed by the court, often citing Section 329 of the Criminal Code regarding honest expression of opinion or criticism. However, on the other hand, this approach plays into the hands of the plaintiff, who typically has vastly superior resources compared to the defendant—in terms of money, personnel, and time.

We would like to give examples of lawsuits that have led the media and academics to discuss the issue of SLAPP (Simple Lawsuits and Paroles) to highlight the significant problems these cases create for those working in the media industry, choosing some cases that have already reached a final verdict.

Case study A – A chicken farm company in Lopburi province is suing a Voice TV reporter.

A retweet of a labor court ruling in September 2017 ordering the chicken farm company to pay workers 1.7 million baht in compensation led to a defamation and Computer Crime Act lawsuit against the Voice TV journalist. Although the prosecutor initially dropped the charges, the company filed a direct lawsuit in Lopburi Provincial Court. The Supreme Court eventually dismissed the case in August 2022, after nearly five years of litigation. During this time, the journalist traveled back and forth between Bangkok and Lopburi and was detained in custody.

This case is one of at least 38 lawsuits in which the chicken farm company has sued those who have questioned working conditions. In addition to the media, the defendants include workers, university professors, and activists.

Case study B – A mining company in Loei province is suing Thai PBS, its reporters, and the youth.

A September 2015 citizen journalism program on Thai PBS, featuring high school students on a community environmental camp, reported on the impacts of gold mining in Wang Saphung District, Loei Province. This led to a defamation and Computer Crime Act lawsuit filed against the television station by the gold mining company, demanding 50 million baht in damages. Although the court dismissed the case in 2018, the company appealed, resulting in six mediation sessions. Thai PBS sent a team to produce a news report with on-screen text highlighting, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of the lawsuit in November 2018, after a legal battle lasting over three years.

Although ThaiPBS had the resources to fight the case, the journalists hosting the citizen journalism program that day admitted that the prolonged legal battle had exhausted both the organization and the journalists themselves. This case has had an impact on the young people who were sued, the community members who came out to fight, and the journalists themselves.

The repercussions of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Liability) cases on defendants, even if the court ultimately rules them not guilty, have already caused damage. This is a phenomenon occurring worldwide. One approach many countries choose to address this issue is to try to "prevent cases from entering the judicial process in the first place" if it is clear that they are SLAPP.

Interestingly, Thailand has had laws enacted since 2562 to address the problem of harassing or SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuits. These include the 34th amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code, which added Sections 161/1 and 165/2. However, these laws have been largely ineffective, and SLAPP lawsuits continue to occur. Why is this the case?

3. Lessons and solutions from 'SLAPP' (Security Guard Litigation) cases worldwide.

• Global Anti-SLAPP Model
• Thailand's way out

The problem of SLAPP litigation has existed for decades and occurs worldwide. This culminated in the publication of a book based on research on SLAPPs, titled "SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out," by Professor George Pring and Assistant Professor Penelope Canan from the University of Denver, USA, in 2539.

The book proposes a method to counter SLAPP lawsuits using the '3D rule': Detour (avoiding the risk of being sued), Dismiss (ending the case as quickly as possible to reduce the burden on the defendant), and Defer (teaching the plaintiff a lesson, such as requiring them to pay damages to the defendant).

Many countries have now implemented anti-SLAPP measures.

- U.S. At least 33 out of 50 states have laws against SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits to Public Participation) lawsuits. While the details vary from state to state, the basic principles are similar: rejecting a lawsuit in the first place; allowing a temporary injunction to investigate whether it is a SLAPP if accepted; and imposing penalties on the plaintiff if the court dismisses the case, such as requiring them to bear all costs of the defendant, and potentially including redress measures. This excludes cases where some states grant less protection to "public figures" than to ordinary citizens.

- Canada Some states have enacted laws against SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), such as Quebec, which places the burden of proof on the plaintiff to demonstrate the validity and appropriateness of the allegations, and Ontario, which allows defendants to file a motion for dismissal if they can prove that the action in question is in the public interest, with the court having to consider the motion within 60 days.

- European Union Guidelines have been in place to protect journalists from SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuits since 2559.

- England Defamation laws were reformed in 2556 to create measures to protect the media, requiring plaintiffs to describe in their complaint how the defendant's behavior constituted serious harm, and also adding an exception allowing honest opinion to be grounds for dismissal.

- ฟิลิปปินส์ Laws against litigation against environmental activists have been in place since 2553, including provisions that place the burden of proof on the plaintiff, allow defendants to settle cases expeditiously, and require plaintiffs to compensate defendants if a court dismisses a case.

- Indonesia Legislation has been in place since 2552 to protect environmental workers from civil and criminal prosecution.

In the case of Thailand, the Criminal Procedure Code includes Section 161/1, allowing the court to dismiss a case if it deems the filing to be dishonest or malicious, and Section 165/2, which permits the court to refuse to accept a case at the preliminary hearing stage. These provisions fall under the category of Dismissal, meaning the case can be concluded quickly. However, experience from those involved shows that these laws have not been effective in countering SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) cases, even though they are enacted by the Office of the Judiciary.Submit a proposal.It was then passed to Parliament for them to enact it themselves.

Thitisat Sudsaen, a lawyer from the Community Information Center Foundation, used to...give an interviewIt was stated that petitions were filed under Section 161/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code in at least ten cases, but the court dismissed all of them, citing the reason that, "What evidence do you have that they filed the lawsuits in bad faith?" This reflects the ambiguity of the criteria, which relies on discretionary interpretation and thus fails to reduce the severity of SLAPP (Single-Layered Charges Against Lawsuits) problems.

Similarly, the amended Anti-Corruption Act of 2568, specifically Section 132, which the NACC claims will help combat SLAPP (Strategic Scams Against Corruption), has been criticized for its narrow scope, protecting only those who provide statements, tips, or act as witnesses in cases already under investigation by the NACC.

There have been previous attempts to enact comprehensive legislation to combat SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits to Suppress Public Participation) under the name "Draft Act on Prevention of Strategic Lawsuits to Suppress Public Participation B.E. …." by the Department of Rights and Liberties Protection, Ministry of Justice, which has passed.Listen to feedback.A draft law on SLAPP cases was introduced in mid-2568. Its key objective was to add a definition of "material of public interest" to the Criminal Code to benefit defendants in their deliberations, and to establish a mechanism for requesting the termination of proceedings if the case falls under SLAPP criteria. 92% of those who participated in the consultation agreed on the need for this law, but progress has stalled. Even though the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recently held another consultation on the draft Anti-SLAPP law in early 2569, its authority limited it to preparing policy recommendations for relevant parties.

It remains unclear whether the current government will proceed with the draft Anti-SLAPP legislation, as the document does not mention addressing "strategic lawsuits against public participation" (SLAPP).Policy statementNot a single word was spoken to Parliament.

Regarding the stance of professional media organizations, especially the Thai Journalists Association, there are...Publish an articleRegarding the SLAPP issue, there have been calls for the government to push for the enactment of an Anti-SLAPP bill. It remains to be seen whether further developments will emerge, as SLAPP lawsuits are increasingly impacting the work of the media.

If media professionals, whom society expects to be 'watchdogs,' are silenced, the biggest loser would likely be Thai society itself, which would lack people to expose corruption, abuse of power, and the misappropriation of resources without regard for the impact on the lives and well-being of the people and communities.

SLAPP cases, with their increasing frequency and number, pose a threat to media work, and many countries have already implemented measures to help protect themselves. However, for Thailand, it remains to be seen whether an anti-SLAPP law will be enacted, given that some of those using legal processes to silence criticism may have close ties to powerful figures in the current era.