Did you know that in Thailand, posting a criticism of the government or a public agency, even if it stays within legal limits, contains no offensive language, and is based entirely on facts, can still result in a court summons arriving at your door a few weeks later? A defamation lawsuit with damages claimed at 50 million baht.
You know what you said was true. You have evidence, you have documents, and the court would likely throw the case out if it went to trial. But that is not the point. The reason they filed is not that they expect to win, but rather that you do not have 50 million baht.
You will lose time, you will spend money on lawyers, and the case could drag on for years. That is exactly what the person filing the lawsuit wants from you.
This process is called a SLAPP lawsuit, or in Thai, ฟ้องปิดปาก, which translates roughly as “a lawsuit to shut you up.”
What is a SLAPP lawsuit?
SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
The principle is simple. Those in power, whether corporations, politicians, or government officials, use legal proceedings to sue journalists, activists, or ordinary members of the public. Not because they expect to win. But to drain the other side of time, money, and will, until they stop speaking altogether.
The real goal of a SLAPP lawsuit is not justice but silence.
How to recognise a SLAPP case
Not every defamation lawsuit is a SLAPP, but legal professionals and human rights advocates use several markers to identify them.
The defendant is usually an individual or small organisation, while the plaintiff is a corporation or powerful figure. The powerful party does not need to win; they just need to exhaust the other side financially and emotionally.
The damages claimed are obviously disproportionate. A demand for hundreds of millions of baht over a single Facebook post is not about real harm. It is a signal: think carefully before you speak again.
The content being sued over is something the public has a legitimate right to know, reporting on corruption, criticism of policy, and sharing information that benefits the community. It is not a personal attack without basis.
The case is filed across multiple courts simultaneously, or in a court far from where the defendant lives, for no apparent reason, purely to increase the financial and logistical burden of fighting back.
Why SLAPP lawsuits work so well
Because they turn the system that should protect people into a weapon against them.
In theory, a court is a place where everyone is equal. In practice, a court case requires money, time, and a lawyer. Those three things are not equally accessible to everyone in society.
A freelance journalist earning a modest income, who sued for hundreds of millions of baht, does not need to be found guilty to lose because just finding a lawyer to fight the case empties their bank account.
The damage does not stop with the person being sued, as it spreads to everyone else who is thinking about saying something. This is known as the Chilling Effect, a fear that radiates outward like ripples in water, causing others to choose silence even though they have not been sued themselves.
Why countries with low press freedom favour SLAPP lawsuits
In countries with strong legal institutions, independent judges, and Anti-SLAPP laws that allow courts to dismiss these cases early, filing a SLAPP carries real risk. The plaintiff may end up paying the defendant’s legal costs. Their reputation takes a hit.
But in countries where the justice system is not independent from political power, where defamation carries criminal penalties, and where court proceedings drag on for years, SLAPP is an extremely effective tool. For the wealthy, it carries almost no cost.
In many countries, certain laws are structurally designed in ways that make SLAPP easy to use. These include broadly written defamation laws open to wide interpretation, provisions where being truthful offers no protection, national security laws applied against journalists, and computer crime laws used to prosecute people for publishing accurate information.
Amnesty International has documented multiple SLAPP cases in Thailand, including the case of Thammakaset, which sued 22 individuals in more than 36 defamation cases after they exposed labour rights violations. The courts of first instance and the Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed most of the cases, ruling that complaints about working conditions were made in good faith to protect the legitimate rights of workers and constituted a lawful exercise of rights.
Meanwhile, Reporters Without Borders ranks Thailand 85th in its 2025 World Press Freedom Index, noting that lèse-majesté laws and media dominance by groups close to power remain significant risks.
What is Anti-SLAPP law, and does it actually exist?
Anti-SLAPP is a legal mechanism designed specifically to counter this type of case.
The approach used in many countries is to give courts the power to dismiss SLAPP cases early, without a full trial, and order the plaintiff to cover the defendant’s legal costs. In some systems, the defendant can counter-sue the plaintiff for abusing the legal process.
The United States was among the first countries to introduce Anti-SLAPP legislation at the state level. Forty US states now have such laws, though the strength of these laws varies. The European Union issued an Anti-SLAPP directive in 2024 to protect journalists and activists across the bloc.
Thailand does not yet have a specific Anti-SLAPP law. But a significant development emerged just days ago.
A turning point in Thailand: the Supreme Court President signs an Anti-SLAPP directive
On May 25, 2026, Adisak Tantiwong, President of the Supreme Court, signed the Supreme Court President’s Recommendations on Bad Faith Criminal Prosecution B.E. 2569. The directive is designed to serve as a framework for scrutinising and filtering the exercise of the right to file criminal cases, ensuring it is done in good faith, and preventing court proceedings from being distorted or used as a tool to harass people or restrict their freedom of expression.
This is a signal from the highest level of the judiciary that the courts recognise this problem and are prepared to use the tools available to them more seriously.
The directive explicitly identifies circumstances that should raise suspicion of bad faith prosecution, including:
- Filing a case in a court located far from the defendant’s residence or workplace without a justifiable reason
- Filing multiple cases based on the same facts or events creates a burden of litigation
- Suing individuals who are exercising their legal rights or expressing opinions in good faith for the public benefit, such as protecting human rights, natural resources and the environment, consumer rights, labour rights, or disclosing information about corruption and unlawful conduct
Critically, where it is clearly apparent that a case has been filed in bad faith, the court now has the power to dismiss it at the initial review stage. The defendant does not need to wait years to prove their innocence. The court can cut the cycle at the beginning.
Whether in practice this directive will be applied consistently and boldly remains to be seen. But the fact that the Supreme Court President has sent this signal officially is something that has never happened before in Thailand.
What can ordinary people actually do?
At the individual level, the most important thing is simply to know this exists. Understanding SLAPP helps people read news about journalists being sued with more depth than just the numbers, and ask who benefits from the silence of the person being sued.
At the social level, organisations that provide legal assistance to SLAPP defendants, such as iLaw in Thailand, or the Committee to Protect Journalists internationally, are the mechanisms that ensure the cost of telling the truth does not fall entirely on one individual.
At the legal level, pushing for the Supreme Court President’s directive to progress toward formally enacted Anti-SLAPP legislation passed through parliament is not just a matter for journalists or activists. It concerns everyone who might one day need to say something that someone powerful does not want to hear.
A SLAPP lawsuit does not say that what you said was wrong. It just says that saying it is very, very expensive.
In a world where truth has a price, the people who can pay more are usually the ones who get to decide what should be heard.
The story SLAPP lawsuits in Thailand: When the law becomes a weapon and telling the truth lands you in court as seen on Thaiger News.
