Defamation penalties a cause for reflection

It’s debatable whether this week’s court rulings sentencing a few people, including some TV celebrities, to imprisonment for libel is a judicial landmark. But clearly the verdicts have sent shockwaves through various sections of society. The jaws of journalists dropped. Media academics went into a soul-searching mode. Those who disdain the imprudent approach of the Thai media nodded approvingly. The social media squirmed.

Some harsh libel verdicts have been handed down before, but imprisonment “without probation”, especially when high-profile personalities were defendants, had been rare. The impact of this week’s rulings has been magnified by social media, which expressed great anxiety, and rightly so. The plaintiff won a case against people who allegedly defamed him in the traditional media, meaning the “insults” were many times “lighter” than the hard-hitting, no-holds-barred language on Twitter, YouTube, or Facebook. Like every coin, defamation always has two sides. When punishment is harsh and swift, sympathy naturally goes to the defendants. Who the real “victims” are, however, is a difficult question. It’s even more complicated when those who sue are politicians or government officials. An outstanding case over the past decade involved a media activist who faced a staggering lawsuit for linking a political clan to policy corruption.

This week’s verdicts involved a plaintiff who is well-known, a high-profile personality himself. A couple of the defendants are famous public figures as well. This brings us to an intriguing fact about defamation cases in Thailand. They only concern people who are equipped to sue. There are others who are as much entitled to sue, but can’t do so because they are powerless and helpless in the present legal system.

Make no mistake, rich and/or influential people can be devastated by defamation, just as the poor and powerless. It’s only that the latter probably don’t even know there is a channel for them to fight back to save their names or restore their ruined lives. There have been “suspects” paraded by police in front of the media, who in turn pilloried the “thieves”, “drug peddlers”, “rapist-murderers” or “robbers” on the front pages or prime-time news, only for those bad guys to turn out to be innocent. Even if some of them wanted to sue, who would be willing to legally represent them?

In Thailand, defamation has been something exclusive to those at high-levels. Business damage is a main thing to build a case on. Little attention has been given to how defamation has destroyed non-business sides of affected parties. Some people wrongly accused by the police or the media may have to move to a new neighbourhood. Children have had to change schools. Families or friendships have been torn apart. This week’s court rulings should be a cause for reflection for everybody. The traditional media, which have to deal with rampant accusations day in and day out, have to be more cautious but not discouraged in performing their duties. Whether they like it or not, walking a tightrope comes with the territory. The entire justice system and the media themselves must think of those who deserve to sue but are never equipped to do so. The social media, having hurt many innocent people with its knee-jerk reaction , must exercise its power with a greater responsibility. Responsibility is the key for everyone involved. 

In an era where what is said or written can go viral in the blink of an eye and is much harder to retract or erase, prudence is required more than ever before. While punishment can be decried as harsh, those at the wrong end of defamation can bemoan a scar that lasts virtually forever.