Global Freedom of Expression

Español العربية

Office of the Attorney General (OAG) v. Somyot Pruksakasemsuk

On Appeal Contracts Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Press / Newspapers
  • Date of Decision
    January 23, 2013
  • Outcome
    Imprisonment, Criminal Sanctions
  • Case Number
    N/A
  • Region & Country
    Thailand, Asia and Asia Pacific
  • Judicial Body
    Appellate Court
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation, National Security
  • Tags
    Censorship, Public Officials, Publisher, Content-Based Restriction, Imprisonment, Media Ownership, National Security

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, an activist and editor of the magazine The Voice of Taksin, was charged under Thailand’s lese majeste laws for two articles that appeared in the magazine. The articles were considered insulting the Thai monarchy, and Pruksakasemsuk was sentenced to 10 years in prison.


Facts

The Voice of Taksin, a Thai magazine, published two articles in 2010 that allegedly criticized the royal family. One article portrayed a political family that opposes democracy and plots to kill millions of people. The other was a fictional story of a ghost that plans massacres. Neither article specifically mentions the king or any members of the royal family, but the characters were interpreted to be King Bhumibol Adulyadej and his family.

Jakrapob Penkair, the author, fled the country to Cambodia. Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, the editor of the magazine, was arrested in 2011 and charged with criminal defamation under Thailand’s lese majeste laws for the articles. Pruksakasemsuk was held responsible for the content published. He was denied bail. The media could not report the content of the articles at issue since they were deemed to violate the lese majeste law.

Pruksakasemsuk was convicted and sentenced to five years on each of the two charges, and the Court cancelled the suspension of a previous one-year sentence — for a total of 11 years in prison. Pruksakasemsuk was convicted on January 23, 2013 by the Bangkok Ratchadaphisek Criminal Court. On September 19, 2014 the Appeal Court affirmed the ruling of the first court. Somyot is awaiting for the Supreme Court’s decision.


Decision Overview

Chanathip Mueanphawong (ชนาธิป เหมือนพะวงศ์), J. presided over the proceedings. The prosecution charged Pruksakasemsuk for violating Article 112 of the criminal code, the law corresponding with lese majeste. Article 112 states that anyone who “defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir-apparent or the regent” will be punished with up to 15 years in prison.  There is no explicit definition about what constitutes an “insult” or “threat.”

Though Pruksakasemsuk had not written the articles in question, the court said he was still responsible for their content as the editor. The two articles never actually mentioned the king, but the court still found “the writing conveyed connection to historical events” that one could infer applied to specific royal individuals.

The Court found Pruksakasemsuk guilty of insulting the monarchy and thus breaching Article 112. Although Thailand has publishing laws to protect editors from being held accountable for articles written by others, the Court determined that insulting the monarchy was “a threat to national security and trumped all other laws.”

The Court said the king deserves “special protection” as he is the “center of the nation,” and ruled that insulting the king “is considered an act that wounds the feelings of Thais who respect and worship the king and the monarchy.”


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Contracts Expression

The case represents the Thai government using lèse majesté laws to control activists and critics of the monarchy, thus suppressing free speech.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Thai., Crim. Code art. 112

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Official Case Documents

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback