Tag: Cyberbullying

on by

Protecting Children and Youth: Thailand’s Amended Laws Against Online Cyberbullying

As previously discussed in our articles Thailand – defamation and insult can be considered as cyberbullying   – The Legal Co., Ltd. The current Thai legal framework addressing cyberbullying presents notable challenges. While existing laws, such as the Penal Code (Sections 326 and 328), allow victims to pursue defamation charges, significant limitations persist. These gaps are particularly evident in private digital forums where third-party witnesses are absent or when prosecutorial intent cannot be definitively established. Despite the existing Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017), a more nuanced and comprehensive legal approach is necessary.

Rationale for Legislative Enhancement

Protecting children and youth in the digital landscape is paramount. Their inherent vulnerabilities expose them to multifaceted online risks, including:

  • Cyberbullying
  • Online grooming
  • Sexual exploitation
  • Exposure to inappropriate content

Proposed Legislative Amendment

The Minister of Justice has drafted a comprehensive amendment to the Penal Code (“Draft Law”), specifically targeting online offenses against children and youth. Key provisions of the Draft Law include:

  • Precise definition of cyberbullying offenses
  • Clear penalties for actions causing psychological harm, shame, or adverse psychological effects
  • Potential consequences including:
    • Imprisonment up to one year
    • Fines up to 20,000 Baht
    • Combination of imprisonment and financial penalties

Notably, the amendment introduces an escalated penalty structure, increasing punishments by one-third for cyberbullying conducted on public platforms. This approach acknowledges the broader societal impact of such digital transgressions.

children finger pointing at a boy sitting on a wooden floor

Implementation and Comprehensive Strategy

While legislative reform represents a critical initial step, a holistic approach is essential. The proposed strategy encompasses:

  1. Rigorous legal enforcement
  2. Comprehensive educational initiatives
  3. Targeted awareness programs for:
    • Children
    • Youth
    • Parents
    • Educators

Next Procedural Steps

Following public consultation and feedback from authorities, the Draft Law awaits cabinet and parliamentary review and formal legislative enactment. This collaborative process ensures thorough consideration and refinement of the proposed legal framework.

Conclusion

The proposed Draft Law represents a significant advancement in digital child protection. By establishing clear legal boundaries and penalties, Thailand demonstrates a proactive commitment to safeguarding its youth in an increasingly complex digital ecosystem. Successful implementation will require sustained, multi-sectoral collaboration, balancing legal deterrence with educational empowerment.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Related Article(s)

Cyberbullying VS Defamation – The Legal Co., Ltd.

Other Articles

on by 1 Comment

Thailand – defamation and insult can be considered as cyberbullying  

Previously, we discussed the difference between laws regulating cyberbullying in other countries and in Thailand. Some countries enact a law that enforces direct harm caused by one to another through electronic means either privately or publicly, such as the Cyber Protection Act 2017 in Canada, whereas Thailand uses the law on defamation, which requires a third party and intention to impute the others as components of offense.  

Therefore, in this article, we will now address cyberbullying legislation with an emphasis on children since bullying is more common among young people and children and it can now be engaged in social media. In accordance with the statistics of cyberbullying, the range between ages 14-18, the high school age, where reported bullying happened the most. Since the school is the place where the bullying happened physically and digitally. As a result, some countries have implemented legislation to protect minors against cyberbullying such as the United States and the Philippines which are Massachusetts Anti-Bullying Law and Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, respectively.  

two men about to kiss

In Massachusetts, following the incident involving Phoebe Prince, a student at the age of 15 at South Hadley School, the state adopted such Massachusetts Anti-Bullying Law governing in regard to cyberbullying. It includes district policy requirements such as the need for Massachusetts school districts to prevent and respond to bullying conducted by one or more students developing a bullying prevention and intervention plan, which districts must review and keep up to date at least biennially.  

The Philippines also enacted Republic Act No.10627, or the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, which defines cyberbullying as an act of bullying and requires all elementary and secondary schools to adopt policies addressing the existence of bullying by specific acts such as prohibiting bullies, identifying the measures to take against perpetrators, and the Department of Education (DepEd) to provide training programs for school administrators and staffs to improve knowledge and skills in bullying. The aforementioned rules also encompass cyberbullying that happens outside of school premises or on non-school devices, since these criteria demonstrate the serious concerns and obligations for minors who engage in cyberbullying.  

In Thailand, there is no specific law governing cyberbullying act or protecting minors against cyberbullying at all. The case of cyberbullying will be governed by either the Penal Code (PC) regarding defamation and insult or the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CRC Act).

The difference between defamation and insult is whether it involves a third party or not. For example, if the bully intends to impair the bullied’s reputation by spreading the message with a third party which can cause hate or scorn, it can be considered as defamation offense under Section 326 of the PC. However, if the bully decides to spread the intention to impair the bullied’s reputation through the publication on the social media platforms, i.e. posting on Facebook or Twitter, it can be considered as defamation offense under Section 328 of the PC.  

Moreover, the case could be applied to Section 14 (1) of the CRC Act since cyberbullying must distort the computer data into a computer system such as a social media platforms. In the case of insult, if the bully insults the bullied in a private forum without the third party’s involvement, it could be applied to Section 393 of the PC. Whether it could be applied to Section 392 of the PC if the bully threatens the bullied causing fear or fright even though it is from the social network service platforms.  

Let’s be honest. Even though the Thai law has several ways to take the bully as guilty, it is just the offenses of defamation or insult. The Thai law should be more specified to cover the action of cyberbullying especially in minors since the high school age, between 14-18, were reported bullying happened the most. This can also reduce the increase of bullying behaviors and the depression or anxiety in the children since being bullied is the major cause.  

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Related Article(s)

Cyberbullying VS Defamation – The Legal Co., Ltd.

Other Articles

on by

Cyberbullying VS Defamation

Cyberbullying is repeatedly and intentionally harassment, mistreatment, or making fun of people through digital devices. This action occurs on social media that users can view, contribute to, or share contents.

One example of cyberbullying offense associated with suicide is Rehtaeh Parsons, a 17-year-old Canadian student, who was a victim of sexual violence. The offender published her pictures of being raped on the website. After that, Rehtaeh’s school friends brutally cyberbullied her by sending text messages requesting to have sex with her several times. Even though Rehtaeh’s family escaped from the community, people kept harassing her through the internet, which caused her a mood swing and led her to hang herself. Finally, there was no charge for the cyber-bully. In response to Parsons’ suicide, the Nova Scotia Government enacted Cyber-Safety Act 2015. However, the provision in the definition of cyberbullying terminology was broadly and ambiguously as it applies to every offense which beyond the law’s objective. Consequently, the Nova Scotia Government repealed the Cyber-Safety Act 2015 and then enacted the new law instead, i.e., the Intimate Images and Cyber Protection Act 2017, narrowing down the definition of cyberbullying and allowing victims to seek protection from cyberbullying and sue the offender.

shouting woman with hands on head in dim red light

Under the Intimate Images and Cyber Protection Act 2017, cyberbullying requires to have an electronic communication, direct or indirect, causing or is likely to cause harm to another individual’s health or well-being where the person responsible for the communication maliciously intended to cause harm to another individual’s health or wellbeing or was reckless with regard to the risk of harm to another individual’s health or well-being.

Defamation offense as specified in Section 326 of the Thailand Penal Code, it is required to have the offender intending to impute the others, a third party as a receiver, and messages must damage others’ reputation or cause the others to be insulted or hated. If defamation is done by social media, it will be considered under Section 328 of the Penal Code, the offense of defamation will be considered as conducting defamation offence by advertising. This action can occur physically and online. There is no need to be recurring action, just intentionally imputing others to a third party only once is considered as defamation.

person holding white android smartphone

Cyberbullying is similar to defamation in that it asserts a person’s facts with the intent to injure the other’s reputation and cause the person to be dishonored or hated. The difference is Cyberbullying can occur on a private forum without a third party as a receiver, the intent can be reckless with regard to the risk of harm to others, and the action is a variety of types. On the other hand, defamation must have a third party as a receiver, the intent to impute the others, and the only action is imputing.

In Thailand, the cases of cyberbullying require the element of defamation offense, allowing the victim to sue the cyber-bully in a criminal case. The victims cannot sue the offender if the cases happen on a private forum that has only sender and receiver because it lacks the element of defamation offense in which there is no third party as a receiver. Furthermore, if the action is not imputing the others or the intent of cyberbullying is reckless with regard to the risk of harm, the victim cannot sue the offenders because there is no cyberbullying offense in Thailand even if that action causes damage to the mentality and reputation of the victim as same as defamation. In summary, using the comparative law, the Penal Code, cannot cover to the extent of cyberbullying. All cases cannot be considered as offenses and applied to penalties under Section 326 and Section 328. Therefore, it is necessary to define a specific cyberbullying offense, the method for punishing offenders, and injury compensation for victims in which it can be specified in the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017). For this purpose, it should be specified covering the action on the private forums, all types of cyberbullying, and expanding the intention to cover negligence to reduce bullying behaviors and keep the bully at a consistently low level in Thailand.

red text on dark background

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Related Article(s)

Thailand – defamation and insult can be considered as cyberbullying   – The Legal Co., Ltd.

Other Articles