Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia apply to “defamation offences as under the Criminal Code”,152 in practice, articles 14(2) and 14(3) have been used to suppress free expression online.153 It is not only State actors, but also companies who have increasingly wielded defamation complaints to silence individuals attempting to bring to light human rights violations. In two cases relating to criminal and civil defamation proceedings launched by companies – namely Natural Fruit Company Ltd. and Thammakaset Co. Ltd. – against human rights defenders and researchers who had alleged labour rights violations by the companies, the ICJ, along with Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada, made amicus curiae submissions. These submissions argued that all branches of government, including the judiciary, have obligations to protect individuals from acts by private persons or entities – including companies – which curtail free expression and opinion, and that criminal sanctions for defamation in particular would contravene the right to free expression and opinion.154 Regrettably, following a preliminary hearing of the case involving Thammakaset Co. Ltd in 2019 (see below), the Bangkok Criminal Court responded to the ICJ’s amicus curiae submission by ruling that Thailand’s criminal defamation laws did not violate Thailand’s international human rights obligations under the ICCPR.155 The Court, in its decision, appeared to endorse criminal penalties as a suitable remedy to address the repercussions of allegedly defamatory speech, and failed to view reporting on labour rights violations allegedly committed by a corporation as a matter of public interest.156 In retaining legal provisions that allow private companies to bring criminal defamation complaints against individuals seeking to bring to light human rights violations, the Thai government has failed to uphold its obligations in line with the UNGPs to provide effective access to remedy for victims of such violations. 152 Thai Netizen, CCA. 153 Article 14(2) was, for example, used in the case of Manager Online below and article 14(3) has been used more in cases relating to lesè majesté. 154 ICJ, LRWC, ‘Amicus Curiae Brief in the case of the defendant Andy Hall (Black Case Number A 517/2556)’, July 2016, Available at: https://www.icj.org/thailand-amicus-in-criminal-defamationproceedings-against-human-rights-defender-andy-hall/; ICJ, LRWC, ‘Amicus Curiae Brief in the case of the defendant Mr. Nan Win (Black Case Number Aor.3011/2561) and Ms. Sutharee Wannasiri (Black Case Number Aor. 3054/2561)’, January 2019, Available at: https://www.icj.org/ thailand-icj-and-lrwc-submit-amicus-in-criminal-defamation-proceedings-against-human-rightsdefenders-nan-win-and-sutharee-wannasiri/ 155 This was a regrettable decision, even as the ruling was an interesting departure from usual practice by Thai courts who do not often respond substantially to arguments put forth on the basis of international law. The court, in this case, addressed the ‘three-part’ test under article 19 in deciding that Thailand’s criminal defamation laws were in line with the ICCPR. 156 The court, for example, opined that criminal penalties for defamation were justified in the context of Thailand as the dissemination of incorrect information about a person could cause him or her to lose their job, affect his or her or their family’s security. 51