Explore the case of Mongkhon Thirakot, a Chiang Rai activist facing 32 charges under Thailand’s royal defamation law. Learn about the implications of this ongoing legal battle.
Mongkhon Thirakot, an activist and online clothing vendor from Chiang Rai, is facing three new charges under Thailand’s royal defamation law. These additional charges bring the total against him to 32, highlighting the strict application of this controversial legislation.
New Charges Against Mongkhon Thirakot
On January 13, 2025, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that officers from the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) visited Mongkhon at Chiang Rai Central Prison to inform him of the new charges.
The charges stem from Facebook posts made between May and September 2022. Anon Klinkaew, head of the ultra-royalist group People’s Centre to Protect the Monarchy, claimed that three of Mongkhon’s posts insulted the King.
Mongkhon’s Current Situation
Mongkhon has been detained at Chiang Rai Central Prison since January 17, 2024, after being convicted on 25 counts of royal defamation and sentenced to 50 years in prison—the longest sentence ever recorded for such charges in Thailand.
So far, he has been convicted of 27 counts across three separate cases, resulting in a cumulative sentence of 54 years. If found guilty of all remaining charges, Mongkhon could face up to 96 years in prison under Thailand’s royal defamation law.
Understanding the Royal Defamation Law
Thailand’s royal defamation law, or Section 112 of the Criminal Code, imposes prison sentences of 3 to 15 years for each offense. Critics argue that the law suppresses freedom of expression and disproportionately punishes dissenting voices.
TLHR noted that an arrest warrant was issued for Mongkhon on grounds of potential flight risk, even though he was already in custody when the warrant was issued.
Conclusion
The case of Mongkhon Thirakot underscores the far-reaching impact of Thailand’s royal defamation law. As his legal struggles continue, they bring into focus ongoing debates about balancing national security with fundamental rights to free speech.