PATTAYA, Thailand -Yesterday, in an expat Facebook group in Chiang Mai, a familiar warning resurfaced. “Don’t post negative reviews while you’re still in Thailand.” This is no longer mere anecdote. It reflects a perceived legal risk that foreign residents and long-stay visitors increasingly factor into their daily decisions much like similar conversations that have circulated for years in expat communities in Pattaya. The real question is not how one should write a review.
The deeper issue is What kind of incentives does Thailand’s legal structure create for consumers and businesses in the digital age?
From Koh Chang to the global stage
The case of Wesley Barnes and the Resort in 2020 became international news when the American tourist was arrested and detained for two nights after posting strongly worded reviews, including phrases such as “modern slavery” and advising others to “avoid like COVID.” The dispute began over a 500-baht corkage fee. It ended with a public apology and the withdrawal of criminal charges. What made this case extraordinary was the reaction of TripAdvisor, which placed a “Red Warning Badge” on the hotel’s listing, informing travelers that the property had previously used criminal law against a reviewer. The impact extended far beyond the parties involved. It became a reputational issue for the country.
Thailand’s legal framework a structural difference
In many Western jurisdictions, defamation is primarily a civil matter. In Thailand, under Sections 326 and 328 of the Criminal Code, defamation is a criminal offense. Posting an online review may constitute “defamation by publication,” carrying penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to 200,000 baht.
More critically, even if a statement is true, the defendant must prove that the disclosure was made for the public benefit in order to qualify for exemption. In practice, complaints are often filed alongside charges under the Computer Crime Act, further increasing legal pressure on the reviewer. This structural difference is often unfamiliar to foreign visitors before they arrive in Thailand.
Fear versus frequency
Cases resulting in actual imprisonment are relatively rare. However, legal threats including police complaints and demand letters seeking deletion of reviews are not uncommon. On platforms such as Agoda and Google, low ratings or critical comments can escalate into formal disputes. The visible result is widespread self censorship, Choosing not to post a review, Leaving a low rating without written comments, Waiting until leaving Thailand before posting, Or contacting the business privately instead. In effect, the perceived legal risk shapes behavior more than the actual number of prosecutions.
Economic and competitive implications
In a tourism market where decisions are driven by online reviews, Thailand competes regionally with Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia. International headlines about tourists being arrested over reviews inevitably affect soft power, investor confidence, and Thailand’s attractiveness as a digital nomad and long stay destination. Businesses seek to protect their reputations. Consumers seek freedom of expression.
The state seeks competitiveness and stability. The key question is whether the current framework strikes the right balance.
Saving face and freedom of expression
Among expat discussions, Thai defamation law is often perceived as a mechanism of “saving face” rather than fact-finding. Conversely, many Thai business owners face online reviews that use excessive language and cause disproportionate reputational harm. The real issue, therefore, is not simply who is right or wrong.
It is whether effective dispute resolution mechanisms exist before a matter escalates into criminal proceedings.
Policy questions worth debating
1. Should criminal defamation be reconsidered and shifted toward a civil framework?
2. Should mediation be mandatory before initiating criminal proceedings?
3. Should a form of “safe harbour” protection exist for consumer reviews?
4. Should clearer standards define what constitutes “public benefit” in online criticism?
If Thailand intends to position itself as a digital nomad hub and long-stay destination, this issue will not remain peripheral.
Protecting reputation or protecting confidence?
Defamation law aims to protect reputation. But in the digital economy, a country’s reputation is itself a strategic asset. When expat groups in Chiang Mai circulate warnings such as “Don’t post negative reviews while you’re still in Thailand,” this is more than casual advice. It reflects market perception. The ultimate question is not what tourists should be careful about. It is how Thailand should design a legal system where businesses and consumers can coexist without fear. Before another Facebook discussion turns into another international headline.
