Social Media Defamation: Forensic Linguistic Analysis of SCJ No. 7256/2567

Defamation by Publication on Social Media: A Forensic Linguistic Analysis of Supreme Court Judgment No. 7256/2567

Author: Wanitcha Sumanat, President, Southeast Asian Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters (SEAProTI) and a Forensic Linguist

18 February 2026, Bangkok – Supreme Court Judgment No. 7256/2567 constitutes a significant case concerning the interpretation of defamation by publication under Section 328 of the Thai Criminal Code in the context of social media. The case arose from the posting of messages and photographs on Facebook, a platform accessible to the general public. This article analyzes the Court’s reasoning through the framework of forensic linguistics in order to explain the criteria applied in assessing linguistic meaning, third-party perception, and the scope of statutory defenses under Section 329. The analysis demonstrates that the Court placed greater emphasis on pragmatic meaning and the social impact of the communication than on the defendant’s assertion of factual truth or personal intent alone. The judgment also reflects an increasing recognition of the aggravated nature of defamatory acts committed through digital platforms with wide public accessibility.

Keywords: defamation, forensic linguistics, publication, social media, Section 328, Section 329

1. Introduction
The expansion of social media has transformed communication from limited interpersonal exchanges into globally accessible public discourse. Posting messages or photographs on platforms open to the public carries legal consequences distinct from communication within restricted circles. Supreme Court Judgment No. 7256/2567 clearly illustrates this development. In this case, the defendant posted messages together with a photograph of the plaintiff on Facebook, leading third parties to understand that the plaintiff was dishonest, indebted without repayment, and fraudulent.

The core legal issue did not merely concern whether the post existed, but rather how the language used was to be interpreted, what reputational impact it generated, and whether the statutory defenses under Section 329 of the Criminal Code applied—particularly the defense of fair comment made in good faith or statements made in the public interest.

2. The Forensic Linguistic Framework
Forensic linguistics examines the relationship between language and the legal process, focusing on lexical choices, textual structure, context, and the social effects of meaning in legal settings (Coulthard & Johnson, 2010; Olsson & Luchjenbroers, 2014). In defamation cases, analysis extends beyond literal meaning to include contextual and pragmatic interpretation, as well as the impact on audience perception.

Speech act theory explains that utterances do not merely describe reality but perform actions. When a speaker uses terms such as “cheat” or “fraud,” the utterance performs an accusatory act. Such expressions carry illocutionary force and generate perlocutionary effects, potentially damaging the reputation of the person referred to. The legal inquiry, therefore, concerns not only whether the statement was factually accurate, but whether its communicative function constituted an imputation likely to harm reputation.

3. Analysis of the Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s message and accompanying photograph caused persons acquainted with the plaintiff to understand that the plaintiff was dishonest, indebted without repayment, and fraudulent. Accordingly, the Court found that the act constituted an imputation to a third person in a manner likely to impair the plaintiff’s reputation, thereby satisfying the elements of defamation by publication under Section 328 of the Criminal Code.

The Court’s reasoning reflects reliance on the perception of third parties as the decisive criterion, rather than on the defendant’s subjective intent. From a forensic linguistic perspective, this constitutes a pragmatic evaluation: the meaning of the communication is determined by how it is reasonably understood in its social context.

Regarding the defense under Section 329, the defendant argued that the statement was true and constituted a fair comment made in good faith. The Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if a debt dispute existed, the defendant should have pursued lawful judicial remedies rather than publicly exposing the plaintiff on social media. Thus, factual truth alone does not operate as an absolute shield where the mode of communication exceeds necessity and causes disproportionate reputational harm.

The Court also emphasized that Facebook is an open platform, not a closed group, and that the message was accessible to the general public worldwide. Consequently, the act qualified as publication in a broad sense, amplifying the scale and speed of reputational damage. From the standpoint of digital forensic linguistics, dissemination on a public platform significantly increases the perlocutionary impact of defamatory language.

With respect to sentencing, the Supreme Court affirmed that imprisonment for three months and a fine of 1,000 baht were proportionate to the gravity of the offense. However, the Court modified the appellate judgment by suspending the term of imprisonment subject to probation conditions, balancing the seriousness of reputational harm against the defendant’s opportunity for rehabilitation.

4. Freedom of Expression and the Limits of Responsibility
The judgment reflects judicial efforts to balance freedom of expression with the protection of individual reputation. Freedom of expression is not an unfettered right. Publicly accusing an individual in terms that suggest moral and legal wrongdoing exceeds the bounds of fair comment.

In the digital environment, the boundary between opinion and imputation becomes increasingly complex due to the rapid and persistent dissemination of online content. Legal interpretation must therefore account for technological context and the structural impact of social media platforms.

5. Conclusion
Supreme Court Judgment No. 7256/2567 reinforces three important principles: first, that contextual and third-party interpretation of language is central to determining defamatory meaning; second, that claims of truth or good faith do not automatically exempt liability when communication causes disproportionate reputational harm; and third, that publication via social media intensifies the gravity of defamation due to its expansive and instantaneous reach.

Forensic linguistic analysis clarifies why language that the speaker may perceive as a simple debt-related complaint can legally constitute defamation. Language not only transmits facts but also constructs social meaning, affecting dignity and reputation. In the digital era, linguistic responsibility must therefore accompany the exercise of expressive freedom.

References

• Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2010). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Olsson, J., & Luchjenbroers, J. (2014). Forensic linguistics (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury.
• Shuy, R. W. (1993). Language crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom. Blackwell.
• Thai Criminal Code, Sections 326, 328, 329, 55, 56.
• Supreme Court Judgment No. 7256/2567. 

This section provides information about certified translators, translation certifiers, and certified interpreters associated with SEAProTI.
The Southeast Asian Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters (SEAProTI) has officially shared the qualifications and requirements for becoming Certified Translators, Translation Certification Providers, and Certified Interpreters in Sections 9 and 10 of the Royal Gazette, which was published by the Prime Minister’s Office in Thailand on July 25, 2024.  Certified Translators, Translation Certification Providers, and Certified Interpreters
The Council of State has proposed the enactment of a Royal Decree, granting registered translators and recognised translation certifiers from professional associations or accredited language institutions the authority to provide legally valid translation certification (Letter to SEAProTI dated April 28, 2025)
SEAProTI is the first professional association in Thailand and Southeast Asia to implement a comprehensive certification system for translators, certifiers, and interpreters.
Head Office: Baan Ratchakru Building, No. 33, Room 402, Soi Phahonyothin 5, Phahonyothin Road, Phaya Thai District, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Email: hello@seaproti.com | Tel.: (+66) 2-114-3128 (Office hours: Mon–Fri, 09:00–17:00) 

คดีหมิ่นประมาทโดยการโฆษณาในสื่อสังคมออนไลน์: วิเคราะห์เชิงนิติภาษาศาสตร์คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 7256/2567

ผู้เขียน วณิชชา สุมานัส นายกสมาคมวิชาชีพนักแปลและล่ามแห่งเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้ และนักนิติภาษาศาสตร์วิชาชีพ 

• Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2010). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Olsson, J., & Luchjenbroers, J. (2014). Forensic linguistics (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury.
• Shuy, R. W. (1993). Language crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom. Blackwell.
• ประมวลกฎหมายอาญา. มาตรา 326, 328, 329, 55, 56.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 7256/2567.