Section 328 — Defamation by publication
English translation
If the offence of defamation is committed by means of publication through a document, drawing, painting, cinematograph film, picture or letters made visible by any means, sound broadcast, image broadcast, or by any other means of propagation, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years and a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand baht.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 328 is the aggravated form of defamation, applying where the base offence in Section 326 is committed by publication. The aggravating element is the mode of communication: a document, drawing, painting, cinematograph film, picture, visible letters, sound or image broadcast, or any other means of propagation. Publication increases the potential reach and harm, which is reflected in the higher penalty of up to two years imprisonment and a fine up to 200,000 baht, and in the mandatory combination of imprisonment and fine in the text. The Section 326 elements must still be established, and the good-faith and truth defences in Sections 329 and 330 apply. Social media and print publications are the typical settings; the offence remains compoundable under Section 333.
Why this matters in practice
Section 328 is the charge most often used for defamatory posts, articles and broadcasts, and carries real prison exposure of up to two years plus a fine to 200,000 baht. A key threshold question is whether the statement was truly published to the public: courts have distinguished spreading a message to the general public from sending it only within a small closed group. Truth (Section 330) and good-faith fair comment (Section 329) remain the principal defences, and the offence is compoundable under Section 333. Online publication may also trigger separate liability under the Computer Crime Act. See online and social media defamation in Thailand for how these cases are handled.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 321/2568 (2025)
Installing large banners bearing a person's photograph and defamatory wording beside a busy public road, intending the public to see it, is defamation by publication under Section 328, and the good-faith defences in Section 329(1) and (3) do not apply where lawful process was available.
The defendant placed two large vinyl banners with the complainant's image and defamatory text beside a heavily used public highway. The Court held this was defamation by publication and rejected the Section 329(1) and (3) good-faith defence.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 406/2567 (2024)
Even where defamation is charged as publication under Section 328, an honest, fair comment on a matter of public concern that ordinary people would make is protected under Section 329(3) and is not an offence.
The appellate court had convicted the defendant under Section 328 and imposed one year in prison. The Supreme Court held the statements were a good-faith fair comment under Section 329(3), reversed, and dismissed the case.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
What is the penalty for online defamation in Thailand?
Defamation by publication, including social media posts, falls under Section 328 with up to two years imprisonment and a fine of up to 200,000 baht. The Computer Crime Act may also apply to online content.
Does a message in a private group count as publication?
Not necessarily. Courts have held that sending a message only to a small closed group may not amount to spreading it to the general public, which is required for the Section 328 aggravation.
Is Section 328 defamation compoundable?
Yes. By Section 333 defamation offences, including publication under Section 328, are compoundable and can be settled or the complaint withdrawn.