Section 329 — Good faith defences to defamation
English translation
Whoever, in good faith, expresses any opinion or statement:
(1) by way of self justification, self defence, or for the protection of a legitimate interest of one's own according to righteousness;
(2) in the capacity of an official acting in the exercise of duties;
(3) by way of fair comment on any person or thing which is a subject of public criticism; or
(4) by way of fair report of proceedings openly conducted in a court or a meeting,
is not guilty of defamation.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 329 sets out the good-faith exemptions that negate criminal defamation. The gateway requirement for all four grounds is that the opinion or statement is expressed in good faith. The grounds are: (1) self-justification, self-defence or protection of one's own legitimate interest according to righteousness; (2) an official acting in the exercise of duties; (3) fair comment on a person or thing that is a proper subject of public criticism; and (4) fair reporting of proceedings openly conducted in court or a meeting. These are exemptions rather than a truth defence, which is dealt with separately in Section 330. Good faith is the decisive issue in most cases: where the evidence shows an intent to shame or attack rather than a genuine opinion for a legitimate purpose, the exemption fails.
Why this matters in practice
Section 329 is the most important defence line in Thai defamation practice: it is what turns a technically defamatory statement into a lawful one. The burden effectively centres on good faith, so building evidence of a legitimate purpose, a factual basis, and proportionate wording is essential. Fair comment on public figures and matters of public interest under (3) is a frequent and successful defence, but it collapses where the court finds an intent to humiliate. Because it is a complete exemption, a well-founded Section 329 defence leads to acquittal rather than mere mitigation. See defamation defences in Supreme Court decisions for how the courts apply these grounds.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 406/2567 (2024)
Where the prosecution cannot prove defamatory intent, and the statement is an honest, fair comment on a matter of public concern of the kind ordinary people would make, it is protected under Section 329(3) and is not defamation.
The complainant was a senior official. The Supreme Court held the court should not use the defendant's own evidence against him where the prosecution had not discharged its burden, and found the words a good-faith fair comment under Section 329(3), reversing the conviction and dismissing the case.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 321/2568 (2025)
The Section 329(1) and (3) good-faith exemptions do not apply where the accused could have addressed the grievance through lawful legal process, and instead chose a public method of defamation.
The defendant argued the public banners were good-faith fair comment and self-protection under Section 329(1) and (3). The Court rejected this because, if the defendant believed the complainant's conduct unlawful, lawful legal remedies were available.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 418/2567 (2024)
Where the evidence shows an intent to expose the complainant to public shame rather than a genuine good-faith opinion for a legitimate purpose, the accused cannot rely on the Section 329(1) exemption.
The Court found the defendant intended to publicly shame the plaintiff, which is an imputation likely to damage reputation, and rejected the claim of a good-faith opinion for a legitimate purpose under Section 329(1); the defamation conviction was upheld.
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 are the defences to defamation in Thailand?
Section 329 exempts a good-faith opinion or statement made for self-justification or to protect a legitimate interest, by an official on duty, as fair comment on a matter open to public criticism, or as a fair report of open court or meeting proceedings.
Can I criticise a public figure without committing defamation?
Yes, if it is fair comment made in good faith on a matter open to public criticism under Section 329(3). The exemption fails if the court finds the real intent was to shame or humiliate rather than to comment.