There is a sense of deja vu about the lawsuit filed by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra against newspaper cartoonist Chai Rachawat for alleged defamation, and the subsequent move by the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MICT) to step up online censorship of remarks made about the premier.
Why deja vu? Because her actions are remarkably similar to those of her brother while he was in power.
The Thaksin Shinawatra administration (2001-06), it's worth remembering, was notorious for curbing free speech and the free press. Thaksin used various means to achieve his goals, including blatant censorship, interfering with editorial independence, filing defamation lawsuits, staging media buyouts, harassment and intimidation by alliance.
But while the exiled former leader was confrontational and maintained a rather hostile relationship with the press, Ms Yingluck was initially conciliatory to the point of appeasing it. Despite numerous slurs and insults about her ability and gender, Ms Yingluck retained her calmness throughout.
So why now is she losing her cool? Is there more to the "Mongolian effect" than meets the eye?
The Mongolian effect is a term coined by the media after Ms Yingluck delivered a speech at a recent democracy forum in Ulan Bator. In it she told national leaders and dignitaries that democracy in Thailand has been disrupted since the 2006 coup and that anti-democratic elements still prevail, especially in independent organisations and the coup-backed 2007 constitution.
The speech enraged many who felt the prime minister had betrayed the country by airing its dirty laundry on the international stage, and for not telling the whole truth about the role of her brother in the events that led to the coup.
The attacks against Ms Yingluck came from all angles _ from the Senate to the diverse platforms offered by social media. The repercussions of the latter were more swift and far-reaching than the former.
Much of the online criticism followed the usual themes: her gender, her being from the North, her good looks, her poor intellect, her being little more than her brother's puppet.
The comments also took many forms, from verbose narratives to pithy poems, cartoons to graphics, photos to video clips.
The worst of the remarks, sadly, relied on misogynistic stereotypes of women being cheap, promiscuous, or even prostitutes. The latter was the case with the Thai Rath cartoonist.
Freedom of speech is the concept of an inherent human right to voice one's opinions publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. The right is enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless, the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one country to another.
Most liberal democratic countries give protection to free speech with narrow exceptions in cases of defamation, hate speech, national security, public health and public order. The Thai constitution provides for freedom of expression with similar exceptions. However, the Thai media, particularly the press, has faced a continuous battle to be allowed to exercise its right to free speech, in both dictatorial and democratic periods of government.
Similarly, with the expansion of social media platforms and the opening up of the communication space to the average citizen, the internet has in recent years become the focus of new controls. The Computer-related Offences Act, passed in 2007, is widely seen as powerful instrument to control free speech in cyberspace.
As well as having to deal with the controversial computer crime law, the media and online users who are content publishers also run the risk of being charged with defamation, which is a criminal offence, according to the penal code.
Defamation via the media is covered in Section 328, though exceptions are provided in cases of truth, fair comment, statement made in good faith for the public interest, and qualified privilege of an official, as per Section 329.
In the past, the threat of libel action has been used by some politicians to silence journalists. Records show that scores of journalists and activists were sued during the Thaksin administration for libel, with high punitive damages sought. This had a chilling effect on media professionals and critics, who subsequently were forced to adhere to strict rules of self-censorship, which are antithetical to democratic development.
In recent years the political communication landscape has shifted towards a user-generated content model, particularly in the online sphere. Facebook, for instance, relies entirely on users to keep the website dynamic and the business alive. According to the latest statistics, Facebook now has more than 1 billion users worldwide and more than 18 million in Thailand, ranking the country 13th on the global subscriber rankings.
The world's most populated social media has little content policy, and only content that violates intellectual property rights or is regarded as hate speech or supporting terrorism is subject to notice and take-down rules. It is highly unlikely that this US-based corporation will comply with the MICT's request for taking down libellous exchanges that may seem insulting to PM Yingluck.
While the defamation suit filed by Ms Yingluck differs from those of her predecessors due to the fact that it is a defence against a misogynistic attack, the act itself may still generate unwanted results, just like Frankenstein's monster.
Perhaps the country's first female leader needs to be reminded of some political history: Thaksin's censoring of Sondhi Limthongkul's Weekly Thailand programme gave rise to the People Alliance for Democracy, or yellow shirts, while the Council for National Security's decision to block the first airing of the People Television station led to the creation of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, or the red shirts.
Talk about deja vu!
Pirongrong Ramasoota teaches and researches on media, communications, and society at the Faculty of Communication Arts, Chulalongkorn University.