Many have rightly been shocked by the jail sentence handed down to National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) member Prof Emeritus Pirongrong Ramasoota for her legal battle with the True Digital Group.
The Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases regarded the NBTC member's notification to the telecom conglomerate over its commercials on free-to-air television broadcasts as damaging to its reputation.
In the eyes of the court, it was deemed a dereliction of duty under Section 157 of the Criminal Code.
Prof Pirongrong was handed a two-year jail term and was released on 300,000 baht bail while still being able to perform as an NBTC member.
The harsh ruling has resulted in a divisive debate.
On one side, academics, media professionals, and people's networks support Prof Pirongrong, saying her actions were taken to protect consumers.
A jail term without suspension as a warning, they say, is appalling. They have also called for reform of the NBTC, which over past years has experienced internal conflicts, including lawsuits, to the point its functionality is under question.
The True Digital Group lawsuit, they say, will cause officials whose job it is to protect the public interest to think twice or remain idle when in a similar position. Such lawsuits are known as "strategic lawsuits against public participation" (SLAPP).
On the other hand, some think the ruling is justified as the NBTC has no power on the matter given the absence of regulations on over-the-top (OTT) service.
Some even question the impartiality of Prof Pirongrong, who, according to the court, citing the plaintiff, said: "I will knock down the giant."
While lawsuits between the private sector and accused public figures and regulators are not unusual, the problem in Thailand is that we do not have an adequate legal mechanism to address such crucial matters.
Using lawsuits to silence critics and the media is nothing new. In 2003, Shin Corp -- then owned by the Shinawatra family -- sued then-media activist and ex-NBTC commissioner Supinya Klangnarong, asking for 400 million baht compensation.
The defamation case was based on her press interview mentioning the family's wealth accumulation five years after businessman-turned-premier Thaksin Shinawatra rose to power. The court acquitted the activist in 2006.
Fast forward to the ex-junta Prayut Chan-o-cha government, when a number of academics and MPs in the opposition bloc who criticised or exposed monopolies in the energy sector, including Benja Saengchand of the now dissolved Move Forward Party, faced millions-of-baht lawsuits lodged by investors.
Meanwhile, last month, former PM Thaksin, spiritual leader of the Pheu Thai Party, vowed to take those who criticise him to task legally. Such legal threats intensify the need for a proposed anti-SLAPP bill to be in place.
However, such a bill, as proposed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, has made slow progress. In the latest development, the Rights and Liberties Protection Department organised a fifth public hearing last month for the bill.
There's still a long way to go.
We can only hope that what happened to Prof Pirongrong will heighten public awareness of the urgent need for such a legal mechanism to shield those who protect the public interest.