When a live YouTube call-out turned into a courtroom showdown, Bangkok’s famously outspoken ex-MP Chuwit Kamolvisit found himself on the losing end of more than just online heat. On August 27, the Bangkok South Criminal Court handed Chuwit a prison sentence for defamation and insult against former Special Branch deputy superintendent Santhana Prayoonrat — a dramatic fall from the livestream spotlight to the dock.
The case stems from a press event on November 23 last year that was streamed live to the public. In front of reporters and an online audience, Chuwit launched into a blistering tirade, accusing Santhana of being entangled in illegal gambling operations, alleging he obstructed law enforcement and painting him as untruthful. Prosecutors argued those remarks crossed the line from political grit into unlawful defamation, intended to damage Santhana’s reputation and stir public contempt.
Judges agreed. Citing sections 328 and 393 of the Criminal Code, the court convicted Chuwit of defamation and initially imposed a nine-month sentence — the maximum for public defamation. That was then increased by one-third to 12 months because the court treated Chuwit as a repeat offender. The court considered his prior conviction related to false asset declarations to the National Anti-Corruption Commission; Chuwit served a one-month term in 2018, which, under the law, made the recent ruling a repeat offence within five years of release.
However, the final figures didn’t stay at 12 months. The court accepted that Chuwit admitted to making the statements, and the video footage was admitted as evidence. Because he cooperated and provided useful testimony, judges reduced the custodial sentence by one-third, bringing it down to eight months. Still, it’s a steep penalty for an ex-MP known for a take-no-prisoners approach to public discourse.
Chuwit’s legal team moved quickly, petitioning for temporary release during the appeal. They offered security to assure the court he would not abscond while the case winds through higher courts. The court granted the request; Chuwit remains free on appeal for now, but officials confirmed that if the appeal fails, he will have to serve the eight-month term, according to local reporting by KhaoSod. A photo of Santhana Prayoonrat circulated with some coverage courtesy of The Nation, underscoring the case’s public visibility.
This episode adds yet another chapter to Chuwit’s lengthy history of headline-grabbing conduct and courtroom appearances. Once a massage parlor owner turned politician, he has cultivated an image as a combative, media-savvy figure, unafraid to accuse rivals in public and on camera. That boldness has won him attention — and, more than once, legal consequences.
What makes the matter noteworthy beyond the personalities involved is the increasingly visible intersection of social media broadcasting and criminal law. Live platforms offer immediate reach and rawness: what goes out live can’t be edited, and words spoken in the heat of a moment can carry criminal liability when they’re judged to be defamatory. The Chuwit case underlines how livestreams are not a free pass from legal responsibility, even for public figures.
For supporters of robust political debate, the ruling may seem like a cautionary note about tone and proof in public accusations. For critics of law enforcement and governance, it’s another flashpoint in the perpetual tug-of-war between whistleblowing-style exposes and the rights of individuals against reputational harm. Either way, the case demonstrates how quickly a live performance can morph into a legal performance review — with real consequences.
Chuwit’s temporary freedom while the appeal proceeds gives him time to marshal legal arguments and public messaging. His future, though, hinges on the appellate court’s read of both the facts and the balance between free speech and reputation protections. If the appeal fails, the eight-month sentence will be enforced; if it succeeds, Chuwit could avoid further jail time but may still face reputational fallout.
In Bangkok’s political theatre, the plot thickens. Whether this becomes a cautionary tale about livestream civility, a legal precedent regarding public defamation, or simply another controversy in Chuwit’s colorful career remains to be seen. For now, the former MP remains free on appeal — outspoken as ever, but legally vulnerable — while the courts decide if a live broadcast should cost someone their liberty.
Be First to Comment