Freedom of Press in Political Regimes: the Case of Thailand
Abstract: Article updates the research on the development of media in political regimes. Freedom of the media, one of the basic civil liberties, is understood to belong to everyone, without restrictions on the right to freedom of expression (ie. The freedom of speech), the right to appoint media operators and the right to be informed. Applicable in Thailand limit media freedom in part are located in the directory of commonly accepted in democratic regimes. Thus, for example, restrict freedom of speech similar arrangements for the good of the legal, ie. Dobrom common law, such as public safety, legal order and security of the state and the individual’s personal property occurring, their interpretation and strict enforcement go far beyond the practice of democratic regimes. There is present therein in Thailand closure and suspension of the operation of media entities without a court order, to influence the structure of the business media, widespread censorship, criminalization of defamation, and especially imposing draconian penalties for committing this crime. The aim of this article is to determine the scope of the effect of restricting media freedom in the Thai media market.

Free speech and freedom of the media are essential to the functioning of democratic systems. However, recent decades have brought phenomena that pose a threat to media freedom. The author analyzed threats to media freedom and journalist’s security regarding resolution 2317 (2020) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. All Council of Europe Member States must effectively guarantee the safety of journalists, create an environment conducive to freedom of the media and prevent the misuse of laws or normative provisions that may affect this freedom, without which there is no democracy. The right of journalists to protect their sources must be guaranteed; police violence against journalists must be condemned, and sanctions against any infringement of the freedom of the media must be dissuasive. Although it is only “softlaw”, the PACE resolution may inspire the Member States to take more effective measures in this regard.