The army insisted in court that the information operations (IO) orders against dissenters were fake. The court decided they were real. However, the army has faced no legal consequences.
In the country's first citizens' lawsuit against the army's IO operations, three public-interest activists -- Sarinee Achavanuntakul, Yingcheep Atchanont, and Winyu Wongsurawat -- filed a case with the Central Administrative Court in March 2021, accusing the Royal Thai Army and its commander of running organised online campaigns to attack them.
Their evidence included Twitter reports showing that many fake accounts used to attack them were linked to the army, along with documents ordering army personnel to conduct IO campaigns.
Indeed, Twitter (now X) in 2020 removed 926 accounts linked to Royal Thai Army information operations targeting Thai civilians.
The plaintiffs sought a court order to stop these IO operations.
During the past few years, the army has been accused of orchestrating cyber warfare against pro-democracy and human rights activists. It has always denied the charge. The court ruling, however, makes it harder for them to do do.
On Oct 30, the Central Administrative Court said the army has an IO unit, and the IO orders against political dissenters were real.
The military must never run cyber campaigns against its own citizens, as the people are not enemies of the nation, the verdict said.
Using taxpayers' money to spread falsehoods against critics, it added, is an abuse of power that violates human dignity, undermines free expression, and breaches both the constitution and international principles.
Despite such lecturing, the case was dismissed because online posts by army personnel cited in the case may have been their "personal opinions", not actions under official command.
In effect, the verdict confirmed the existence of IO campaigns but imposed no legal penalties.
The implications must not be taken lightly. IO are not just harmless yet nuisance online chatter. They're organised efforts to shape and shepherd public opinion and smear opponents.
When the military engages in IO, it crosses the line from national defence into political manipulation.
The military's job, of course, is to protect the nation from enemies of the country.
Yet for years, the armed forces evidently have used the state resources, personnel, and technology to wage digital warfare against Thais, aggravating political divisions.
Using bogus social media accounts to smear reformist activists and politicians is not defending national security. It betrays the mission of a professional military.
The army's IO also violates global norms that require governments to protect free expression and stop state-sponsored intimidation.
By stirring up ultra-nationalism and branding critics as enemies of the nation, the military isn't fostering patriotism.
It's engaging in political intervention through spreading systematic disinformation. Once the military can wage online propaganda with impunity, other agencies will follow.
This verdict of Central Administrative Court exposes a deeper structural problem: Thailand still has no effective checks on the military, which remains a state within a state.
In this case, three plaintiffs had to seek a court order to keep the military in check.
Military budgets are opaque, arms procurement often turn into white elephants and misconduct is rarely punished.
Thailand doesn't just need new rules for soldiers on social media. It needs a complete rethink of the military's place in a democratic society.
The armed forces must stay out of politics, whether online or offline. Budgets for "cyber security" must be audited and open to the public. Parliament must demand transparency and civil society keep watching.
No institution that relies on disinformation can claim to defend the truth. The military's IO campaigns have never been about national defence. They're mainly about self-defence, protecting a power structure that fears accountability.
Thailand has endured over 20 military coups since 1932. The damage runs deep, keeping the country stuck in deep authoritarian rule and economic stagnation.
When coups are unacceptable, the army has turned to IO as a new tool for political intervention.
Without military reform, Thailand's democracy will remain under siege, not from enemies abroad, but from those who claim to protect it.