From silence to symbols: How Thais are employing language in new ways towards freedom of expression · Global Voices
EngageMedia

Graphic of the ‘Tour’ character provided by the author. Source: EngageMedia, used with permission.
This article was produced by UNTOE, a group of three friends who worked together as part of EngageMedia’s Youth Advocacy and Communications for Internet Freedom project. It was originally published by EngageMedia, a non-profit media, technology, and culture organization, and an edited version is republished here as part of a content-sharing agreement with Global Voices.
Posting a message or comment in the digital realm engenders a myriad of online phenomena. One such phenomenon is colloquially referred to as “ทัวร์” or “Tour” in Thailand. The Tour phenomenon involves Thai internet users embarking on a virtual journey, akin to a tour, to any post, where they engage in criticism, sarcasm, or even curses, exemplifying the dynamic nature of online discourse.
An intriguing phenomenon is the emergence of slang as a substitute for profanity. For instance, the utilization of the term “ค.” (F.) in place of the more explicit profanity “ค*ย” (fuck), often meant to mitigate the potential consequences of addressing socially sensitive subjects or to evade legal repercussions such as defamation lawsuits. At a time when critical comments against the government, both online and in person, can be weaponized against the public, Thai netizens have turned to unique linguistic alternatives to continue freely expressing themselves online.
The character “ค.” is often posted as a comment when posts from the government or news outlets report unreasonable government policies. In such cases, comments on these posts predominantly feature the character “ค.” In certain cases, more elaborate phrases like “ค. ความคิดดี” (F. Fabulous) are used.
Dr. Niwes Hemvachiravarakorn, in his commentary for Bangkok Biz News, has observed and remarked on the Tour phenomenon, which involves a substantial number of participants, including modern digital media users, and notably on platforms like X (formerly Twitter). These individuals engage in what can be described as “raiding” posts, actively viewing pictures and videos, and commenting on them.
In a Matichon article, Kla Samudavanija said the “Tour phenomenon” is portrayed as a tool or weapon employed by ordinary people, uniting as a collective force without prior arrangement to gain the influence and capacity to scrutinize, resist, and critique those in positions of governmental authority.
Moreover, Tour has the potential to deter expressions that infringe upon the rights of others or disregard values that are widely accepted by society. This includes offensive content such as dirty jokes and instances of racism, occasionally manifesting in the form of thoughtless advertisements. It can also serve as a check on rights violations and abuses of power by individuals in positions of authority, which may have previously gone unexamined. These could involve instances of severe punishment or illegitimate practices in schools, as well as the abuse of official functions or breaches of duty by government officers. For individuals caught in the act and subjected to the scrutiny of Tour, ensuring a happy ending may prove challenging.
Within the context of the Tour phenomenon, certain keywords often appear in the comments, one of which is the character ค. These keywords carry significant implications within the comment group, further enhancing the collective nature of the phenomenon.
The term “ค.” is emblematic of the fluidity and ingenuity inherent in the Thai internet lexicon. It holds a diverse range of interpretations, encompassing expressions like “ความคิดดีมาก” (Fabulous), “หัวคิดดีมาก” (Fabulous idea), and at times, even “ค*ย” (F*ck/male genitalia). However, it is most commonly associated with a slang term referring to the male genitalia, the usage of which is often withheld due to the concerns previously discussed.
This apprehension extends beyond potential personal repercussions to encompass a broader fear of government actions. This issue implicates the domains of rights, freedom of expression, and freedom to critique. There have been instances of legal action taken against individuals who voiced their criticism, underscoring the underlying problem. Weerachatpong (Doe), despite having a learning disability, faced legal action from Apiwat Khanthong, the chair of a committee tasked with defending the reputation of Thailand's former Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha. The charges lodged against Weerachatpong included “insulting the prime minister,” “causing harm to the prime minister,” and the potential to “incite insult and hatred.” Subsequently, he was fined THB 2,000 (USD 57.2), which concluded the case.
These occurrences shed light on the intricate interplay between expression, criticism, and the potential consequences individuals face when expressing their views, particularly in cases where the government is involved.
The Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) unearthed a disconcerting pattern. This incident marked the fourth instance in which Apiwat had levied accusations against individuals for criticizing the prime minister’s official responsibilities, charging them with libel. This trend potentially contributes to the inclination of Thai citizens to employ coded language like “ค.” as a safeguard against legal repercussions.
The utilization of “ค.” may be perceived as a strategy to evade censorship or the risk of being barred from various platforms. This precaution is not unfounded, given that the term “ค*ย” (F*ck) can be categorized as hate speech under platform guidelines and specific societal norms.
The question then arises: Who holds the authority to categorize certain words as hate speech, thereby potentially infringing upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech?
As reported by TIME, social media platforms have assumed a greater role in regulating the boundaries of free expression. These platforms exercise control by sifting through and filtering the information they disseminate to the world.
This dynamic has impelled many to gravitate toward platforms offering a greater degree of freedom, with Telegram emerging as a prominent example. Within Telegram, political communities have sprouted as spaces where individuals congregate to engage in dialogue and share their perspectives.
Telegram boasts numerous advantages, including the ability for individuals to join groups with ease and anonymity. These groups can expand without any member limitations, and Telegram offers a suite of communication features, encompassing chat, attachments, and video calls, ensuring convenient and versatile interaction.
However, Telegram is not without its drawbacks. Some groups may circulate false or fabricated information, potentially perpetuating misinformation. It is also possible for individuals’ personal identities to be compromised or for them to face allegations of liability. In certain instances, Telegram may be used to propagate and incite violence.
The prominent Telegram political group at the time of the 2021 youth demonstration was “FreeYOUTH,” amassing an impressive membership of over 300,000 in a remarkably short span.
Instead of a responsive approach, the government has chosen to curtail the public’s online expressions, compelling the creation of words that shield individuals from potential legal action. Ultimately, the resolution to preserve online freedom of speech may involve collective efforts challenging the government, which include the abolition of restrictive laws. The government must consider repealing laws that impede freedom of speech, such as criminal law sections 112, 116, and 326 through 333, which encompass various criminal laws and the Emergency Decree of 2548 B.E.
The government should also promote cultural respect and freedom of speech. The government should actively promote respect for cultural diversity and freedom of speech through education, communication, and awareness campaigns.
Developing neutral content oversight is also important. There should be neutral, balanced, and independent online content oversight mechanisms to review and regulate content that may infringe upon people’s rights and freedom.
Lastly, engaging civil society is crucial. Encourage civil society’s involvement in monitoring and addressing online freedom issues. Collaboration between civil society, government entities, and individual stakeholders can be an effective approach.