More historical 112

112 Watch and The Thaiger Facebook page both mention a 112 case developing around a graphic novel Ayothaya Eyawadee, which is a work of historical fiction. The accusation and complaint made involves “insulting King Naresuan,” a monarch of the 16th century.

The Thaiger Facebook post points out:

Readers and members of the art community are currently defending the author. They state that history should serve as a subject for study and a foundation for creative imagination. The author used historical elements to create a fictional, parallel universe. Supporters emphasize that featuring historical figures in novels, movies, or even as collectible art toys does not indicate a lack of respect for the past monarchs.

Clipped from 112 Watch

Public commentators are expressing concern about the attempt to freeze history. They argue that historical narratives must remain open to change if researchers discover new evidence. Many are urging the public not to weaponize Article 112 to bully artists who create work in good faith, nor to use the severe law to gain personal attention.

This is not the first attempt to apply Article 112 to distant historical figures. Authorities previously accused prominent Thai scholar Sulak Sivaraksa of royal defamation for questioning the historical accuracy of King Naresuan’s famous elephant duel. Prosecutors eventually decided not to pursue that case.

112 Watch adds:

This case exemplifies the weaponization of the royal defamation [lese majeste] law to enforce heteronormative dogmas and engage in state-sanctioned bullying, which directly undermines Thailand’s global image and “soft power” aspirations. To protect fundamental human rights, the state must immediately cease this harassment and pursue legislative reforms that prevent private citizens from using the law to suppress artistic and academic freedom.

It provides additional background:

The controversy began within the complex ecosystem of Thai pop culture. The television series Hongsawadee, which drew visual and thematic inspiration from Ayothaya Eyawadee, initially gained a following for its high production values and its subtle “BL” (Boys’ Love) chemistry. However, the production became mired in allegations of copyright infringement and intellectual property theft.

As public discourse shifted toward the ethics of the production, a reactionary backlash emerged. A private individual, claiming to act out of patriotism, filed a complaint under Article 112 against the author of the original novel. The complainant’s grievance rested on two pillars: first, that portraying an ancient king within a queer or romantic framework insulted the dignity of the crown; and second, a deeply homophobic assertion that such interpretations were deviant.

This intersection of homophobia and ultra-royalism is a chilling development. It demonstrates how Article 112 is being repurposed as a moral police tool, allowing individuals to project their personal prejudices onto historical figures and then use the state’s coercive power to punish those who deviate from their preferred narrative.

112 Watch concludes: “The author of Ayothaya Eyawadee did not insult a king; they engaged with history. The true insult to the nation is the attempt to turn the Thai legal system into a tool of medieval censorship.”