In July 2003, Thai Post published an interview with Supinya in which she said Shin Corp, a conglomerate founded by Thaksin and sold to Singapore's Temasek Holdings in January, had unfairly benefited from the government's policies. In response, Shin Corp slapped both of them with a criminal suit for libel and a separate civil suit seeking Bt420 million in damages.

These two cases against Supinya and Thai Post were meant to serve as a warning to Thaksin's critics, demonstrating what a formidable political/corporate juggernaut they were up against.

The cases were supposed to show the lengths to which a ruthless Thaksin would go to quash his critics and intimidate the free media. Supinya and the Thai Post were singled out as convenient targets. The example was meant to gag other dissenting voices and media outlets from trying to expose policy corruption in the Thaksin government.

In Wednesday's court verdict, the judges said Supinya had in good faith expressed an opinion for the benefit of the public, an act consistent with a citizen's right to freedom of expression.

Since September 2004, when the Criminal Court first heard the Shin Corp versus Supinya and Thai Post case, members of the public have learned a whole lot more - not only the details of how Thaksin may have influenced government policies to enable Shin Corp to reap unfair benefits, but of the actual sale of Thaksin's family's controlling stake in Shin Corp for a tax-free Bt73.2 billion. The sale was achieved through a series of complicated and shady transactions designed to maximise his personal gain.

In a way, Thaksin and his family, through their actions, have provided ample evidence to support Supinya and Thai Post in their defence against the Shin Corp lawsuits.

Such a verdict - coming at a time when the middle class's and civil society's frustration with Thaksin's misrule is coming close to boiling point - delivered a devastating blow to his already tainted leadership, if not also to his legitimacy to rule as a democratic leader.

It must be pointed out that while Supinya and Thai Post fought their legal battle against Shin Corp, responsible members of the press also struggled to uphold the citizens' right to freedom of expression, preserve the public's right to be informed and promote media freedom by sticking to high standards of professionalism in their daily work despite intimidation by the Thaksin government.

But there is no doubt that the court's precedent-setting verdict in Shin Corp versus Supinya and the Thai Post will go a long way toward setting a new benchmark for media freedom in this country. Until recently, the majority of media outlets, for reasons of self-preservation or financial incentive, have opted for self-censorship in the face of Thaksin's iron-fisted rule.

Let's hope that the court's affirmation of the citizens' rights to freedom of expression and media freedom will usher in a new era in which journalists, along with members of civil society, play the role of a vigorous watchdog in our society, with the support of honest, democratically-minded people. Thailand, which is in the middle of its worst political crisis in more than a decade, can certainly use the free media to provide timely and accurate news and information along with honest commentary and analysis without fear or favour. Let's hope that this hard-won victory is the beginning of a revival of Thailand's media, which used to be among the freest in this part of the world.