Become a Member for $9.99/month

Lê Giang wrote this Vietnamese article, published in Luật Khoa Magazine on May 22, 2025.

The Vietnamese government has intensified its grip on Việt Nam's online space through a series of sanctions, "blacklisting" tactics, and individual prosecutions. This escalating control has ensnared not just artists, but even regular citizens who dare to voice dissenting views.

Blacklisting On the evening of April 18, 2025, the streets of Hồ Chí Minh City were congested due to rehearsals for the upcoming April 30th military parade. An exasperated X/Twitter user with the handle "hongday2103" vented their frustration over the inconvenience caused by the event.

It didn't take long for online sleuths to identify the account owner as MC Bích Hồng—a presenter who collaborated with Saigontourist Cable Television (SCTV). Just a day later, SCTV swiftly banned Bích Hồng from appearing on-air, citing the "harsh online criticism" she was facing.

This was hardly an isolated incident. The term "blacklisting" has become all too familiar in Việt Nam’s entertainment industry, used to prevent public figures involved in scandals from maintaining their platforms. The concept has now evolved into "deplatforming"—the practice of banning individuals who make supposedly "sensitive" statements or take "problematic" actions.

Disturbingly, the practices of "blacklisting" and "deplatforming" are no longer confined to showbiz. Ordinary citizens who voice dissenting opinions online can now also become targets of such punitive measures. Việt Nam's cyberspace is experiencing an alarming trend of increasing restrictions, as the authorities leverage legal frameworks to punish anyone whose speech is deemed "damaging," "distorting the truth," or simply "sensitive."

Administrative Penalties On December 3, 2024, the owner of the Facebook account "Xín xe máy" was fined for sharing "false information" about a high-ranking leader, even though the content was simply a reshare from another YouTube channel. This crackdown on free expression only seemed to intensify in the months that followed.

For instance, on Jan. 22, 2025, a citizen in Hà Nội was also slapped with a fine for allegedly spreading misinformation about Decree 168/2024/ND-CP. Then, on March 21, 2025, TikTok user "Minh Trung" found himself in hot water after voicing his opinion about the Bạc Liêu Prince's house. In a video, Minh Trung described the historic site as "nothing special" and criticized the 45,000 dong entrance fee as being too high. According to Decree 15/2020/ND-CP, this harmless commentary was deemed an unacceptable insult to the reputation of the organizations and individuals associated with the Prince's house, resulting in a 7.5 million dong fine.

The trend of punishing citizens for their online speech continued on March 31, 2025, when a Facebook user named "LTH" was hit with a 7.5 million dong penalty for posting "inaccurate images and comments" about a rumored merger between Quảng Bình and Quảng Trị provinces.

But perhaps the most severe case involved TikToker Phạm Đức Tuấn, owner of the account "Tuấn không cận (giải cứu)." In December 2024, Tuấn asked controversial questions like, "Between Hoàng Mobi and Uncle Hồ Chí Minh, who would you choose?" In response, the Hồ Chí Minh City's Department of Information and Communications, along with the city police, promptly fined Tuấn 30 million dong and permanently disabled his TikTok account. Under Point b, Clause 7, Article 102 of Decree 15/2020, Tuấn was accused of "providing information and images violating national sovereignty; distorting historical facts, denying revolutionary achievements; insulting the nation, national heroes, and figures without reaching the level of criminal liability."

Imprisoning “Voices of Conscience” Articles 117 and 331 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended in 2017) have become commonly used tools for the Vietnamese government to silence activists, journalists, and lawyers who dare to express dissent. These strict statutes have become symbols of the tightening noose around free speech in Việt Nam.

Take the case of Atty. Trần Đình Triển, head of the Vì Dân (For the People) Law Office. On June 8, 2024, he was arrested for "abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon state interests" under Article 331, because of posting three articles on his personal Facebook page, "Trần Đình Triển.”

On Dec. 12, 2024, the Supreme People's Procuracy issued a formal indictment against Triển, accusing him under Clause 2, Article 331 of the 2015 Penal Code. Specifically, authorities claimed that Triển's Facebook posts had undermined the reputation of the judiciary and Supreme Court leadership.

Finally, in January 2025, the Hà Nội People's Court delivered its verdict, sentencing Trần Đình Triển to a harsh three-year prison term.

Journalist Trương Huy San, also known by his pen name Huy Đức, faced a similar fate. Also on June 8, 2024, he was prosecuted under the same charge for publishing 13 Facebook articles between 2014 and 2024 that were deemed harmful to social order and security. The Hà Nội People's Court subsequently sentenced him to serve 30 months behind bars on Feb. 27. 2025.

These are just a couple of examples; many other dissenting voices have fallen victim to the government's campaign of criminal prosecution. Most notably, Phạm Đoan Trang was sentenced to a staggering nine years in prison for spreading "propaganda against the state" back in December 2021.

Similar cases of repression and imprisonment have also occurred earlier.

In 2011, Cù Huy Hà Vũ—a renowned intellectual and the son of poet Cù Huy Cận—called for the abolition of Article 4 of the Constitution and demanded political reforms, leading to a seven-year prison sentence.

Two years later in 2013, a blogger named Trương Duy Nhất was sentenced to two years in prison for posting content that "criticized leadership" on his personal blog.

These examples illustrate a grim reality in Việt Nam: speaking out for justice and freedom of expression, can lead to facing the full wrath of the criminal justice system. The law, which is supposed to protect human rights, has instead become a noose tightening around the necks of dissenting voices, both online and offline.

Criminalizing even mild or scholarly criticism raises a fundamental question: is there any semblance of intellectual freedom and open dialogue left in this supposed "modern society" of Việt Nam?

When Social Media Is No Longer a Safe Haven Freedom of expression in Việt Nam is no longer just constrained by social or cultural norms. It is increasingly being crushed by a legal system designed and operated under centralized state power. These restrictions range from administrative fines to prison sentences. But more subtly, there are also forms of soft deterrence enacted through the state's influence over major tech platforms.

In practice, social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube are no longer perceived as neutral spaces. There are signs of coordination between the Vietnamese government and these companies to suspend accounts, remove content, limit interactions, or hide posts that express "sensitive," "dissenting," or "anti-state" views.

The case of Trương Huy San, known as Huy Đức, provides a telling example. After he was sentenced to 30 months in prison for his Facebook posts, sources report that his account was frequently locked, disrupted, or had his content restricted—actions that followed direct intervention from authorities working with Facebook's Việt Nam team.

A similar pattern emerged with Đường Văn Thái, a blogger who faced disruptions to his presence on YouTube and Facebook before being arrested and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

When the legal penalties are already severe, these tech platforms are becoming conduits for the state to enforce censorship more effectively. No court order or official fine is needed; they can simply restrict access to content at the outset, stifling influence and silencing voices.

This combination of harsh laws and sophisticated technological censorship is creating an "information filter matrix" so tight that citizens can only see, hear, and know what the state allows them to. In this environment, freedom of expression has become a luxury, where the same statement may earn one person a mere warning, and another a prison term.