UNS — The internet and citizen (netizens) are two sides of a coin, inseparable. Especially during this disruptive digital era, the amount of daily activities, starting from work, education, and trading, done through the network increase each year. Moreover, the internet also becomes the platform for citizens to interact through social media and instant messaging services. This technology, in fact, facilitates the community to stay connected and receiving information at a speedy rate, and this service is available both for the young one and the mature generation.
According to the data released by HootSuite, a content management service provider, the number of internet users in Indonesia in 2021 reaches 202.6 million. This number increases at 15.5 percent or approximately 27 million, compared to last year’s figure. However, does the number of internet users align with the perceived safety of the netizen while browsing the internet? It turns out the answer is no.
According to a survey conducted by SAFEnet, Indonesia Youth IGF, and ‘Pamflet Generasi,’ 56 percent of the netizen feel insecure when surfing the internet. This survey involves 284 respondents within 17-25 years old. The same source also found that most netizens consider the Law on Information and Electronic Transactions (UU ITE) to endanger their freedom of expression. Considering this condition, the Rector of Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS) Surakarta, Prof. Jamal Wiwoho, states that online expression is entitled to the same protection as offline expression.
His statement is based on the United Nations (UN) Resolution No. 20/8 of 2021 regarding the Promotion, Protection, and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet. “Freedom of expression at international level is also regulated in UDHR and ICCPR. Paragraph 19 UDHR, Paragraph 19 clause (1) and (2) ICCPR, and Paragraph 13 clause (1) Convention of Children Rights 1998 guarantees individuals the right to express opinions and free expression without interference,” explains Prof. Jamal in his opinion published in Harian Media Indonesia, Thursday (12/8/2021).
Considering the Indonesia condition, Prof. Jamal specifically observes the increase in the digital criminal case through social media, which is based on the data published by SAFEnet. SAFEnet reveals that the rise in netizen’s criminalization on their social media activity shows a decline in the quality of democracy in Indonesia. “SAFEnet mentioned that in 2019 there are 24 activists, journalists, and academic members crime reporting. In 2020, the reports increased to 59 cases dominated with reports on ordinary citizens who uploads Covid-19 related contents, which are considered hoaxes,” he explained.
Regardless of whether the content/news shows hoax information due to misinformation or disinformation, there are numerous cases found related to the ITE law during 2020 that happened because of misinformation. Misinformation refers to wrong or inaccurate information disseminated by an individual who does not understand the information content of the dissemination. Meanwhile, disinformation refers to certain information that is intentionally disseminated on social media, while the perpetrators of the information dissemination understand that the information they are distributing is not true. “Repression of the freedom of expression on the internet should not have happened if the government uses literacy and education approach to the community,” states Prof. Jamal.
Furthermore, Prof. Jamal, in his opinion, reveals that during 2021 there are 15 cases and 18 victims of ITE law. This data is based on the Amnesty International Indonesia release. Prof. Jamal states that such a condition is possible because of the existence of unclear clauses/provisions with no clear benchmark in ITE law, which in the end it harms many netizens. For instance, in Paragraph 27, clause (3) of ITE law stating, “Anyone who knowingly and without rights distributes and/or transmits and/or allowing the access to Electronic Information and/or Electronic Document that contains insults and/or defamation.”
There is also the Paragraph 28 clause (2) in ITE law stating, “Anyone is prohibited to knowingly and without rights to disseminate information that intended to incite hatred or hostility in individuals and/or certain community group based on ethnicity, religion, race, and inter-group characteristics (SARA).” Prof. Jamal highlights the term ‘group’ in Paragraph 28 article (2) of ITE law that which can have a vast meaning. The term can be defined as Politic Party or professional organization. “The extended definition is legitimized in the Constitutional Court’s Decision No. 76/PUU-XV/2017, which basically states that inter-groups include not only ethnicity, religion, and taste, but also all entities beyond those characterizations,” Prof. Jamal explains.
Aside from the findings of terms with extensive meaning, Prof. Jamal also finds the Paragraph on defamation that included as a formal offense, thus resulted in the act in question not being an element that must be proven. He added that, in court practice, law enforcement often assesses defamation in various ways and often ignores the element of purpose, whether the person in question (the one creating statement) intends to insult or defame.
Restorative Justice
Regarding the unrest related to the ITE law, Prof. Jamal suggests the importance of restorative justice in ITE case settlement, which means an approach that focuses on justice and balance both for criminals and victims. “The patterns and procedure in criminal court that focused on punishment must be shifted to dialogue and mediation processes to create a more just and balanced settlement agreement for victims and perpetrators,” Prof. Jamal explains. He considers that restorative justice is already implied in the 4th precept of Pancasila. Therefore, the decision taken must be based on the common interest and respect toward the agreed decisions.
Prof. Jamal adds that as an alternative for case settlement, restorative justice in ITE cases must not focus on finding the guilty person but reach a win-win solution. “Furthermore, to emphasize the legal certainty, the articles which are dominated by criminal threats in the ITE Law, need to be reviewed by including a restorative justice mechanism in order to eliminate the fear of conveying criticism to anyone, as long as it does not lead to the division of the nation,” he concluded. Humas UNS
Reporter: Yefta Christopherus AS
Editor: Dwi Hastuti