How Indonesia’s problematic internet law will impede freedom of expression

Those who have been listening in to Indonesia’s tech scene in the last two weeks would by now have heard the name Florence Sihombing, an Indonesian citizen in Jogjakarta. She is involved in the highly disputed case involving the UU ITE (regulation about electronic information and transaction) in Indonesia. The law – which was established in 2008 – regulates citizens’ conversation online, and lets anybody charge anyone for making them “feel offended”.

Indonesia is a democratic country with a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the freedom of expression. But the existence of the ITE law contradicts the amendment.

Sihombing’s case is one of many incidents showing how the ITE law can be broadly interpreted. We will also look at other cases related to the legislation which shows the law enforcers’ lack of understanding when dealing with these issues. Before we go any further, let’s look at some recent cases for context.

The Florence Sihombing case

Sihombing is an Indonesian who called Jogjakarta people “poor, stupid, and uncultured” on private social network Path. Somebody took a screenshot of it and shared the status on public social media like Facebook and Twitter.

Jogjakarta people showed their discontent regarding Sihombing’s status and bullied her online. #UsirFlorenceDariJogja was the worldwide trending hashtag used to make Sihombing notorious on Twitter. It means “evict Florence from Jogja”.

The situation became worse. A few local NGOs took the case to the police by filing a lawsuit against her under the ITE law. They believe that Sihombing should be found guilty for causing “insult, defamation, and provocation”.

Sihombing has since issued a public apology. And even when the numerous NGOs said they have forgiven her for it, they are still continuing the criminal charges against her.

A similar incident also happened in Bandung recently. Ridwan Kamil, a respected mayor of the city, filed a lawsuit against Twitter user Kemal Septiandi. The latter basically made childish, nasty references to Kamil and Bandung cities, using words like “fuck” and “whore.”

But do Sihombing’s and Septiandi’s online rants (one of which was essentially private) warrant them being charged like criminals?

Other problematic cases

Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression (SafeNet Voice), a movement that promotes the freedom of speech in the region, has been following the issue surrounding Indonesia’s ITE regulation. While they believe it is needed to regulate the online world, the law has a few loopholes to be fixed.

1. It’s unclear if violations of the ITE regulations should fall under civil or criminal law.

Because defamation can become either a civil and criminal dispute in Indonesia, the government needs to draw a clearer line. Australia, for example, rules that any instances of defamation that harm an individual should be considered a civil offense. When the incident affects the community, like endangering the public peace, then it can be considered a criminal offense.

Because the parameter is yet to be clearly defined in Indonesia, there have been a few small incidents which should’ve ended up as civil disputes rather than in the criminal court. One of which is an incident in 2010 involving two high school students who talked trash to each other on Facebook. In the end one of them filed a lawsuit, and successfully got the other student convicted as a “criminal”. The latter was charged with two months and 15 days of imprisonment, but could escape jail time as long as she doesn’t break any laws for five months.

Disproportionate punishment and freedom of expression

Is reform on the way?