The Snobby Disease

KOMPAS/WAWAN H PRABOWO

Activists hold a demonstration in front of the Merdeka Palace, Jakarta, Tuesday (8/1/2019).

An article on insults against state officials was abolished by the Constitutional Court in 2006. Now it appears again as an offense in the draft revision of the Criminal Code. The old controversy grows again. What is ambiguous in public debate needs to be clarified.

According to Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna Hamonangan Laoly, freedom of expression should be balanced with the protection of the good name of others. In such an abstract formulation, his statement is correct. But it does not mean the use of the article on insults is a concrete step to support balance.

For the sake of balance, there should be articles that threaten state officials if they attack the honor of the people, not the other way around. Why? The voice of officials is far greater than that of ordinary people. It is unbalanced. The government has a ministry of communication and information, a ministry for education, a public relations office and influence.

Also read:

> Unequal

> The Discourse on Cyber Law Revision

As the owner of the highest sovereignty, the Indonesian people elect the president and vice president, not the other way around. So, the honor of the people is higher than those of any state official. Well, how come insulting a state official could be subject to a more severe punishment than insulting another citizen?

Articles on insults against state officials and institutions are applied in several countries; however, not in a democratic country. Indonesia inherited similar Dutch colonial articles, which were called haatzaai articlesen.

“Whoever incites or arouses feelings of hostility, hatred or contempt against the Dutch government, or the Dutch East Indies government with words, signs or behavior or other means will be punished.” It is stated in an article introduced by then-governor-general Idenburg on March 15, 1914.

Haatzaai articlesen were implemented in the Dutch East Indies shortly after the British colonization of India was tamed by articles of sedition, or not long after the introduction of the lèse-majesté law in Thailand, which had been used for thousands of years in Europe. Today, it still exists in parts of Asia and Europe that have queens, kings or emperors who must be glorified absolutely. However, in their governments ,which are ruled by a constitution, the head of government is commonly reviled.

The first difference is that in many other countries, defamation is regulated by civil law, not criminal law.

In some countries, defamation laws are used to balance freedom of expression. However, there are two major differences from the Indonesian government’s proposal. The first difference is that in many other countries, defamation is regulated by civil law, not criminal law. For example in Australia, the police do not interfere in defamation cases. People should not be detained and imprisoned for defamation cases.

Kompas/Hendra A Setyawan

A mural about freedom of expression is depicted on a wall in the Pondok Cabe area, South Tangerang, Banten, Wednesday (16/6/2021).

The second difference, in contrast to Indonesia, their laws limit opportunities for state institutions and large companies to complain about defamation cases. It is not uncommon for politicians in the United States or England to complain about defamation cases even though their works are often criticized and ridiculed. In Indonesia, according to SAFEnet, 70 percent of the complainants for the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law (2008-2020) are elites, mostly public officials.

On paper, Indonesian citizens are protected by law from defamation. State officials are also citizens, so they are also protected. Why are the additional articles on protection for officials needed? In fact, it is the common people who are more vulnerable to become victims of a crime.

The snobby disease can be contagious and anyone can catch it; not just state officials. Many middle-class citizens are now easily offended and rush to the police. It\'s not just the number of complaints that has swelled. What is more concerning is that many trivial complaints, such as the case of a small car accident of two celebrities, are reported to the police.

Also read:

> The ITE Law Amendment

> An Exemplary in Digital Environment

In the past, the Dutch colonialists relied on haatzaai articlesen to quell the anti-colonial revolution. The New Order used articles on insults to suppress pro-democracy activists. Not like today. In the past, it was not housewives who were sentenced for complaining about poor public services, not citizens who mocked a state institution as a "slave" of world institutions.

Now, social media is making matters worse. Journalists who have a code of ethics in doing their work can make a mistake and defame people. In fact, their articles should be first checked by the editor before being published. It can be worse for many ordinary netizens who suddenly became writers and digital publishers without editorial supervision from anyone.

The rise of social media demands legal reform. The balance between freedom of expression and defamation needs to be adjusted, but not with a criminal article. It is also not with special protection for state officials such as the tradition of the palace or colonialism which was opposed by revolutionary fighters in the early 20th century.

KOMPAS/SUPRIYANTO

Supriyanto

It is useless to argue about the difference between criticism and insults, if the critics of government policies become the main victims of the criminal law. What’s more important and easier to distinguish are the two types of targets for negative statements, whether they are called criticism or insults. First, an attack of the performance or policies of public officials or institutions. Second, personal attacks against individuals, whether they are officials or not.

The first is natural in a democracy; the culprit does not need to be punished. The second can lead to disputes in many countries. Especially in a country that applies various articles of complaint. According to SAFEnet\'s records, during 2017-2020, cybercriminal officers examined 15,000 complaints of the ITE Law. No wonder, there is a sarcastic saying "if it is complicated, time wasting and expensive, why not make it simple, fast and cheaper?".

Also read:

> An Opportunity to Revise the ITE Law

> Digital Literacy to Counter Hoaxes

What happened in Australia was just the opposite. In that country, the prosecutor\'s office is struggling to revise various rules so that the number of legal disputes in cases of insults or defamation can be minimized. Disputing persons are encouraged to seek a settlement out of court. judges have been urged to drop petty lawsuits.

Many other issues deserve priority, such as consumer data protection, sexual harassment and environmental damage.

Police and judicial resources in any country are limited. It would be a shame if their time and energy were drained by a flood of petty complaints. Many other issues deserve priority, such as consumer data protection, sexual harassment and environmental damage.

Hate speech is impossible to eradicate. We need to learn to live a more relaxed and mature life in an age of bullshit, slander and envy, both pro and anti-government. We need to be more immune to the plague of snobbiness. It needs to separate personal problems from official matters. It needs to be more independent from the remnants of European colonial heritage and indigenous court culture.

KOMPAS/RIZA FATHONI

Ariel Heryanto

ARIEL HERYANTO, Professor Emeritus from Monash University, Australia

(This article was translated by Hendarsyah Tarmizi).