Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing
The Police during a rally. Photo by: RES
Following the issuance of controversial Chief of National Police Circular Letter No. SE/6/X/2015 on the Handling of Hate Speech (Circular) on 8 October 2015, all eyes are now focused on the National Police, as the Circular continues to draw criticism from various sectors of society.
The Circular itself comprises of four points, including the kinds of acts that are to be classified as of hate speech and other related crimes. The Circular starts by defining hate speech as a crime that is incorporated both within and beyond the Criminal Code, including insulting acts, defamation, blasphemy (penistaan), objectionable acts (perbuatan tidak menyenangkan), provocative acts, instigation, and the dissemination of false news.
The Circular then outlines the various types of media most commonly used to propagate hate speech, including campaign speeches, banners, social-media networks, demonstrations and religious sermons, as well as electronic-media and mass-media forums.
Furthermore, the Circular also sets out several directives which are to be followed by all members of the National Police force. These directives include preventative measures, intelligence (including the gathering of information or investigations), and sanctions. Regarding sanctions, the Circular instructs police officers to resort to the full enforcement of the law, if preventative measures fail to mitigate the impacts of so-called hate speech.
The Circular refers to several laws and regulations which are to be the basis for law enforcement in this area, such as the Criminal Code (Articles 156 to 157, and Articles 310 t0 311), Law No. 11 of 2008on Electronic Information and Transactions [Articles 28 and 45 (2)], as well as Law No. 40 of 2008on the Eradication of Ethnic and Racial Discrimination (Article 16).
In a press release obtained by hukumonline, LBH Pers, a prominent legal-aid institute, criticized the Circular for applying a narrow interpretation of Article 311 of the Criminal Code as regards hate speech. The LBH Pers press release points out that Article 311 of the Criminal Code is often wrongly used to charge those whose choose to exercise their right to freedom of speech.
LBH Pers further asserts that the application of Articles 156 and 157 and Articles 310 and 311 of the Criminal Code to the realms of hate speech is inappropriate, as the legal definition of hate speech is totally different from that of defamation. LBH Pers thus expresses its concern that any implementation of the police Circular will ultimately end up restricting freedom of speech.
“The application of the law here could result in wrongful arrest, as those who will end up being arrested will not be the actual perpetrators, and this will ultimately prove to be a source of tension. It is better to separate defamation from hate speech, so that police officers don’t end up abusing their authority as they attempt to handle such an obscure provision,” states the LBH Pers press release.
LBH Pers warns the National Police that as an institution they have to be prudent when deciding whether an action constitutes hate speech or represents a legal expression of freedom of speech. This is vitally important so that those expressing their opinions or criticizing someone else’s work do not end up being prosecuted as perpetrators of hate speech.
The LBH press release also outlines some specific concerns regarding the potential effects of the Circular on Indonesia’s minority communities. According to LBH records, most hate-speech cases end up victimizing these minorities through prohibitions on the religious activities practised by minor religions, or the relocation/excommunication of those wishing to express different opinions from those held by the majority of the population.
Commenting on these matters, Inspector General Anton Charliyan, head of the National Police’s Public Relations Division, affirmed that the Circular was not seeking to impair freedom of speech. Rather, the Circular was issued as a response to several recent cases involving hate speech relating to differences in ethnicity, religious beliefs, race and culture (suku, agama, ras, dan antar golongan – commonly abbreviated in Indonesia as “SARA”). Such hate speech, according to Mr. Charliyan, is being disseminated by factions looking to sow the seeds of internal discord within Indonesian society.
“Take two of the most recent cases as examples. In the Tolikara case, they [the local community] disseminated their hatred via online groups, while in the Singkil case, encouragements to burn down churches were also spread via the Internet. We cannot afford to let these new technologies and digital tools to be misused and abused,” stated Mr. Charliyan firmly.
According to Mr. Charliyan, the Circular only seeks to remind all parties that when speaking or expressing their opinions – both in public or online – they should think carefully about the social implications of what they are saying.
“A tongue can be like fire. Do not speak rashly. Reflect your culture through a positive use of words and language, and show that we are a well-mannered nation,” concluded Mr. Charliyan.
(sp)
Marcell Sihombing
The Police during a rally. Photo by: RES
Following the issuance of controversial Chief of National Police Circular Letter No. SE/6/X/2015 on the Handling of Hate Speech (Circular) on 8 October 2015, all eyes are now focused on the National Police, as the Circular continues to draw criticism from various sectors of society.
The Circular itself comprises of four points, including the kinds of acts that are to be classified as of hate speech and other related crimes. The Circular starts by defining hate speech as a crime that is incorporated both within and beyond the Criminal Code, including insulting acts, defamation, blasphemy (penistaan), objectionable acts (perbuatan tidak menyenangkan), provocative acts, instigation, and the dissemination of false news.
The Circular then outlines the various types of media most commonly used to propagate hate speech, including campaign speeches, banners, social-media networks, demonstrations and religious sermons, as well as electronic-media and mass-media forums.
Furthermore, the Circular also sets out several directives which are to be followed by all members of the National Police force. These directives include preventative measures, intelligence (including the gathering of information or investigations), and sanctions. Regarding sanctions, the Circular instructs police officers to resort to the full enforcement of the law, if preventative measures fail to mitigate the impacts of so-called hate speech.
The Circular refers to several laws and regulations which are to be the basis for law enforcement in this area, such as the Criminal Code (Articles 156 to 157, and Articles 310 t0 311), Law No. 11 of 2008on Electronic Information and Transactions [Articles 28 and 45 (2)], as well as Law No. 40 of 2008on the Eradication of Ethnic and Racial Discrimination (Article 16).
In a press release obtained by hukumonline, LBH Pers, a prominent legal-aid institute, criticized the Circular for applying a narrow interpretation of Article 311 of the Criminal Code as regards hate speech. The LBH Pers press release points out that Article 311 of the Criminal Code is often wrongly used to charge those whose choose to exercise their right to freedom of speech.
LBH Pers further asserts that the application of Articles 156 and 157 and Articles 310 and 311 of the Criminal Code to the realms of hate speech is inappropriate, as the legal definition of hate speech is totally different from that of defamation. LBH Pers thus expresses its concern that any implementation of the police Circular will ultimately end up restricting freedom of speech.
“The application of the law here could result in wrongful arrest, as those who will end up being arrested will not be the actual perpetrators, and this will ultimately prove to be a source of tension. It is better to separate defamation from hate speech, so that police officers don’t end up abusing their authority as they attempt to handle such an obscure provision,” states the LBH Pers press release.
LBH Pers warns the National Police that as an institution they have to be prudent when deciding whether an action constitutes hate speech or represents a legal expression of freedom of speech. This is vitally important so that those expressing their opinions or criticizing someone else’s work do not end up being prosecuted as perpetrators of hate speech.
The LBH press release also outlines some specific concerns regarding the potential effects of the Circular on Indonesia’s minority communities. According to LBH records, most hate-speech cases end up victimizing these minorities through prohibitions on the religious activities practised by minor religions, or the relocation/excommunication of those wishing to express different opinions from those held by the majority of the population.
Commenting on these matters, Inspector General Anton Charliyan, head of the National Police’s Public Relations Division, affirmed that the Circular was not seeking to impair freedom of speech. Rather, the Circular was issued as a response to several recent cases involving hate speech relating to differences in ethnicity, religious beliefs, race and culture (suku, agama, ras, dan antar golongan – commonly abbreviated in Indonesia as “SARA”). Such hate speech, according to Mr. Charliyan, is being disseminated by factions looking to sow the seeds of internal discord within Indonesian society.
“Take two of the most recent cases as examples. In the Tolikara case, they [the local community] disseminated their hatred via online groups, while in the Singkil case, encouragements to burn down churches were also spread via the Internet. We cannot afford to let these new technologies and digital tools to be misused and abused,” stated Mr. Charliyan firmly.
According to Mr. Charliyan, the Circular only seeks to remind all parties that when speaking or expressing their opinions – both in public or online – they should think carefully about the social implications of what they are saying.
“A tongue can be like fire. Do not speak rashly. Reflect your culture through a positive use of words and language, and show that we are a well-mannered nation,” concluded Mr. Charliyan.
(sp)