- 02/10/2017
- Category: Commentaries
Indonesia was recently shocked by the arrest of a group of people naming themselves Saracen. This group was initially created to spread hate speech and hoax on the internet. They are very well organized, shown by the ownership of more than 2.000 invalid online media, and around 800.000 accounts connected to social media.[i] Saracen work by creating memes with provocative contents, often coupled with long narrations noting hoax and false news, using fake social media accounts. The issue surrounding religion and ethnicities are also often covered. The appearance of Saracen carrying provocative contents is not easily recognized by netizens. It is simply because the Indonesian netizens are familiar with social media and its distribution of news and other information in it. With the innovations on social media features, the information that has already been recorded and posted are easily spread and reposted to other social media platforms sequentially. Overly shared information on social media then turns viral and is accepted as a new information by the readers.
The appearance of Saracen triggers the discussion about freedom of speech in social media. Under The 1945 Constitution of The Republic of Indonesia Chapter 28E Verse 3, the Indonesian government regulates and protects the right of speaking and delivering opinion in public. However, realizing the fast spread of information on the internet, the government then attempted to ratify The Act of Information and Electronic Transaction (IET) Number 11 Year 2008 that then renewed in 2016 which generated pros and cons on the freedom of speech in social media. The discussion mostly surrounds the threats brought by hate speech and how the nature of the internet as the realm for free speech is governed; especially on classifying whether hate speech is a justifiable form of free speech. Arguing about securing the internet from hate speech, should Indonesia as a democratic country then totally limit the freedom of speech in social media?
Freedom of speech is the foundation of liberty and democracy. It is essential to give free speech the space to deliver what we believe as an idea, political beliefs, and our personal opinions to the public.[ii] In many countries, free speech is believed to be core of democracy. However, these countries also face the problem of increasing number of hate speech on the internet, and they have their own steps to deal with this. For example, what Germany did recently is by implying law that asks social media company to remove contents with hate speech in 24 hours or they will be fined.[iii] In India, the government implied The Indian Penal Code Section 153A and 295A, and other provisions which proscribed and punished speeches if they led to communal tensions or created law and order problems.[iv] This asserts a common ground acknowledged by many parties which justifies the harms that hate speech potentially brings. It is also similar to what the Indonesian government did. They are basically moved by the same interest to secure information spread on the internet and to reduce hate speech.
The danger of hate speech merely becomes a concern especially in a multi-racial and ‘religious’ country like Indonesia. The appearance of Saracen as the organized group of hate speech and hoax spreader in social media is somehow believed as the unexpected outcome of democracy. When freedom of speech is given, hate speech has gotten out of control.[v] Meanwhile, the advancement of technology gives a very significant impact on broadening the scope of public sphere in the term of freedom of speech. Nominated as the most active users of social media, Indonesians are currently more active on receiving and processing information from social media. It becomes an undeniable thing anymore if hate speech could trigger tensions among societies due to its sentiment to a certain group of people. Due to its urgency to fight against hate speech, does implying law demolish the freedom of speech?
Quoting Onder Bakircioglu’s work about Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech, most democratic states impose restrictions on certain forms of expression, depending on the political and historical context.[vi] Looking at the context of Indonesia, Indonesia is destined to have a multi dimensional part of society with different ethnicities, language, religion, and race. Indonesia has experienced many religious and ethnic conflicts even before the era of social media. It shows that Indonesians have the history of being easily provoked when it comes to religion and ethnicity issue.[vii] Meanwhile, the nature of democracy are between the two points, for both free speech and the right to equality. The challenge then comes on how the government can balance the freedom of speech with the equal right for citizen. Regardless all the pros and cons of The Act of Information and Electronic Transaction (IET), in fact, the government still puts a hope for this regulation to be the spearhead of hate speech counterwork in Indonesia, especially under such concern that is Indonesia’s backgrounds whose people are sensitive about hates forged from religious and ethnicities-related issues.[viii]
Hate speech however becomes a very complex problem that seems under wrap, yet its impact could inflict a mob violence that ignites conflict among groups. Although the Indonesian government already implied the law, we have to admit that the spread of hate speech on the internet is still uncontainable. From the case of Saracen, we are awakened that a two-sided handling is still needed. Those are from the government and from the society. Government does not need to close social media platforms, but content-filtering could be an option.[ix] Government has already done it to the contents that contain violence and pornography. However, it could be upgraded to hate speech, hoax, radicalism, group sentiments, and any other of its sort. From the side of the society, the case of Saracen taught us to do information cross-checking and reading the news first before accepting it as a truth. Center for Digital Society (CfDS) Fisipol UGM released a commentary on how Indonesian level of digital literacy is way too far from the ideal.[x] This makes Indonesians tend to easily believe in hoax and false news. Digital literacy is also important to increase the ability, not only to evaluate and utilize content, but also to share and create content.[xi] This ability is needed to at least prevent hate speech and hoax to overspread.
[i] Tempo. Sarance Punya 800 Ribu Akun Media Sosial, Berikut Aktivitasnya. [online] Tempo. Available at: https://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2017/08/25/063903115/saracen-punya-800-ribu-akun-media-sosial-berikut-aktivitasnya [Accessed 29 August 2017]
[ii] Steven Rossenbaum. The Internet, Hate Speech, and Politics. [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenrosenbaum/2016/11/14/the-internet-hate-speech-and-politics/#56c3347d295c [Accessed on 26 Agustus 2017]
[iii] Janet Burns. Germany to Social Media Sites: Remove Hate Speech in 24hours or Face $57 Millions Fine. [online] Forbes. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2017/06/30/germany-now-allows-up-to-57m-in-fines-if-facebook-doesnt-remove-hate-speech-fast/ [Accessed on 26 Agustus 2017]
[iv] Saurav Datta. Law Commission Redefines Hate Speech: Proposes Changes to IPC to Protect Minorities. [online] First Post. Available at: http://www.firstpost.com/india/law-commission-redefines-hate-speech-proposes-changes-to-ipc-to-protect-minorities-3353640.html [Accessed on 26 Agustus 2017]
[v] Hendri Yulius. Ahok and Hate Speech: The (unexpected) Outcome of Democracy. [online] The Jakarta Post. Available at: http://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2016/11/03/ahok-and-hate-speech-the-unexpected-outcome-of-democracy.html [Accessed on 26 Agustus 2017]
[vi] Onder Bakircioglu. Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech. Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law (2008). Vol. 16. Iss. 1. Pg. 2
[vii] Rido P. Panjaitan. Mob Violence Shows Indonesia Must Against Online Hate Speech. [online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/mob-violence-shows-indonesia-must-act-against-online-hate-speech-63509 [Accessed on 26 Agustus 2017]
[viii] Rosi Dian. Satu Proyek Ujaran Kebencian, Saracen Untung Hingga Ratusan Juta. [online] IDNTimes. Available at: https://news.idntimes.com/indonesia/rosi-nur-diansyah/saracen-raup-untung-hingga-ratusan-juta-c1c2 [Accessed on 26 Agustus 2017]
[ix] Pakar: Pemerintah Tidak Perlu Blokir Google dan Youtube. [online] Tirto.id. Available at: https://tirto.id/pakar-pemerintah-tidak-perlu-blokir-google-dan-youtube-bdM5 [Accessed on 28 Agustus 2017]
[x] Hafidh R. Indonesia is not literate enough. [online] Available at: http://cfds.fisipol.ugm.ac.id/article/165 [Accessed on 28 Agustus 2017]
[xi] Hafidh R. Indonesia is not literate enough. [online]
