- 13/11/2017
- Category: Commentaries
When memes of President Joko Widodo wearing traditional clothes were reported to the police in August 2016, nobody batted an eye. But when Setya Novanto, current chief of Indonesian National Parliament, reported multiple accounts for posting memes of him, everybody lost their minds. Novanto’s recent allegations towards meme creators indicate that the discourse of memes in Indonesia has stepped up to a new level. Is the criminalization of memes a threat to democracy and freedom of expression?
Castaño (2013) defines meme as a unit of information (idea, concept or belief), which replicates by passing on via Internet (e-mail, chat, forum, social networks, etc.) in the shape of a hyperlink, video, image, or phrase. It can be passed on as an exact copy, or it can also change and evolve.[i] Although memes are not regarded as seriously as blogs or news articles, they sometimes represent serious matters, not to mention politics. The spread of political memes may cause troubles, especially when those being ridiculed in the memes take the matter personally and sue the meme creators, as what has happened with the case of Setya Novanto’s memes.
When meme criminalization backlashes democracy
The case of Novanto suing his meme creators/spreaders illustrates how meme criminalization is a backlash towards democracy because Novanto’s side failed to understand meme as a form of criticism, freedom of speech, or joke instead. Novanto’s lawyers argued that the memes of their client do not respect the presumption of innocence and they have violated the rule of defamation (under Constitution no. 11 of 2008, article 27 verse 3). The lawyers even further suspect that there are financial supports behind the memes.[i]
The memes are indeed targeting Novanto who managed to avoid corruption investigations due to health excuses. The ability of a powerful man to escape various allegations (i.e. Novanto), is the one being criticised through the memes. This commentary argues that the critics are relatively far from defamation or hate speech as there are no explicit hate speech or false facts published through the memes. The messages in the memes are compact and contextual, i.e. they can only be understood by individuals who acquire adequate knowledge about the situation the memes refer to. In this regard, memes are not similar to hoaxes which produce false or misleading information which can influence someone who has no information on the subject matter. For that reason, the argument that “those who understand nothing will become Novanto’s haters”[ii] does not make sense.
Nevertheless, even if the truth revealing which degrades Novanto’s reputation is present, according to Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP)/Criminal Code article 310, it is permissible as long as it is committed for the sake of public interest (or as an act of self-defense).[iii][iv] Since the memes addresses Novanto as a formerly suspected corruptor of the national budget, it can be argued that there is a possible motive behind the memes to spread the information about a corrupt politician—in a satirical way—which is okay, because it relates to public interest. Furthermore, such intention to unmask ‘rotten’ politicians or to raise public awareness about certain issues is common to be found among the meme makers—as a research about meme indicated.[v]
Meme criminalization is neither unique nor the first time to ever happen in internet history. One previous example is when Erdogan regime once prosecuted a man named Rifat Çetin for his action depicting Erdogan as Gollum in a meme.[vi] But that was Turkey, whose politics has been dominated for several years by Erdogan. If Indonesia was to tolerate such practice, it would mean taking a few steps back for the country’s democracy.
What about memes of Jokowi?
Even though meme criminalization invites wide criticisms due to its potential abuse of power, it does not mean the authority must turn a blind eye to memes. Some memes, indeed, deserve to be taken down when they explicitly contain hate speech. An example is the memes (alongside the captions) of President Joko Widodo of Indonesia which explicitly mocked the president, and to some extent, Batak culture. In this context, bringing the actor(s) behind the meme to the court is the right thing to do as a form of law enforcement against hate speech. This act, on the contrary to Novanto’s move, is an effort to protect democracy because it embraces the importance of ‘responsible’ freedom of speech.
So What?
In Indonesia, memes are an unavoidable consequence of its humorous citizens. Any attempt to degrade memes will only result in more memes. Any politician who gets offended by innocent memes may consider doing some self-introspection and fix themselves first before (trying to) fix the content of the internet. So, why so serious?
Picture: tirto.id
References:
Castaño, D., C.M. (2013). Defining and characterizing the concept of Internet Meme. Revista CES Psicología, 6(2), pp. 82-104.
[i] Widiastuti, R. (2017). Marak 60 Meme Setya Novanto, Pengacara Curiga Ada yang Mendanai. Tempo. [online] Available at: https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1029980/marak-60-meme-setya-novanto-pengacara-curiga-ada-yang-mendanai [Accessed 6 November 2017].
[ii] Widiastuti, R. (2017). Marak 60 Meme Setya Novanto, Pengacara Curiga Ada yang Mendanai. Tempo. [online] Available at: https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1029980/marak-60-meme-setya-novanto-pengacara-curiga-ada-yang-mendanai [Accessed 6 November 2017].
[iii] Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana, article 310.
[iv] Pebrianto, F. (2017). LBH Pers: Penyebaran Meme Setya Novanto Bukan Tindak Pidana. Tempo. [online] Available at: https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1030919/lbh-pers-penyebaran-meme-setya-novanto-bukan-tindak-pidana [Accessed 6 November 2017].
[v] Vasiliki, P. (2014). Satirical User-Generated Memes as an Effective Source of Political Criticism, Extending Debate and Enhancing Civic Engagement. Center for Cultural Policy Studies, University of Warwick, p.18.
[vi] The Guardian, Man who depicted Erdoğan as Gollum given suspended. (2016). [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/rifat-cetin-erdogan-gollum-suspended-sentence-turkey [Accessed 6 November 2017].
