Voices Under Threat? What the Revision of Broadcasting Bill Means for Freedom of Speech and Expression in Indonesia

  • 16/07/2025
  • Category: Commentaries
No Comments

Background

Anticipating the massive digital transformation, including in the broadcasting sector, Indonesia government initiated efforts to issue a new regulation through the Broadcasting Bill No. 32 of 2004 (Rancangan Undang-Undang (RUU) Penyiaran No. 32 Tahun 2004).1 However, the proposed revision bill has sparked public backlash. Critics argue that the bill does not seem to sufficiently accommodate the main urgency and contrary to the public interest due to the presence of vague and overly broad provisions (so-called pasal karet) which threaten freedom of speech and expression. Amid public criticism and rejection from community groups, the government keeps intensifying efforts to pass the broadcasting bill, raising concerns about the future of digital democracy in Indonesia.

Expanded Definition of Broadcasting 

One of the most crucial points to be changed in the broadcasting bill is the expansion of the broadcasting terms from terrestrial broadcast to covering digital broadcasting. In other words, terrestrial broadcasting which includes conventional television and radio along with digital broadcasting will later be under the same regulation. What is included in digital broadcasting is the over-the-top (OTT) platform that displays media content streaming via the internet network instead of through conventional intermediaries e.g. cable, big screen, or television.2 OTT platforms that are commonly used by the public in Indonesia including Viu, Netflix, Vidio, Disney+ Hotstar, and HBO Max.3

OTT platforms so far have generally been subject to self-regulatory policies at the Southeast Asian regional level such as the subscription Video-on-Demand Industry Content Code which protects consumer interests and provides content according to the consumer age.4 With the presence of the broadcasting bill in Indonesia, platforms must comply with materials included in this bill, such as broadcast content material. Furthermore, the broadcasting bill will not only regulate digital platforms but also the broadcast organizers who can consist of institutions or individuals.

The Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia/KPI) stated that the urgency of this bill is partly based on the presence of new digital-based media while regulations governing this matter are not yet available.5 Supervision of the quality and meaning of the content are considered important to be regulated in this bill because the public is said to generally have a preference for poor quality contents.6 Efforts to regulate digital platforms are actually quite tricky because, on the one hand, they can bring benefits to the more positive internet ecosystem such as anticipating disinformation but, on the other hand, they also threaten the public rights towards freedom of speech and expression.

Controversial Articles, the Superpower of the KPI, and Threats to the Public’s Freedom of Speech and Expression

Freedom of speech and expression generally includes three main components: the freedom to receive information or ideas, the freedom to have own opinion, and the freedom to convey information to the public. The mentioned rights not only underlies socio-political life in the real world but also in the digital world, as stated in the digital rights issued by the Alliance of Universal Digital Rights (AUDRi).7 One of the conditions behind this is because the digital space is also a democratic public space, meaning it can be utilized for social, political, and cultural purposes.

The broadcasting bill does not only regulate digital broadcasting platforms but also the public which can be the platform organizers. It also raises concern as it can reach the user-generated content (UGC). With this, there is also potential for overlap with other laws such as MOCI Regulation No. 5/2020 regarding Private Electronic System Organizers (private ESOs). The debate sparked from this bill is a signal of public concern to this bill which can be utilized as a tool for government control over public criticism.

In the broadcasting bill, freedom of speech and expression is threatened to be restricted through regulations that are based on the standard of ‘appropriateness’, namely the Broadcast Content Standard (Standar Isi Siaran/SIS). This standard must later be obeyed by the digital broadcasting platforms and broadcasting organizer in order to obtain broadcast permit from the KPI. Article 50B paragraph (2) of this broadcasting bill, contains elements that are prohibited in SIS, including the prohibition of broadcasts related to narcotics, gambling, and violence action. However, several other elements should be reviewed as they seem to dwarf the space for marginalized groups with prohibition of broadcast content that contains mystical elements, LGBTQ+ behaviors, and supranatural healing. Furthermore, the aforementioned article could possibly threaten democracy by the presence of elements that prohibit contents related to investigative journalism and the fake news, slander, and defamation.

Several articles in the Article 50B paragraph (2) that should be reviewed for example related to the letters c and k. In sequence, those articles regulate the prohibition of exclusive broadcasts of investigative journalism and broadcast content containing fake news, slander, insults, defamation, blasphemy, violence, and radicalism-terrorism, respectively. The former poses a serious threat because the goal of investigative journalism is to uncover facts independently of hidden or ‘closed’ cases, ignoring external pressures such as from the government, political parties, certain communities, personal subjectivity, and even the journalist’s own office.8 On the other hand, the latter could be used for controlling public rights to express opinions, such as UGC which is increasingly used by the public as part of digital activism, under ambiguous terms e.g. ‘defamation’ or ‘insults’. Both are really crucial in ensuring the implementation of democratic life because they concern the role of government checks and balances through the work of journalists and the function of the public itself. 

KPI, which through this regulation has the potential to have greater and more significant power in broadcasting in Indonesia, also raises concerns about the value basis used as their guideline. From the KPI’s track record, this commission has a tendency to examine broadcast content through the conservative lens. KPI has The Broadcasting Code of Conduct (Pedoman Perilaku Penyiaran/P3) which serves as an ethical guideline for broadcasters’ behavioral boundaries, including as the principal foundation of SIS itself, is formulated with reference to cultural values, customs, and norms that apply and are ‘accepted’ by society. A potential problem with this framework is that it often lacks inclusiveness in dealing with the diversity of values that exist in Indonesia. In the context of the broadcasting bill, this tendency can be seen through the birth of Article 50B paragraph (2) article g that declared a prohibition of LGBTQ+-indicated contents, “broadcasting and broadcast content that depicts lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, and transgender behavior.” which does not have a gender perspective.

Similar regulations governing broadcasting on digital platforms have actually been implemented in several Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, and Singapore.9 Malaysia, Vietnam, and Myanmar tend to curb socio-political issues deemed to threaten regime stability and impose severe sanctions on cyber dissidents deemed a threat while Thailand, to some extent, also enforces similar regulations, but focuses more on censorship of social issues.10 Although regulations in some Southeast Asia countries seem worrying, Singapore, on the other hand, tends to grant greater internet freedom to its citizens.11

Conclusion

Broadcasting bill raises a dilemma, one of which is the threat of freedom of speech and expression on digital platforms that might be eroded if this bill passed. One thing that can be highlighted is the SIS which contain articles that are open to multiple interpretations and based on the conservative values that could hinder the implementation of an inclusive digital space. Discussion of this bill should be carried out more maturely and emphasizing digital rights.

  1. Draf RUU Penyiaran No. 32 Tahun 2004. Available at: https://mmc.tirto.id/documents/2024/05/14/2254-27032024-ruu-penyiaran-bahan-panja-harmonisasi.pdf ↩︎
  2. Chen, Y.M., Liu, H.H. and Chiu, Y.C. (2017). Customer benefits and value creation in streaming services marketing: a managerial cognitive capability approach, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 1101-1108, doi: 10.1002/mar.21050. ↩︎
  3. FlixPatrol. Top streaming services by subscribers in Indonesia (2024). Available at: https://flixpatrol.com/streaming-services/subscribers/indonesia/ (Accessed: 18 June 2025). ↩︎
  4. The Jakarta Post. (2018). ASEAN video-on-demand providers launch regulations on hate speech, pornography – entertainment. Available at: https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2018/06/22/asean-video-on-demand-providers-launch-regulations-on-hate-speech-pornography (Accessed: 19 June 2025). ↩︎
  5. Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia. (2025). Ruu Penyiaran: Keniscayaan Untuk Semua, Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia. Available at: https://kpi.go.id/id/umum/38-dalam-negeri/37707-ruu-penyiaran-keniscayaan-untuk-semua (Accessed: 20 June 2025). ↩︎
  6. Ibid. ↩︎
  7. Alliance for Universal Digital Rights. Securing our human rights in our digital world. (2024). Available at: https://audri.org/digital-principles/ (Accessed: 25 June 2025). ↩︎
  8. Wardani, R.K. (2017). Jurnalisme Investigasi Majalah Tempo. ↩︎
  9. Sinpeng, A., 2020. Digital media, political authoritarianism, and Internet controls in Southeast Asia. Media, Culture & Society, 42(1), pp.25-39. ↩︎
  10. Ibid. ↩︎
  11. Sinpeng, A., 2020. Digital media, political authoritarianism, and Internet controls in Southeast Asia. Media, Culture & Society, 42(1), pp.25-39. ↩︎