UU ITE: The Crime v. The Law v. The Rights (v. The Crime)

Barack Obama, American senator and present Democratic presidential candidate, once enquired his audience and his country by asking: “In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?”. If anything, the present and forthcoming situation in Indonesia’s new media environment would be best described in such rhetoric.

Last March 25th, Indonesia’s government have officially ratified Undang-undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (UU ITE) or the Information and Electronic Transaction Bill [PDF] after around five years in consolidation. “I think we all agree there’s no way we can save this nation by spreading pornography, violence and SARA-based (ethnic, religious, racial, and intergroup) hostility”, as said by the Information and Communication Minister, Mohammad Nuh, concerning the matter. UU ITE expectedly will provide legal protection of matters related to information technology, communication, and/or the electronic transaction, specifically regarding authentication and legal actions processed in the internet network system (e.g.: a business contract signed using an electronic signature and sent using an e-mail service). It is due to come in effect on the April 1st, and presently, Cyber Crime bill is also being consolidated by the police department as a follow-up to the UU ITE ratification [Link].

How does this affect the local blogosphere? Thus far, there’ve been varied opinions regarding the issue. Overall, bloggers are concerned with the probability of discriminatory internet censorship and violation of free speech rights occuring in future time, realizing that several parts constructed within the legislation may jeopardize the freedom of expression that is guaranteed in Undang-undang Dasar 1945 as the citizens’ absolute right, similar to United States of America’s First Amendment. However, bloggers also consider the regulations is acceptable and inevitable; the bill will provide a safe harbor for intellectual creation, such as articles, pictures, or any materials and contents that require copyright protection from acts of infringement. It would be beneficial to Indonesian artists, designers, photographers, programmers, writers, or every citizen that share their works online, also to those have established their e-commerce business over the internet. UU ITE will strengthen the already commonly used international licenses, such as Creative Commons [Link] or GNU General Public License [Link], and Indonesia’s own Undang-undang Hak Cipta (Copyright) and KUHP Perdata (Civil Law). It will also provide legal protection from cyber phelonies, such as carding, phishing, content theft, privacy and security breach, and alike.

Section that regulates copyright infringement.

BAB VI
NAMA DOMAIN, HAK KEKAYAAN INTELEKTUAL, DAN PERLINDUNGAN HAK PRIBADI  

                                                Pasal 25
Informasi Elektronik dan/atau Dokumen Elektronik yang disusun menjadi karya intelektual, situs internet, dan karya intelektual yang ada di  dalamnya dilindungi sebagai Hak Kekayaan Intelektual berdasarkan ketentuan Peraturan Perundang-undangan.

Section that regulates privacy breach.

                                                Pasal 30
(1) Setiap Orang dengan sengaja dan tanpa hak atau melawan hukum mengakses Komputer dan/atau Sistem Elektronik milik Orang lain dengan cara apa pun.
(2) Setiap Orang dengan sengaja dan tanpa hak atau melawan hukum mengakses Komputer dan/atau Sistem Elektronik dengan cara apa pun dengan tujuan untuk memperoleh Informasi Elektronik dan/atau Dokumen Elektronik.
(3) Setiap Orang dengan sengaja dan tanpa hak atau melawan hukum mengakses Komputer dan/atau Sistem Elektronik dengan cara apa pun dengan melanggar, menerobos, melampaui, atau menjebol sistem pengamanan.
                                                     
                                                     
                                                 Pasal 31
(1) Setiap Orang dengan sengaja dan tanpa hak atau melawan hukum melakukan intersepsi atau penyadapan atas Informasi Elektronik dan/atau Dokumen Elektronik dalam suatu Komputer dan/atau Sistem Elektronik tertentu milik Orang lain.

In terms of freedom of expression, bloggers generally are focusing more on the particular section below:

BAB VII
PERBUATAN YANG DILARANG
                                                    
                                                Pasal 27
(1) Setiap Orang dengan sengaja dan tanpa hak mendistribusikan dan/atau mentransmisikan dan/atau membuat dapat diaksesnya Informasi Elektronik dan/atau Dokumen Elektronik yang memiliki muatan yang melanggar kesusilaan.
(2) Setiap Orang dengan sengaja dan tanpa hak mendistribusikan dan/atau mentransmisikan dan/atau membuat dapat diaksesnya Informasi Elektronik dan/atau Dokumen Elektronik yang memiliki muatan perjudian.
(3) Setiap Orang dengan sengaja dan tanpa hak mendistribusikan dan/atau mentransmisikan dan/atau membuat dapat diaksesnya Informasi Elektronik dan/atau Dokumen Elektronik yang memiliki muatan penghinaan dan/atau pencemaran nama baik.
(4) Setiap Orang dengan sengaja dan tanpa hak mendistribusikan dan/atau mentransmisikan dan/atau membuat dapat diaksesnya Informasi Elektronik dan/atau Dokumen Elektronik yang memiliki muatan pemerasan dan/atau pengancaman.
                                                    
                                                    
                                                Pasal 28
(1) Setiap Orang dengan sengaja dan tanpa hak menyebarkan berita bohong dan menyesatkan yang mengakibatkan kerugian konsumen dalam Transaksi Elektronik. 
(2) Setiap Orang dengan sengaja dan tanpa hak menyebarkan informasi yang ditujukan untuk menimbulkan rasa kebencian atau permusuhan individu dan/atau kelompok masyarakat tertentu berdasarkan atas suku, agama, ras, dan antargolongan (SARA).                                                      
                                                    
Pasal 29
Setiap Orang dengan sengaja dan tanpa hak mengirimkan Informasi Elektronik  dan/atau Dokumen Elektronik yang berisi ancaman kekerasan atau menakut-nakuti yang ditujukan secara pribadi.

Not a week has passed since the bill is officially ratified, but it has already been causing quite of controversy and protests in the blogosphere. Protesting bloggers consider that certain elements imposed in blog contents and interactivity could be wrongly, and deliberately, accused; these elements function as the bolts, the grids, and the screws constructed as the wheel of Indonesia’s architecture of participation and new media democracy. The situation got even worse after Roy Suryo, a telecommunications expert who played a key role in drafting the law, believed to have been repeatedly using the term “blogger” (and also “hacker”) in a misleading context whenever announcing statements in the mainstream media. It is unsure if the mainstream print media is on the same page with the protesting bloggers either, since most media publications concerning UU ITE mainly concentrate more on its pornography issues. In addition, shortly after the ratification, Partai Amanat Nasional (PAN) requests the government to block YouTube and Liveleak in Indonesia in order to prevent the further exposure of the controversial movie, “Fitna” by Geert Wilder [Link].

Before bloggers start taking sides between who are refusing and who are approving on this matter, and before we incidentally politicizing the blogosphere; there are several essential facts that local bloggers must carefully and objectively evaluate from their views concerning UU ITE, especially knowing the moral paradox Indonesian ways of politics tend to present. Freedom of speech must be protected as it is the essential characteristic of a democratic society. The legislation, if not founded on universal human rights, will implicate the intellectual interactivity concerning subjects such as politics, gender, religions, and other crucial social issues. Henceforth, it will neglect the necessity in providing a conducive environment for a society to walk independently on its own learning path; the path of learning process that has been woven from one discussion to the next in pursuance of greater tolerance for diversity, plurality, and universal morality in this nation. That’s the destination–at least, for some of us.

Indonesia’s internet environment, as the area of jurisdiction, does not solely consist of bloggers and its interactivity; it also contains discussion forums, social networking sites, chat rooms, mailing lists, web portals, gaming environment (RPG games, etc), torrent users, and so forth. Figuratively speaking, the lower level of the pyramid is always more spacious than the ones on top of it, ones that have been receiving more exposure by the media, in this case, the blogosphere. Streams of information are far more accessible and actively distributed in the less exposed level of the internet ecosystem and not necessarily through the blogging media. However, knowing that UU ITE may affect the activity of producing and/or distributing contents, inevitably it also affects the activity of consuming them. For instance, if the government approves the blocking of YouTube, then it wouldn’t be much of a shock to find CNN, BBC, National Geographic, StumbleUpon, WordPress, or even Facebook next in line. Eventhough bloggers have the technical abilities that position them as producer, distributor, and/or consumers of such contents, UU ITE obviously will not affect bloggers alone.

The discourses regarding the issue is generally questioning whether the new bill would be corruptively misused or misinterpreted, hence acting more like legal traps that would benefit a certain interest and discriminate the other–the public’s. While the law and bureaucracy in Indonesia is yet to be perceived credible and committed enough in serving the citizens best interests, it is unclear for now who gets to be threatened and who gets to be protected by bloggers’ initiative to protect the rights of free speech on the internet, considering that such protection can also be assumed as a justification for pornography, privacy breach, copyright infringement, and internet misuse in general. These acts are wrong nonetheless and it would require in-depth evaluation in order to find solutions and just validity of the censorship itself. Before we reach that point, the public should first comprehend how the consequences of technology strongly relate to the characteristics of the public that participates in it, as in a way advancement of technology also has been propelling the advancement of human civilization throughout centuries. As long as technology is under the governance of human reasonings, it will inevitably concerns the shaping of social, intellectual, and cultural character of a society. The point at issue is discovering the kind of morality that is precisely suitable in a society’s adjustment process with its global surroundings.

In situations where the morality isn’t thoroughly suitable to a certain dynamic, the restrainment of free speech will not be applied as a practice of formal law, but as a societal law, and still be effective. Legally regulated or not, the core value of freedom of speech itself has already been restrained to a portion. The internet environment often presumed as a haven for the critical public to speak out against the government, it is not that way in de facto reality; the “government” and everything associated with it is merely a figure in constructed the mind realm, similar to how a Baudrillard’s simulacrum is. It isn’t factually a fight against any corrupted government; it is a fight against governance perceived in a subjective reality. Freedom of speech itself is ought to be a societal device to examine real and factual public concerns, such as fraud and corruption, environmental issues, social injustice, educational and bureaucratic reform, gender equality, and so forth, which will lead to a definitive action; not mere personal leisure, sentiments, or interests–even if they are conformed collectively. Freedom of expression has to hold on to a principle that ensures no one with a prejudicial opinion be allowed to decide the future course of government or restrict the ability of a society to choose the medium through which they explore and develop their own morality.

Such responsibility isn’t the only consequence of free speech, courage is the other. At a point, freedom of speech can be harshly reallistic, especially concerning ethnicity, religion, race, and intergroup issues. Freedom of speech will consequently create motion, tension, and friction as different interpretations of causes intersect each other, aside from just being satire for the sake of it. Nevertheless, challenging views in terms of civil liberties ought not to be punished, but rather debated, then advanced, and resolved. Even when one disapproves the other, both still share the equal right of expressing each of their ideallism. As Charles Bradlaugh metaphorized the circumstance: “Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race.” [Link]; but before we are able to differ abuse that dies in a day and ones that don’t die at all, the question is whether or not the public have been encouraged to be committed to equal and democratic free-thinking and its integration with the modern globalizing world. Only by that conduct of moral only, the public would develop a mentality that is strong and firm enough to engage in critical discussions, in a civilized, intellectual, well-intended approach.

For instance, as opposed to being civilized, defacing the Information and Communication Department (DEPKOMINFO) government web portal is somehow believed to be an approach to fight for freedom of speech [View image]. This is one example of the moral immaturity of our society that will not only discredit local bloggers, but also the critical public in general. It is clear that the methods we tend to choose are unlikely to be able to convey a mature way of fighting for universal human rights and on contrary, it will put those who have strived for it in history of mankind to shame, both in Indonesia and internationally. Civil liberties and rights should be fought with courage, not cowardness. If not, the society will face the (already existing) problem in the society: apathy, and the apathic public that has been learning nothing from today’s society except for the harmful ways of ideallism, of freedom of speech, even of intelligence, and infected by the subliminal phobia of democratic and intellectual free-thinking. Consequently, today’s Indonesians are far more likely to be confined in fear rather than the lack of knowledge, which surely lead to a much worse situations in future time.

Whether this bill exist to regulate or not, this is a question for all Indonesian netizens, would we even need any regulation if we are already independently being responsible for our own moral views? If a certain internet publication have been collectively distributed and intentionally presented as a social justification that one is less worthy than the other as a human being, then by all means please regulate wisely, but it will not heal the disease and deficiency in the society itself. The tendencies have proven repeatedly that Indonesia’s societal system is lacking in many respects, and the dogmatic norms and values can no longer answer the society’s deeply rooted problems. It has not been proportionally giving the public the materials acquired in educating civil liberties, humanity, and global acceptance to the mass. We are indeed lacking something. We lack courage, integrity, and trust, to march together as part of a greater society–by quality, not mere quantity. That’s where the local blogosphere comes in. That’s where the new society is built upon.

And that is what free speech is all about.

Related links:
UU ITE Official Website
Blog posts related to UU ITE at Blog-Indonesia
Blog posts related to UU ITE at WordPress.com
Analisis Hukum Sensor di Internet Indonesia - Nenda Fadhilah
UU Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik UU ITE adalah Ancaman Serius bagi Blogger Indonesia - Anggara
UU ITE Jangan Sampai Pangkas Kreativitas - Kompas Cyber Media
UU ITE: Pasal Karet yang tak diekspos? - sora-kun.weblog()
Surat Terbuka: Ajakan Dialog Terbuka Dengan Sdr. Roy Suryo - Riyogarta

Blurb*: This is not free speech. You owe me a cuppa coffee.