On 8 February 2021, President Joko Widodo asked for criticism from the community on COVID-19 pandemic handling. This raised insinuations about how a huge number of people who criticised the government often ended up getting sued using the unjust articles in the Electronic Information and Transaction (ITE) Law. 

As a result, the president highlighted many complaints about the ambiguous wording in the ITE Law in a closed-doormeeting with Indonesian Military and the National Policeleaders on 15 February.

“If the ITE Law can’t provide a sense of justice, I will ask the House of Representatives to revise it, especially toerase the catchall articles,” the president said at the meeting.

The bill was passed in 2008 under former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration. Article 28 is one of the most used catchall articles, which stated: (1) Any person who knowingly and without authority disseminates false and misleading information resulting in consumer loss in Electronic Transactions, and (2) Any person who knowingly and without authority disseminates information aimed at inflicting hatred or dissension on individuals and/or certain groups of community based on ethnic groups, religions, races, and inter-groups (SARA).

Even creative industry workers often get tangled up in this law. Tara Basro once uploaded a picture of herself on Instagram to promote body positivity. The half-naked picture prompted a response from the Communication and Information Technology Ministry, saying that she violated ITE Law Article 27 Paragraph 1 about morality.

Musician Ananda Badudu and filmmaker Dandhy Laksonoalso have had their fair share of this matter. During the 2019 mass protests against the House of Representatives, the two were arrested by the police and charged with ITE Law Article 28 Paragraph 2 about spreading hate speech and misleading information.

Both of them created a campaign on fundraising platformkitabisa.com to support the protestors who were mostly students. The funds were used for mineral water supplies and first aid kits for the protestors. The police regarded this act as aiding and abetting the protestors who were accused of delivering hate speech and misleading information.

Many misinterpreted the article by deliberately putting every criticism into the same category as misleading information and hatred towards individuals or groups. According to Executive Director of SAFEnet DamarJuniarto, criticism towards the performance of a company, institution and public official should not be interpreted as defamation.

“Every criticism and speech of a similar nature is supposed to be an evaluation of a public official’s performance, and anyone who does it should not be charged with defamation or hate speech,” he added.