A proposal for decriminilisation of online defamation in Indonesia
Towards a human rights-based approach
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 22110350 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Mikea Manitra Ramalina Ranaivo (0009-0008-6852-8780, Legal Affairs, ASTA Research Center), Ramalina Ranaivo Mikea Manitra (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, autor correspondente), Adya Paramita Prabandari (0000-0003-0016-0453, Diponegoro University), Abubakar Muhammad Jibril (0009-0007-6937-7390, Islamic University of Niger), Arafat Hossain (0000-0002-9335-9762, University of Asia Pacific) |
| Ano | 2026 |
| Volume | 12 |
| Fascículo | 1 |
| Data de publicação | 2026-12-31 |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Cogent Social Sciences (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 2331-1886 • E-ISSN: 2331-1886 |
| Editora | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/23311886.2026.2613959 |
| OpenAlex | W7122450722 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Referências citadas | 68 |
This paper offers a critical examination of Indonesia’s defamation law, particularly under the Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE) Law, through the lens of international best practices and the pressing need for reform in the digital age. Highlighting a gap in existing literature, this study advocates for a shift from criminalisation to civil remedies in online defamation provisions in Indonesia, where punitive measures currently pose risks to freedom of expression. Using a doctrinal comparative legal research method, this paper is organised in four sections: first it explores the legal transformation and contemporary challenges in the regulation of online defamation, then critically analyses the evolution of online defamation provisions within the ITE Law. It continues with a comparative analysis of online defamation laws in the UK, US and France, contrasting these with Indonesia’s approach, and concludes with proposed reforms for the 2024 ITE Law. It is argued that the piecemeal approach of Indonesian government in making legal reform in term of defamation provisions lead to inefficient change, which fails not only to comply with international best practices on human rights but also to adapt with the advancement of digital platform for online expression
Best practice · Civil society · Digital government · Freedom of information · Human rights · Legal research · Punitive damages · Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies · Freedom of Expression and Defamation · Medical Research and Islamic Perspectives
Hannah Arendt’s thought and the political resistance against the Brazilian military dictatorship
Online freedom of expression
Fact Versus Opinion in US Defamation Law
The construction of victim of defamation in court's written verdict
The Portrayal of Defamation Case Defendant in Court Verdict
Exclusion within Inclusive Education Policy
Data associations and the protection of reputation online in Australia
Decriminalization of defamation – The Balkans case a temporary remedy or a long term solution
The Future of “Responsible Journalism”
Indonesian constitutional rights
John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle and Free Speech
Doing Justice in a Plural Society
| Altamente citado | Não |
|---|