Publication Search

This study examines the dynamics of public criticism of Shin Tae-yong's dismissal by PSSI as a phenomenon of digital communication that shows the tension between freedom of expression and the legal limits of hate speech. The background of this research stems from the intensity of netizens' reactions, which developed into collective moral pressure and had the potential to enter the realm of insults and hostility, as reflected in various comments, news reports, and verbal disputes involving public figures. This study aims to analyze how criticism, media framing, and netizen responses interact with the regulations of the ITE Law, particularly Article 28 paragraph (2), which is often used in reporting hate speech. The methods used are a normative juridical approach and case studies with document analysis, news reports, and academic literature techniques to identify patterns of digital expression and their legal relevance. The results of the study show that public criticism of Shin Tae-yong not only reflects performance evaluation, but also contains emotional, social identity, and moral dimensions that are reinforced by media framing and digital culture. The discussion confirms that the shift from criticism to hate speech occurs when public expression is not managed ethically, while law enforcement on hate speech articles still faces interpretation problems. In conclusion, this verbal dispute reflects the complexity of Indonesia's digital democracy and the urgency of legal reform

Indonesia is a pluralistic country with diverse religions, races, ethnicities, and customs, making freedom of expression an essential right protected by law. Article 28E of the 1945 Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to freely express their beliefs and opinions. From the perspective of fiqh Siyasah Dusturiyah (Islamic constitutional politics), freedom of expression is a right that must be safeguarded by the state as long as it aligns with the principles of deliberation and does not contradict Islamic law. This study aims to examine the freedom of expression of Syaykh Al-Zaytun in light of Siyasah Dusturiyah and Article 28E of the 1945 Constitution. The research uses a normative juridical approach with primary data sources including the Constitution and the book Ilmu Hukum dalam Simpul Siyasah Dusturiyah by Ali Akhbar Abaib Mas Rabbani Lubis, as well as secondary sources such as books, journals, documents, and legal regulations. The findings indicate that Syaykh Al-Zaytun’s freedom of expression is permissible under both perspectives, provided certain conditions are met: it must comply with Islamic law and national law, uphold public interest, cause no harm, and be accompanied by social responsibility. Syaykh Panji Gumilang’s views should be understood as part of public discourse, not hate speech, as they aim to foster nationalism and the common good.  

The enactment of Law No. 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP) has brought a number of controversies, one of which is related to the revival of provisions regarding the criminal act of insulting the President and Vice President. This article aims to critically examine these provisions in the perspective of the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Indonesian constitution and international human rights instruments. This research uses a normative juridical approach with an analysis of the norms in the new Criminal Code, the 1945 Constitution, as well as international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The results of the study show that although the provision of insulting the President in the Criminal Code is only referred to as a complaint offense and is framed to protect the dignity of state institutions, the provision still has the potential to limit freedom of opinion excessively. In addition to risking opening a loophole for criminalization of legitimate public criticism, this rule also has the potential to contradict the principles of non-discrimination and accountability of public officials in a democratic country. Therefore, an in-depth evaluation of the formulation of norms and their application is needed so that they do not conflict with the spirit of democracy and the protection of human rights.   Keywords: , , , , .

Adanya Parpol dalam negara demokrasi menjadi ciri yang konstitusional, sebab dengan adanya partai politik kebebasan berkumpul dan berserikat menjadi legal dengan bernaung dibawah organisasi parpol. Namun demikian keberadaan parpol dalam negara harus patuh dan tunduk pada aturan yang telah ditetapkan. Sehingga pembubaran parpol menjadi suatu keniscayaan bila ditemukan penyimpangan atau pelanggaran hukum dalam praktiknya. Pembubaran partai politik di Indonesia menjadi kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi bedasarkan ketentuan Pasal 24C Ayat 1 UUD Tahun 1945 yang selanjutnya diatur dalam PMK No. 12 Tahun 2008 tentang Pembubaran Partai Politik. Partai politik dapat dibubarkan jika ideologi, asas dan tujuan bertentangan dengan Pancasila dan UUD tahun 1945. Negara Jerman mengatur pemburan partai politik dalam pasal 21 Basic Law apabila tujuan didirikannya partai atau tindakan anggota maupun pengikutnya berusaha menghapuskan tatanan dasar demokrasi yang bebas dan membahayakan keberadaan Negara Federal Jerman.