Docstoc

Aftermath of UU ITE

Document Sample
Aftermath of UU ITE Powered By Docstoc
					Aftermath of UU ITE.
And questioning judicial approach in Indonesia.


Conflict, Peace, and Reconciliation Middle Term Exam.




                                                               Pulung Septyoko
                                                        06/195507/SP/21545 | 10
Indonesia’s Information and Electronic Transaction Law.

       March 2008, Indonesian Legislation approved UU ITE ( Undang Undang Informasi
dan Transaksi Elektronik : Information and Electronic Transaction Law ). The law itself
getting a spotlight for a few weeks after the approval. There are many people discussing
and questioning the impact of this law implementation.

       Some people agree that Law concerning internet and it’s child-product (like e-mail,
net forums, social media, etc.) are needed. Their arguments based on the current emerging
net-based media like blog, forums, etc that currently transforming into everyday thing at
that time. There are also people that against UU ITE, saying that some of UU ITE article
are against constitution. Some blogger voicing discontent to the government, even some
hacker defaced Depkominfo’s official site.

       One of the heated discussion at that time is concerning article 27 of UU ITE. :

                                         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.


       Cut it short, that article is about prohibition on showing contents that against
morality, contents that contains gambling, defamation, and/or blackmails. The main
spotlight is at the third part, the prohibition on showing/transmitting defamation contents.
Some people think that that part could be used to oppress freedom of speech. Which is
amazingly it did in a just about a year after that.




Prita vs Omni International Hospital Case.

       In the middle of 2009, the famous Prita against Omni International Hospital Case
emerged. Prita, a mother of two, stayed a few weeks in jail, charged for defamation of
Omni International Hospital. She was sending e-mail to her friends regarding unpleasant
service from Omni International Hospital. Somehow her e-mail forwarded through a
mailing list and turns public. May 2009 Prita was charged guilty for defamation of Omni
International Hospital, citing UU ITE article 27 part 3. She was fined about 160 Million
Rupiah, and six months “staying” at prison.

       This case is stirring another conflict regarding UU ITE. Whether it’s actually
designed to accommodate people’s needs and stayed on it’s course. Or actually some kind
of interest somehow made it’s way into the making of this law. The kind of interest that
against constitution, mainly against freedom of speech.

       Following Indonesian (mainly Javanese) nature to “fight” by grumbling behind the
other ( in Javanesse : nggrundel ).

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:8/25/2012
language:English
pages:3