Win for Free Expression in Indonesia as Court Restricts Defamation Regulation
Indonesia: Breaking Down the Latest on Defamation Laws
The Big Shift in Speech PolicingApril 29 saw a game-changer for Indonesian cyber law when the Constitutional Court weighed in on the defamation provision in the Electronic Information and Transaction (ITE) Act. Environmental activist Daniel Frits Maurits Tangkilisan had summoned the court, taking issue with the contentious defamation clauses in the nation's ITE Law.
The So-Social Media Face-offFor years, critics have hammered away at the ITE Law, decrying its overly broad scope and its propensity to silence public dissent against the powerful. Last month, the Constitutional Court made its voice heard, declaring that only individuals could initiate defamation charges under the ITE Law, excluding government agencies, particular identity groups, institutions, corporations, and professional entities[1][2][3].
High Stakes and High FivesThis ruling was welcomed as a victory for free speech, as public officials and corporations can no longer threaten critics with defamation suits based on the ITE Law. But the fight for freedom of expression is far from over, as concerns persist over other provisions in the ITE Law, namely those pertaining to hate speech and religious blasphemy, which serve as potential threats to free speech[3].
[1] The Jakarta Post. "Constitutional Court invalidates ITE Law provision on defamation." April 29, 2025.[2] Reuters. "Indonesia's Constitutional Court strikes down defamation provision in ITE Law." April 29, 2025.[3] Amnesty International. "Indonesia's ITE Law: A persistent threat to freedom of expression." June 1, 2025.
- The latest news on environment policies in Indonesia has gained attention as the ruling on defamation provisions in the Electronic Information and Transaction (ITE) Act might impact environmental activists who use social media to spread awareness.
- The recent decision on defamation in the ITE Law by the Constitutional Court could potentially influence the politics surrounding policy-and-legislation related to environmental protection, as it might encourage more public dissent against corporations or institutions accused of harming the environment.
