<![CDATA[The expansion of social media as a forum for public criticism has intensified the legal tension between freedom of expression and protection of reputation in Indonesia. This study analyses the acquittals of Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti by the East Jakarta District Court, the subsequent rejection of the prosecutor's cassation by the Supreme Court, and the relevance of recent changes to Indonesia's electronic information law. The study applies normative juridical research using statutory, case, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Primary legal materials include the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 19 of 2016, Law Number 1 of 2024, the district court and Supreme Court decisions, and Constitutional Court Decision Number 105/PUU-XXII/2024. Secondary materials include Indonesian legal scholarship and five recent Elsevier journal articles on digital speech, platform governance, content moderation, and chilling effects. The analysis finds that the judicial reasoning draws a legally significant distinction between criticism directed at public policy or public office and attacks on personal honour. The Supreme Court's cassation ruling strengthens that distinction as persuasive jurisprudence, although Indonesia does not apply stare decisis. The 2024 statutory amendment and the Constitutional Court's 2025 interpretation further narrow the legitimate reach of electronic defamation law. The study argues that restrictions on online expression should focus on demonstrable attacks on individual reputation and should not convert research-based public-interest criticism into criminal defamation. This approach provides a more coherent balance between constitutional expression, reputation, legal certainty, and democratic oversight.]]>
