<![CDATA[This study analyzes Constitutional Court Decision No. 105/PUU-XXII/2024 concerning the judicial review of the ITE Law sought by environmental activist Daniel Frits Maurits Tangkilisan, who faced criminalization after expressing his views on social media as part of the #SaveKarimunjawa campaign against the expansion of illegal shrimp farms that caused environmental damage. Using a normative juridical approach, the study examines Law No. 1 of 2024, the second amendment to the ITE Law, and the Constitutional Court's decision. The findings show that the Court narrowed the interpretation of criminal provisions to prevent overly broad enforcement. It clarified that "other persons" refers exclusively to individuals, "something" means an act that damages a person's honour or reputation, and punishable hate speech requires deliberate incitement to identity-based hatred presenting a real risk of harm. These interpretations align with the principles of the Rabat Plan of Action and help balance the protection of individual dignity with freedom of expression in the digital sphere.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
