Freedom of expression can hurt<\/p>\n
By Ridarson Galingging<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): A genuine sense of excitement has swept across
\nIndonesia since the limitations on freedom of expression were
\nlifted.<\/p>\n
People feel released after decades of silence and fear.
\nNow the headlines blare their biting criticisms and
\naverage citizens speak out instead of whispering. No one
\nis spared -- not even the President and Vice President.<\/p>\n
If Indonesian democracy is a sick patient, then these
\nnew freedoms are surely the right medicine.<\/p>\n
But there can be too much of a good thing. The right
\ndose of medicine given in the right form can help the
\npatient recover. But too much in the wrong form can
\nhurt the patient.<\/p>\n
Even in the strongest democracies around the world, the right
\nto freedom of expression never means freedom to say
\nanything you like or express demands using any methods
\navailable.<\/p>\n
The legal system in Indonesia is broken, and
\nthus there are no protections for people against unfair
\nattacks on their reputations.<\/p>\n
And because the authority and control of the government
\nis weak -- even though its legitimacy is high -- groups
\nand individuals are expressing their political demands
\nin ways that undermine our basic rights in society, as
\nwell as our ability to get along with each other in a
\ncivilized manner.<\/p>\n
The examples of character assassination in Indonesia
\nhave been numerous and spectacular, and the population
\nhas recoiled in horror and confusion.<\/p>\n
The recent case of Laksamana Sukardi, the former state
\nminister of investment and state enterprises development, was
\nstunning not only because a person of obvious integrity was the
\ntarget, but because the reports of his involvement in
\nKKN (acronym for corruption, collusion and nepotism) were said to
\ncome from the President himself in a closed-door meeting with the
\nlegislature.<\/p>\n
Freedom of speech should not include the right to
\npublicly accuse people of crimes without providing supporting
\nevidence. Laksamana had a right to due process of the law and the
\npresumption of innocence. He was not charged with any crime, and
\nthus it was improper to fire him on the basis of allegations of
\nKKN.<\/p>\n
Sometimes the press can be manipulated effectively to
\ncarry out character assassinations against political targets.<\/p>\n
A good example is the case last year of American professor
\nJeffrey Winters, when newspapers and magazines printed
\nallegations of harassment in Yogyakarta. Although police
\ninvestigations later found that the allegations were groundless
\nand the case was officially closed for lack of credible evidence,
\nthere were not enough protections in place in the system to
\nprevent damage to his reputation.<\/p>\n
Once the damage is done, it never matters what the truth or
\noutcome is later.<\/p>\n
There are numerous other cases of this kind, with the victims
\noften having no chance at all to clear their names.<\/p>\n
As for freedom of political expression, this is crucial for a
\ndemocracy. The right to gather and protest must be upheld if our
\ntransition to democracy is to move forward.<\/p>\n
Even civil disobedience, which means refusing to obey
\ngovernment orders to stop a protest or retreat from an
\narea that is blocked off, is an important form of expression
\nof dissent.<\/p>\n
But when violence is used in political expression, the
\nline is crossed between behavior that upholds democracy
\nand actions that undermine it. Violent expression is a
\ncrime and, if our rights are to be upheld, it must be
\npunished.<\/p>\n
The problem in Indonesia now is that the government
\nlacks authority, and thus we are witnessing forms of
\npolitical expression that are not tolerated in any
\nhealthy democracy around the world.<\/p>\n
Freedom of expression should not mean that people can
\nthreaten others physically or destroy property. Nor does it mean
\nthat people can be terrorized.<\/p>\n
It is the state, with its police force and courts, that
\nmust enforce the boundaries of expression according to
\nthe law. It is a delicate process, and the irony is that our most
\nimportant rights in society cannot be protected if the police are
\ntoo weak or too strong.<\/p>\n
Indonesia has not yet found the middle ground for its police
\nand military, and thus we are experiencing a deep crisis of
\ngovernment authority.<\/p>\n
One of the most extreme examples of this came last April
\nwhen 1,000 angry protesters armed with machetes and
\nknives stormed the House of Representatives building. To the
\nhorror of everyone there, the protesters pulled out their weapons
\nas they approached the third-floor office of House Speaker Akbar
\nTanjung.<\/p>\n
This was obviously political expression, but it was the
\nsort of political expression all Indonesians should condemn --
\nnot because of the content of the protesters message but because
\nof the method used to express it.<\/p>\n
Political expression through violence is antidemocratic and
\nshould not be tolerated.<\/p>\n
Not only were these armed citizens not prevented from
\nentering the House building, but none were arrested or prosecuted
\nfor their intimidating actions.<\/p>\n
Because the state did not exercise its proper authority,
\nits authority was drained even further. Can anyone imagine
\nan armed attack like this happening at Capitol Hill in Washington
\nD.C. and no action being taken?<\/p>\n
It is time for all Indonesians to realize that the best
\nway to uphold and expand legitimate freedom of expression is by
\ncondemning those who abuse this cherished right.<\/p>\n
This means firmly rejecting the use of free speech to
\ndestroy people's reputations, or mixing political expression with
\nviolence and threats of destruction.<\/p>\n
The writer is a law lecturer at Yarsi University in Jakarta.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/freedom-of-expression-can-hurt-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }