Hate speech, outside the law, is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes

such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.[1][2]

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden
because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group,
or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a
protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may
seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a
hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular
viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet as well as
hate speech in general.

Critics have argued that the term "hate speech" is a contemporary example of Newspeak, used to
silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically
correct.[7][8][9]

Contents
 1 International
o 1.1 Enforcement of hate speech laws
o 1.2 Harm of hate speech
o 1.3 Hate speech on Facebook
 2 By country
o 2.1 Australia
o 2.2 Belgium
o 2.3 Brazil
o 2.4 Canada
o 2.5 Chile
o 2.6 Council of Europe
o 2.7 Croatia
o 2.8 Denmark
o 2.9 Finland
o 2.10 France
o 2.11 Germany
o 2.12 Iceland
o 2.13 India
o 2.14 Indonesia
o 2.15 Ireland
o 2.16 Japan
o 2.17 Jordan
o 2.18 Netherlands
o 2.19 New Zealand
o 2.20 Norway
o 2.21 Poland
o 2.22 Serbia
o 2.23 Singapore
 o 2.24 South Africa
o 2.25 Sweden
o 2.26 Switzerland
o 2.27 United Kingdom
o 2.28 United States
 2.28.1 Constitutional framework
 2.28.2 Supreme Court case law
 2.28.3 Societal implementation
 2.28.4 NTIA report
 3 See also
 4 References
 5 External links

International
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of
national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence shall be prohibited by law".[10] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism.[11] On 3 May 2011, Michael
O'Flaherty with the United Nations Human Rights Committee published General Comment No.
34 on the ICCPR, which among other comments expresses concern that many forms of "hate
speech" do not meet the level of seriousness set out in Article 20.[12] Concerning the debate over
how freedom of speech applies to the Internet, conferences concerning such sites have been
sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.[13]

Enforcement of hate speech laws

Hate law regulations can be divided into two types: those that are designed for public order and
those that are designed to protect human dignity. Those designed to protect public order seem to
be somewhat ineffective because they are rarely enforced. For example, in Northern Ireland, as
of 1992 only one person was prosecuted for violating the regulation in twenty one years. Those
meant to protect human dignity, however, like those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and
the Netherlands seem to be frequently enforced.[14]

Harm of hate speech

Communication theory provides some insight into the harms caused by hate speech. According
to the ritual model of communication, racist expressions allow minorities to be categorized with
negative attributes tied to them, and are directly harmful to them. Matsuda et al. (1993)[15] found
that racist speech could cause in the recipient of the message direct physical and emotional
changes. The repeated use of such expressions cause and reinforce the subordination of these
minorities. This has been enough to sway the court in previous cases such as Brown v. Board of
Education in USA, in which the Court stated that segregation "generates a feeling of inferiority
as to their [African Americans’] status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds
in a way unlikely ever to be undone." The idea that hate speech is a mechanism of subordination
is supported by scholarly evidence.[16]
Hate speech on Facebook

Following a campaign that involved the participation of Women, Action and the Media, the
Everyday Sexism Project and the activist Soraya Chemaly, who were among 100 advocacy
groups, Facebook agreed to update its policy on hate speech. The campaign highlighted content
that promoted domestic and sexual violence against women, and used over 57,000 tweets and
more than 4,900 emails to create outcomes such as the withdrawal of advertising from Facebook
by 15 companies, including Nissan UK, House of Burlesque, and Nationwide UK. The social
media website initially responded by stating that "While it may be vulgar and offensive,
distasteful content on its own does not violate our policies",[17] but then agreed to take action on
May 29, 2013, after it had "become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech
have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based
hate."[18]

By country
Australia

Main article: Hate speech laws in Australia

Australia's hate speech laws vary by jurisdiction, and seek especially to prevent victimisation on
account of race.

Belgium

Main articles: Belgian Anti-Racism Law and Belgian Holocaust denial law

The Belgian Anti-Racism Law, in full, the Law of 30 July 1981 on the Punishment of Certain
Acts inspired by Racism or Xenophobia, is a law against hate speech and discrimination passed
by the Federal Parliament of Belgium in 1981 which made certain acts motivated by racism or
xenophobia illegal. It is also known as the Moureaux Law.

The Belgian Holocaust denial law, passed on 23 March 1995, bans public Holocaust denial.
Specifically, the law makes it illegal to publicly "deny, play down, justify or approve of the
genocide committed by the German National Socialist regime during the Second World War".
Prosecution is led by the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities. The offense is punishable by
imprisonment of up to one year and fines of up to 2500 EUR.

Brazil

In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related
hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused".[19]

Canada
Main article: Hate speech laws in Canada

In Canada, advocating genocide[20] and inciting hatred[21] against any "identifiable group" are
indictable offences under the Criminal Code with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen
years. An "identifiable group" is defined as "any section of the public distinguished by colour,
race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical
disability". It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and
religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v.
Keegstra (1990).

Chile

Article 31 of the "Ley sobre Libertades de Opinión e Información y Ejercicio del Periodismo"
(statute on freedom of opinion and information and the performance of journalism), punishes
with a high fine those who “through any means of social communication makes publications or
transmissions intended to promote hatred or hostility towards persons or a group of persons due
to their race, sex, religion or nationality".[22] This norm has been applied to expressions proffered
through the internet.[23] There is also a rule aggravating the penalties of crimes when they are
motivated by discriminatory hatred.

Council of Europe

The Council of Europe has worked intensively on this issue. While Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit criminal laws against revisionism such as denial
or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity, as interpreted by the European Court
of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went further
and recommended to member governments to combat hate speech under its Recommendation R
(97) 20. The ECtHR does not offer an accepted definition for "hate speech" but instead offers
only parameters by which prosecutors can decide if the "hate speech" is entitled to the protection
of freedom of speech.[24]

The Council of Europe also created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance,
which has produced country reports and several general policy recommendations, for instance
against anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims.

Croatia

The Croatian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but Croatian penal code prohibits and
punishes anyone "who based on differences of race, religion, language, political or any other
belief, wealth, birth, education, social status or other properties, gender, skin color, nationality or
ethnicity violates basic human rights and freedoms recognized from international
community".[25]

Denmark
Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements by which a group is
threatened (trues), insulted (forhånes) or degraded (nedværdiges) due to race, skin colour,
national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.[26]

Finland

There has been considerable debate over the definition of "hate speech" (vihapuhe) in the Finnish
language.[27][28]

If "hate speech" is taken to mean ethnic agitation, it is prohibited in Finland and defined in the
section 11 of the penal code, War crimes and crimes against humanity, as publishing data, an
opinion or other statement that threatens or insults a group on basis of race, nationality, ethnicity,
religion or conviction, sexual orientation, disability, or any comparable basis. Ethnic agitation is
punishable with a fine or up to 2 years in prison, or 4 months to 4 years if aggravated (such as
incitement to genocide).[29]

Critics claim that, in political contexts, labeling certain opinions and statements "hate speech"
can be used to silence unfavorable or critical opinions and play down debate. Certain politicians,
including Member of Parliament Jussi Halla-aho, consider the term "hate speech" problematic
because of the lack of an easy definition.[28]

France

Main article: Hate speech laws in France

France prohibits by its penal code and by its press laws public and private communication which
is defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or
a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race,
specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. The law prohibits declarations that justify
or deny crimes against humanity, for example, the Holocaust (Gayssot Act).[30]

Germany

In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") is a punishable offense under

Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years
imprisonment.[citation needed]Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of
the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously
slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. Thus
for instance it is illegal to publicly call certain ethnic groups "maggots" or "freeloaders".[citation
needed]
Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if
committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German
territory, e.g., the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made
accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4
of the Strafgesetzbuch).

Iceland
In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233
a. in the Icelandic Penal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:

"Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner

publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin
colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (In
this context "assault" does not refer to physical violence but only to verbal "assault".)

India

Main article: Hate speech laws in India

Freedom of speech and expression is protected by article 19 (1) of the constitution of India, but
under article 19(2) "reasonable restrictions" can be imposed on freedom of speech and
expression in the interest of "the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to
contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence".[31]

Indonesia

Indonesia has been a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since
2006, but has not promulgated comprehensive legislation against hate-speech crimes. Calls for a
comprehensive anti-hate-speech law and associated educational program have followed
statements by a leader of a hard-line Islamic organization that Balinese Hindus were mustering
forces to protect the "lascivious Miss World pageant" in “a war against Islam" and that "those
who fight on the path of Allah are promised heaven". The statements are said to be an example
of similar messages of hatred and intolerance being preached in mosques throughout the country
by fundamentalist clerics.[32]

The National Police ordered all of their personnel to anticipate any potential conflicts in society
caused by hate speech. The order is stipulated in the circular signed by National Police chief
Gen. Badrodin Haiti on Oct. 8, 2015. [33]

Ireland

In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i),
however, this is only an implied right provided that liberty of expression "shall not be used to
undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State".[34] The Prohibition of
Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive
or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up
hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour,
nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or
sexual orientation".[35][36]

Japan
Japanese law covers threats and slander, but it "does not apply to hate speech against general
groups of people".[37] Japan became a member of the United Nations International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1995. Article 4 of the convention sets
forth provisions calling for the criminalization of hate speech. But the Japanese government has
suspended the provisions, saying actions to spread or promote the idea of racial discrimination
have not been taken in Japan to such an extent that legal action is necessary. The Foreign
Ministry says that this assessment remains unchanged.[38]

In May 2013, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
warned the Japanese government that it needs to take measures to curb hate speech against so-
called "comfort women", or Asian women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military
during World War II. The committee's recommendation called for the Japanese government to
better educate Japanese society on the plight of women who were forced into sexual slavery to
prevent stigmatization, and to take necessary measures to repair the lasting effects of
exploitation, including addressing their right to compensation.[39][40]

In 2013, following demonstrations, parades, and comments posted on the Internet threatening
violence against foreign residents of Japan, especially Koreans, there are concerns that hate
speech is a growing problem in Japan.[41][42][43] Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Justice Minister
Sadakazu Tanigaki have expressed concerns about the raise in hate speech, saying that it "goes
completely against the nation's dignity", but so far have stopped short of proposing any legal
action against protesters.[38]

On 22 September 2013 around 2,000 people participated in the "March on Tokyo for Freedom"
campaigning against recent hate speech marches. Participants called on the Japanese government
to "sincerely adhere" to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination. Sexual minorities and the disabled also participated in the march.[44]

On 25 September 2013 a new organization, "An international network overcoming hate speech
and racism" (Norikoenet), that is opposed to hate speech against ethnic Koreans and other
minorities in Japan was launched.[45]

On 7 October 2013, in a rare ruling on racial discrimination against ethnic Koreans, a Japanese
court ordered an anti-Korean group, Zaitokukai, to stop "hate speech" protests against a Korean
school in Kyoto and pay the school 12.26 million yen ($126,400 U.S.) in compensation for
protests that took place in 2009 and 2010.[46][47]

A United Nations panel urged Japan to ban hate speech.[48][49][50]

Jordan

See also: Blasphemy law in Jordan

Several Jordanian laws seek to prevent the publication or dissemination of material that would
provoke strife or hatred:[51]
  Article 6 of Act No. 76 of 2009 regulating publicity and advertising in municipal areas
states: (a) The following shall be deemed an infringement of this regulation: (i) The
inclusion in publicity or advertisements of material that offends national or religious
sentiment or public morals or that is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The
publicization of ideas based on racial superiority, racial hatred and the instigation of
racial discrimination against any person or group constitute punishable offences.
 Article 20 of the Audiovisual Media Act No. 71 of 2002 states: “The licensee shall not
broadcast or rebroadcast any material that is likely to provoke confessional and
interethnic strife, to undermine national unity or to instigate terrorism, racism or religious
intolerance or to damage domestic relations in the Kingdom.”
 Article 7 of the Printing and Publications Act No. 8 of 1998 sets out the ethical rules that
apply to journalism and the conduct of journalists. It is illegal to publish material likely to
stir up hatred or to make propaganda with a view to setting citizens against one another.
 Article 40(a)(iv) of the Print and Publications Act No. 10 of 1993 states that it is
prohibited to publish articles that are likely to jeopardize national unity, incite others to
commit crimes, stir up hostility, and foment hatred, division and discord between
members of society.

Netherlands

The Dutch penal code prohibits both insulting a group (article 137c) and inciting hatred,
discrimination or violence (article 137d). The definition of the offences as outlined in the penal
code is as follows:

 Article 137c: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses

himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or
their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical,
psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a
year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[52]
 Article 137d: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against,
discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of
their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or
homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be
punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third
category.[53]

In January 2009, a court in Amsterdam ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, a Dutch
Member of Parliament, for breaching articles 137c and 137d.[54] On 23 June 2011, Wilders was
acquitted of all charges.[55]

New Zealand

New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial
Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or
insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of
persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of
persons". Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony"
creates liability.

Norway

Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or
ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin
colour, ethnic origin, homosexual orientation, religion or philosophy of life.[56] At the same time,
the Norwegian Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, and there has been an ongoing
public and judicial debate over where the right balance between the ban against hate speech and
the right to free speech lies. Norwegian courts have been restrictive in the use of the hate speech
law and only few persons have been sentenced for violating the law since its implementation in
1970. A public Free Speech committee (1996-1999) recommended to abolish the hate speech law
but the Norwegian Parliament instead voted to slightly strengthen it.[57]

Poland

Main article: Hate speech laws in Poland

The hate speech laws in Poland punish those who offend the feelings of the religious by e.g.
disturbing a religious ceremony or creating public calumny. They also prohibit public expression
that insults a person or a group on account of national, ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation or the
lack of a religious affiliation.[58]

Serbia

The Serbian constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but restricts it in certain cases to protect
the rights of others. The criminal charge of "Provoking ethnic, racial and religion based
animosity and intolerance" carries a minimum six months prison term and a maximum of ten
years.[59]

Singapore

Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various
religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation.
The Penal Code criminalizes the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will
between different racial and religious groups on grounds of race or religion. It also makes it an
offence for anyone to deliberately wound the religious or racial feelings of any person.

South Africa

In South Africa, hate speech (along with incitement to violence and propaganda for war) is
specifically excluded from protection of free speech in the Constitution. The Promotion of
Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 contains the following clause:
[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of
the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a
clear intention to―

a. be hurtful;
b. be harmful or to incite harm;
c. promote or propagate hatred.[60]

The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social
origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language
and birth.

The crime of crimen injuria ("unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of
another")[61] may also be used to prosecute hate speech.[62]

In 2011, a South African court banned "Dubula iBhunu (Shoot the Boer)", a derogatory song
degrading Afrikaners, on the basis that it violated a South African law prohibiting speech that
demonstrates a clear intention to be hurtful, to incite harm, or to promote hatred.[63]

Sweden

Sweden prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or
express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national
or ethnic origin, faith, or sexual orientation.[64][65] The crime does not prohibit a pertinent and
responsible debate (en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion), nor statements made in a completely
private sphere.[66] There are constitutional restrictions pertaining to which acts are criminalized,
as well limits set by the European Convention on Human Rights.[67] The crime is called Hets mot
folkgrupp in Swedish which directly translated can be translated to Incitement (of
hatred/violence) towards population groups.

The sexual orientation provision, added in 2002,[68] was used to convict Pentecostalist pastor Åke
Green of hate speech based on a 2003 sermon. His conviction was later overturned.[67][69]

Switzerland

In Switzerland public discrimination or invoking to rancor against persons or a group of people

because of their race, ethnicity, is getting penalized with a term of imprisonment until 3 years or
a mulct. In 1934, the authorities of the Basel-Stadt canton criminalized anti-Jewish hate speech,
e.g., the accusation of ritual murders, mostly in reaction against a pro-nazi antisemitic group and
newspaper, the Volksbund.[70]

United Kingdom

Main article: Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of
persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting
and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including
citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for hate
speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[3][71][72][73][74][75][76] Legislation against Sectarian hate
in Scotland, which is aimed principally at football matches[citation needed], does not criminalise jokes
about people's beliefs, nor outlaw “harsh” comment about their religious faith.[77]

United States

Constitutional framework

The 1789 Constitution of the United States of America dealt only with the three heads of
power—legislative, executive, and judicial—and sketched the basic outlines of federalism in the
last four articles. The protection of civil rights was not written into the original Constitution but
was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the
Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Although this section is written only to apply to the federal congress (i.e. the legislative branch),
the 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, works to extend this prohibition to laws of the
states as well.

Some state constitutions also have a "free speech" provision, most notably, California.[78]

Supreme Court case law

Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been read into the
Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law:
"There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of
which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and
obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their
very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."[79]

Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions,
it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist
and hate-filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit hate speech. The court
ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press
do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation
except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite
or produce such action."[80]
This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good
law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where
the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the
consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a
gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in
St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was
charged thereunder. Associate justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that
the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as
follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the
First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their
content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing
whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”.[81] Because the hate speech ordinance was not
concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of
the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is
permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.[82] The opinion noted "This conduct, if
proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to
property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any
person, not to only protected classes.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of
the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The
issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs.
In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby
confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote
imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it
can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the
community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public." [83]

Societal implementation

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating
discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[84] These codes have not fared well in the courts,
where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[85] Debate over
restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-
harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[86]

NTIA report

In 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration

(NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications, including broadcast radio and television,
cable television, public access television, and computer bulletin boards, in advocating or
encouraging violent acts and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and
groups. The NTIA study investigated speech that fostered a climate of hatred and prejudice in
which hate crimes may occur.[87] The study failed to link telecommunication to hate crimes, but
did find that "individuals have used telecommunications to disseminate messages of hate and
bigotry to a wide audience." Its recommendation was that the best way to fight hate speech was
through additional sp

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Surat edaran yang mengatur tentang hate speech, atau ujaran
kebencian, sudah diedarkan oleh Kepala Polisi RI Jenderal Badrodin Haiti. Surat Edaran (SE)
No. SE/6/X/2015 tersebut dikeluarkan pada 8 Oktober lalu dan dikirim ke Kepolisian Sektor dan
Resor di seluruh pelosok tanah air.

Apa itu hate speech?

Menurut surat edaran tesebut, ujaran kebencian adalah tindak pidana yang berbentuk,
penghinaan, pencemaran nama baik, penistaan, perbuatan tidak menyenangkan, memprovokasi,
menghasut, penyebaran berita bohong, dan semua tindakan di atas memiliki tujuan atau bisa
berdampak pada tindak diskriminasi, kekerasan, penghilangan nyawa, dan atau konflik sosial.

Aspeknya meliputi suku, agama, aliran keagamaan, keyakinan dan kepercayaan, ras, antar
golongan, warna kulit, etnis, gender, kaum difabel, dan orientasi seksual.

Ujaran kebencian dapat melalui media kegiatan kampanye, spanduk atau banner, jejaring media
sosial, penyampaian pendapat di muka umum atau demonstrasi, ceramah keagamaan, media
massa cetak maupun elektronik, dan pamflet.

Baca mengenai hate speech lengkapnya di dokumen ini.

Tapi benarkah hate speech adalah jalan keluar untuk melindungi hak-hak warga negara?
Benarkah poin-poin yang terkandung dalam hate speech sudah tidak melanggar kebebasan
berekspresi?

Latar belakang diterbitkannya surat edaran

Menurut Badrodin, pembahasan hate speech sudah dimulai sejak zaman Wakil Kapolri dijabat
Nanan Soekarna pada periode Maret 2011 - Agustus 2013.

“Kami mengadakan pembahasan di seminar-seminar,” kata Badrodin pada Rappler, Jumat, 30

oktober.

Setelah lebih dari lima tahun pembahasan, akhirnya Polri sampai pada kesimpulan bahwa surat
edaran mengenai ujaran kebencian harus segera dikeluarkan. “Lebih cepat lebih baik,” katanya.

Karena itu, Badrodin akhirnya menekennya dan mengirimkan surat tersebut hingga ke tingkat
Polsek. Keputusan ini juga diambil setelah berdasarkan evaluasi, jajaran di bawah masih ragu
menerapkan pasal hate speech yang sebelumnya diatur dalam KUHP tersebut.

Ujaran kebencian diatur di pasal 310, Pasal 311, 315, 317, dan 318 KUHP.
Apa latar belakangnya?

Menurut Kapolri sudah banyak contoh bahwa ujaran kebencian telah menjadi bibit konflik.
“Seperti kejadian kemarin, waktu JakMania rusuh,” katanya.

Kepolisian Daerah Metro Jaya sebelumnya memproses hukum 10 orang yang diduga JakMania,
sebutan untuk suporter Persija Jakarta, atas aksi pengrusakan dan seorang lainnya yang diduga
sebagai penghasut massa lewat pesan pendek, dalam laga partai final Piala Presiden yang
mempertemukan Persib Bandung dan Sriwijaya FC.

Persib adalah musuh bebuyutan Persija yang harus berlaga di Stadion Gelora Bung Karno,
Jakarta.

Kejadian seperti itu, menurut Badrodin, terus berulang dan kerap menimbulkan keresahan di
masyarakat.

Siapa saja yang bisa terjerat?

RUSUH JAKMANIA. Pendukung Jakmania melempar batu ke arah polisi yang sedang berjaga
di Stadion Gelora Bung Karno, Minggu, 18 Oktober 2015. Foto oleh Rappler
Badrodin mengatakan bahwa surat edaran ini untuk memperjelas perbedaan antara dimensi
ujaran kebencian dan kebebasan berekspresi.

“Ujaran kebencian itu yang mengarah pada pengrusakan, penghasutan, dan sebagainya,”
katanya.

Jadi, menurut Badrodin, hanya mereka yang melakukan hasutan mengarah pada pengrusakan
saja yang bisa terjerat.

Dalam salah satu poin surat edaran, Kapolri juga menegaskan bahwa media ujaran kebencian
salah satunya adalah ceramah keagaaman. Seperti apa ceramah keagamaan yang dimaksud
Kapolri?

“Semua ceramah yang mengajak pada gerakan pengrusakan,” katanya.

Jika sudah ada ajakan untuk bergerak, penghasutan, maka ceramah tersebut bisa tergolong ujaran
kebencian.

Bagaimana dengan khatib shalat Jum'at yang kerap berceramah soal mengkafirkan agama lain?
“Itu tidak termasuk hate speech, itu kan menyampaikan apa yang ada di kitab suci,” ujarnya.

Lalu bagaimana dengan ceramah yang dilakukan pemuka agama di kelompok-kelompok agama
seperti Front Pembela Islam (FPI) yang kerap melontarkan kritik keras pada kelompok lain atau
presiden?

“Itu kan delik aduan, kalau dia menghina presiden. Asal jangan menghasut,” katanya.

Campur aduk pasal penistaan dan pencemaran nama baik

Tapi benarkah pasal ini sudah benar memisahkan kebebasan berekspresi dan ujaran kebencian?
Adakah poin-poin yang dianggap janggal?

Pegiat Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (Safenet) Damar Juniarto pada dasarnya
setuju atas penerbitan surat edaran tersebut.

Penerbitan surat tersebut dinilai sejalan dengan Forum Demokrasi Digital. Forum tersebut
menginginkan negara menerapkan asas zero tolerance pada tindakan ujaran kebencian seperti
yang diterapkan di negara-negara lain.

“Hanya saja ada catatan, dan saya harap Polri mau merevisi edarannya. Masuknya pasal
pencemaran nama baik 310-311 KUHP bisa kontra produktif karena pasal ini pasal karet yang
nuansanya tidak demokratis,” katanya.

Pasal 310 ayat 1 berbunyi, “Barangsiapa sengaja merusak kehormatan atau nama baik seseorang
dengan jalan menuduh dia melakukan sesuatu perbuatan dengan maksud yang nyata akan
tersiarnya tuduhan itu, dihukum karena menista, dengan hukuman penjara selama-lamanya
sembilan bulan atau denda sebanyak-banyaknya Rp 4.500."

Sedangkan pasal 311 berbunyi, “Barangsiapa melakukan kejahatan menista atau menista dengan
tulisan, dalam hal ia diizinkan untuk membuktikan tuduhannya itu, jika ia tidak dapat
membuktikan dan jika tuduhan itu dilakukannya sedang diketahuinya tidak benar, dihukum
karena salah memfitnah dengan hukum penjara selama-lamanya empat tahun."

“Terlalu banyak penindakan hukum dengan pasal karet ini yang tidak tepat sasarannya,” kata
Damar.

Pasal ini juga menjadi perhatian Staf Divisi Pembelaan Hak Sipil dan Politik KontraS Satrio
Wirataru. Menurutnya, definisi ujaran kebencian versi Kapolri memang terlalu luas.

“Hate speech itu jangan membatasi kebebasan berpendapat, karena itu harus dibatasi secara
tegas di poin apakah ada dampak terjadi permusuhan, kebencian, yang berkaitan dengan agama,
ras, dan, etnis,” katanya.

Bukan diarahkan pada pencemaran nama baik. “Pisahkan antara hate speech law dan defamation
law (pencemaran nama baik),” katanya.

Alih-alih memberikan batas yang tegas, tapi Kapolri dinilai menggunakan pasal pencemaran
nama baik sebagai rujukan.

“Ini bisa disalahgunakan aparat,” katanya.

Wira mengimbau aparat Polri tidak menggunakan pasal penistaan tersebut, tapi fokus pada pasal
kebencian.

Sebaliknya, Wira setuju jika Polri tidak menjerat khatib salat Jumat. “Ceramah agama soal kafir
itu bukan hate speech, tapi kalau sudah menyerukan yang kafir halal darahnya, sehingga harus
diusir atau dibunuh, itu hate speech,” katanya.

'Hate speech' harus jamin kebebasan berkespresi

Selain perdebatan pasal penistaan dan pencemaran, pengamat media Ignatius Haryanto
mengingatkan Kapolri agar berhati-hati menerapkan pasal ujaran kebencian, terutama bagi
masyarakat yang kritis pada pemerintah.

“Karena kritik kepada mereka yang berkuasa akan mudah dimasukkan dalam kategori hate
speech, padahal di dalamnya ada suatu kritik serius yang bukan tujuannya hanya memaki,” kata
Ignatius.

Ia juga mengingatkan bahwa etika masyarakat dalam penggunaan media tidak bisa dipukul rata
dalam semua kasus, karena media punya etika sendiri.
“Hati-hati untuk polisi untuk tidak mudah mempergunakan kategori hate speech jika ada kritik
dari masyarakat atau media, bahkan jika ditujukan pada polisi sendiri. Ini juga butuh pengawasan
dari masyarakat agar tidak terjadi abuse of power,” katanya.

FPI: 'Surat edaran itu enggak usah ditanggepin'

NONTON BARENG. Habib Rizieq dalam acara nonton bareng bersama FPI, 30 September
2015. Foto: Rappler/Febriana Firdaus

Namun, bagaimana reaksi kelompok masyarakat?

Dalam beberapa kampanyenya, FPI kerap melontarkan kritikan dan ujaran terkait kelompok lain
dan pemerintah.

Seperti saat nonton bareng film Pengkhiatan G30S/PKI akhir September lalu, FPI kembali
mengkritik pemerintah yang berniat meminta maaf pada keluarga korban pembantaian massal
pada 1965 silam.
Salah satu orator FPI, Habib Rizieq bahkan menyebut kaum liberal sebagai saudara komunis,
dan presiden lamban seperti "kodok". Rizieq juga mengungkit patung Tugu Tani yang dianggap
sebagai simbol komunisme di ibu kota.

Menanggapi soal surat edaran ini, juru bicara FPI Munarman mengatakan surat edaran itu tak
perlu ditanggapi serius.

“Banyak yang melakukan hate speech di media sosial. Ahok emang enggak melakukan?” kata
Munarman merujuk kepada Gubernur DKI Jakarta Basuki Tjahaja Purnama.

Munarman mengatakan FPI bebas berkespresi, tak ada urusannya dengan surat edaran.

“Polisi tidak bisa menghukum dengan surat edaran. Yang bisa menghukum itu undang-undang.
Mana ada pidana berdasar surat edaran,” katanya. —Rappler.com.

The wicked issue of hate

speech in Indonesia
Noor Huda Ismail, Melbourne, Australia | Opinion | Tue, April 14 2015, 7:19 AM

Opinion News

 The banning of hate speech via social media

 The facts, fiction of tax amnesty
 Letter to the editor: Ananda Sukarlan clarifies

Islamic State (IS) movement leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared in 2014 the establishment of
the Islamic caliphate, a new political system that challenges the existing world order. A number
of FPI (Islam Defenders Front) activists in East Java, who often staged “hate speech” rallies
against minority groups, are now flocking to Syria to join IS.

From ground zero, they post pictures that paint a picture of “the glorious lives of fighters” with
their AK47 rifles. More importantly, they also encourage their sympathizers to follow suit in
defending their oppressed brethren.

The conflict in Syria has become the “opium” to divert these recruits from their daily problems.
It also created a market for “hate speech” to mushroom.

The rule of thumb to success in this business is as follows: The more you can demonstrate your
hatred toward other groups, especially against Shiites because the Assad regime in Syria is
believed to be Shiite, the larger your audience and the more respect you will get. This is a terrible
problem and there is no simple solution.
There are two extreme approaches to deal with the phenomenon. The first suggests that we, the
society, do nothing and let the group do whatever it wants in the name of democracy. We may
say only crazy people will support IS, so why should we bother fighting against its propaganda?

But, of course, this approach is very dangerous because the youth are very vulnerable and easily
seduced, many lives will be lost, families will be damaged and Indonesia’s security will be at
risk if they come home.

The other extreme is what is happening in Malaysia, which reminds us of Indonesia under
Soeharto, when oppression prevailed. Such policies will be unpopular and counterproductive
because we will only create heroes of people who do not deserve such reverence, like Jamaah
Islamiyah (JI) founders Abdullah Sungkar and Abu Bakar Ba’asyir. In fact, the two were tried
and sentenced, although confusion and suspicion of politicization marked the legal process
against them.

At the moment, we face the same confusion about the legal boundaries and enforcement of the
law. So we need to first of all establish what Indonesian law says and how it should be enforced
in the event of incitements of hatred, hate speech, recruitment, radicalization and other things.

Second, we have to acknowledge that if no new threat is found in those acts, it is only natural
that the law is lagging behind the development of threats.

In the case of people who return home from Syria and Iraq after fighting with radical groups,
should they face the law or not?

The existing law is not clear about this issue so we cannot charge the people. But if we make the
law clear, then we can enforce it and ban Indonesian nationals from joining the fundamentalist
groups. We can also criminalize people who recruit fighters here.

Without clarity in our legal system, the era of the 1980s will repeat with Indonesia and Malaysia
changing roles. In those days, Indonesian hardliners fled to Malaysia because of the draconian
law at home at that time.

They chose Malaysia because they could freely organize Islamic radical groups there to be sent
to Afghanistan. Today, Malaysia is cracking down on Islamists and Indonesia is relatively free,
allowing Southeast Asian hardliners to flock into Indonesia to recruit and organize.

To prevent that from happening, we need consistent enforcement of the law. We know
persecution of religious minority groups is rampant in Indonesia. It is very damaging for national
interests yet the law cannot intervene and there is no political will to address the matter.

Such weak law enforcement and a lack of political will has given a license to the extremists to go
ahead and do whatever they want because they know that they will not be held accountable.

Other activities like vigilante behavior of groups who basically are bullying others have created a
space in which they can engage in hate speech in the way that the state does not intervene
because of fear about being dubbed “anti-Islam”.

It happened when Muslim and Betawi ethnic groups demanded that legitimate Jakarta Governor
Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama step down.

It is true that Ahok did not receive physical threats and he was fine, survived and laughed the
rally off, but we do need to think clearly about the boundaries because we need to know which
acts are acceptable and which are not.

If we give freedom to vigilante groups so that they can push the boundary of unacceptable acts
that go unpunished, other groups will take the opportunity to follow suit.

As we can see in the open recruitment of Islamists bound for Syria in many mosques in Jakarta,
Surakarta, Semarang and Lamongan, many people decided to join because of the open space
created.

When recruiting, the tag line for IS is very alluring: “You are not joining a terrorist organization
like al-Qaeda but an Islamic State that has territory, thousands of soldiers and assets worth
billions of dollars, mostly from oil, such that you can directly be involved in the battles.”

For young bachelors, there is more on offer: to set up a new life with a wife whom the Islamic
State will provide. Married recruits can also get more wives there as well.

No doubt that hate speech also serves as a powerful tool to cement a group’s cohesion by
creating fear
of otherness and establishing boundaries of who can be “insiders” of the group and who must be
excluded as “outsiders”.

But hate speech also has a lucrative business side. IS “employees” could be hundreds of people
who benefit economically from the production of books, T-shirts, pamphlets, websites, flags,
vests, CDs and others. For each line of “business”, there are also writers, reporters, creative
designers, salesmen and accountants.

How can we create boundaries then? We can start by saying that the law says what the principles
are
and then we can impose those principles consistently.

At the end of the day, there is no single solution and there is a strong need for public
participation so the debate will be healthier.

We can emulate the reaction of the community of Facebook and YouTube users who demanded
that social media administrators withdraw any posting that contains child pornography.

We should make the same demands on those who use social media to recruit Islamists, who
could be our children or relatives? Is it not possible for the user community to resist such
postings and request that they are taken down?

- See more at: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/04/14/the-wicked-issue-hate-speech-

indonesia.html#sthash.1ekb7j3d.dpuf

Despite various efforts deployed to counter terrorism, violent radicalization remains a major
challenge for Indonesia. The country is witnessing an unprecedented surge in the number of
citizens departing to foreign countries to fight for terrorist groups.

Earlier this year, the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) estimated that at least 500
Indonesians had left for Iraq and Syria to join the Islamic State (IS) movement.

Although IS is currently the center of attention, the militant organization, Jamaah Islamiyah, is
reportedly regenerating with systematic recruitment and training agendas.

Many have blamed growing radicalization on weak law enforcement and the lack of clear
regulations to address hate speech in the country, although obviously this is not the only factor.

Former BNPT chief Ansyaad Mbai has expressed concern about the weak legal framework.
Currently, the only legislation to address hate speech in Indonesia is Article 156 of the Criminal
Code on spreading hate, which stipulates imprisonment for up to four years for “anyone who
publicly expresses enmity, hatred or insults against one group or some groups of Indonesians”.

However, this article does not make a clear distinction between valid criticisms and hate speech;
and it only criminalizes narratives against Indonesians. Thus, it does not address the common
rhetoric against Westerners or Shia Muslims in Iraq, a narrative often used to recruit Indonesian
fighters.

Several figures and hard-line organizations are widely known to deliver hate speech in Indonesia.
The cleric, Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, is known for his sermons in mosques, which boldly stated that
“God has divided humanity into […] the followers of God and those who follow Satan.”

He defines God’s followers as people who follow God’s law and fight for the implementation of
sharia law, and Satan’s followers as those who create obstacles to such efforts. Ba’asyir also
justified the 2002 Bali bombings and labeled Western tourists as “worms, snakes, maggots;
animals that crawl” and encouraged young Muslims to “beat up” Westerners.

Recently, through Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid (JAT) chairman Mochammad Achwan, Ba’asyir
called upon his followers to support IS. Former chairman of the Indonesian Mujahedeen
Assembly, Irfan S. Awwas, is also known for such speeches. He stated that people should not
have criticized the executed Bali bombers Imam Samudra and Amrozi, as they committed their
actions based on their individual interpretation and judgment.

Recently, local jihadi groups such as the Hilal Ahmar Society Indonesia (HASI) have also been
preaching on the importance of supporting IS. The group has been portraying Shiites as deviants
and associating them with Syria’s Assad regime, creating the impression that Sunni Muslims are
victims of Shiite’s evil deeds.

Besides preaching in public space, HASI also uses online media to publish articles and videos
that demonize Shiites and encourages the audience to support IS.

The Islam Defenders Front (FPI), despite their detachment from Salafism, has been actively
proliferating hatred domestically.

A video of FPI secretary-general Sorbi Lubis was widely circulated on the Internet, in which he
was recorded as saying “[K]ill Ahmadiyah wherever they are […] Kill, kill, kill! If we do not kill
Ahmadiyah […] we will not be halal [clean] anymore.”

This speech reportedly contributed to mobilizing people to commit radical, violent actions
against the minority group. Obviously, an individual’s ideology will not be affected easily just by
listening to hate speech. A reasonable person may see provocative videos by IS and not likely be
persuaded to join the fight.

Geopolitics and personal history play major roles in defining how an individual responds to hate
speech. But those from poor families, with low education and an anti-Western bias may be more
likely to be persuaded by the provocation.

Influential hate speech is usually delivered by individuals who are considered respectful and
charismatic, a la Abu Bakar Ba’asyir.

Audiences of certain mosques and boarding schools who are exposed to a constant stream of
extreme ideas promoted by charismatic teachers and surrounded by others who believe likewise
will be more swayed by hate speech.

Many HASI members are former students of Ba’asyir’s Al-Mukmin boarding school.

One challenge to addressing hate speech is the difficulty in defining what constitutes such action.
A professor at Yale Law School, Robert Post, identified two issues to defining hate speech. He
posed the questions; “when do […] otherwise appropriate emotions become so ‘extreme’ as to
deserve legal suppression?” and “how do we distinguish hatred from ordinary dislike or
disagreement?”

Article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that national
law should prohibit any propaganda that proliferates hatred on the basis of nationality, race or
religion if it constitutes “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.

Arizona State University’s Center for Strategic Communication made a useful distinction
between freedom of speech and religious hate speech by creating a four-point scale: (1) dialogue
on religious differences; (2) unilateral condemnation of others’ belief systems; (3)
dehumanization and demonization of certain groups with implicit message of violence; and (4)
explicit, provocative message of violence.
They argue that point (1) and (2) are considered valid criticism of other belief systems, while (3)
and (4) are considered hate speech, as they encourage violence against certain groups. This
categorization may be useful as a point of departure for the Indonesian government to
differentiate hate speech from other forms of freedom of speech.

Hate speech is not an independent factor and it does not always result in the “radicalization” of
an individual.

However, it can be a strong shaper of one’s ideology and can foment radicalism when it
interplays with other factors. Hate speech strengthens social categorization in the mind of the
individual, bolstering a sense of an “us” and a “them”.

In the authoritarian era of Soeharto, such speech would not have any room whatsoever. Today,
the Joko “Jokowi” Widodo administration needs to combat hate speech without harming other
forms of freedom of speech, although some trade-offs may be inevitable.

Regulating hate speech will not automatically reduce exposure to the promotion of violence in
Indonesia, but it will help take one variable out of the equation.
_________________________

The writer is a student research assistant in the the Indonesia Program at the S. Rajaratnam
School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Paper Edition | Page: 7

Read also:

 · The banning of hate speech via social media


 · The facts, fiction of tax amnesty

 · Letter to the editor: Ananda Sukarlan clarifies

 · Ending darkness through a people’s tribunal of ‘65

 · Being silenced in Ubud


Post Your Say

Selected comments will be published in the Readers’ Forum page of our print newspaper.

0 comments
Sign in
- See more at: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/05/26/is-criminalizing-hate-speech-
way-go.html#sthash.hdo0o9QL.dpuf

The banning of hate speech, although globally debatable, is not necessarily a characteristic of an
authoritarian government. In fact, it is common practice in well-known democracies such as
Canada and Australia. The justification is that a government needs to protect its citizens,
particularly the minorities, from any provocation or threat issued by others because of their race,
gender, religion or other sensitive issues.

Yet, a new circular about Indonesian hate speech issued by the Indonesian Police chief is more
complex than that. This circular includes other issues that are feared to justify the government’s
move to criminalize government critics; thus it potentially brings back the New Order.

However, this article specifically supports the banning of hate speech via social media,
especially over issues of religion and ethnicity. The urgency lies in the combination of the
potential detriment it may bring to Indonesian society and current Indonesian social media user
profiles.

Indonesia has already recorded a long list of religious and ethnic conflicts in less than two
decades: the anti-Chinese rioting in 1998, the Muslim-Christian conflict in Ambon in 1999 and
the ethnic conflict between Madura migrants and indigenous Dayak in Sampit, Central
Kalimantan, as well as the anti-Ahmadiyah campaign.

Hate speech significantly contributes to the escalation of a conflict, even before social media
intervenes. It is an early indication that Indonesian society is relatively prone to provocation in
the form of hate speech against religions and ethnic groups.

The medium itself is very crucial. Banning hate speech in social media should be embraced
because the resulting impacts can be much more massive than those of the mainstream media.
On the global level, the “Arab Spring” taught us about the power of social media to spread an
issue that eventually leads to revolution. “Coin for Prita” and the first episode of “Gecko vs.
Crocodile” are examples of how social media can mobilize people in Indonesia.

The anti-Shia content in social media is the latest indication of the quick, easy spread of hate
speech in the community. Regardless of the fact of whether Shia is heresy or not, the biggest
worry lies in how this hate speech potentially triggers an attack, as what happened to Ahmadiyah
followers in Cikeusik, Banten in 2011.

So far, fortunately, there has been no offline conflict as a result of the anti-Shia campaign in
social media, but one of the hazards this media can bring is its ability to shape public opinion
instantly and widely, no matter the credibility of the information.

The latent content may shape the way Indonesian social media users view particular issues. Thus,
Indonesian society is not immune to the spread of hate speech in social media. Unfortunately, the
Indonesian public tends to underestimate the potential harm the social media can do.
In a society with high digital literacy, the spread of hate speech through social media normally
will make no significant impacts since the public is competent enough to critically analyze and
evaluate the online content. Unfortunately, that is not the case here in Indonesia.

Even though a large number of Indonesians have access to social media or the internet, their
capability to critically evaluate and create, select or share contents remains relatively low. In
other words, Indonesian society has a low degree of digital literacy.

To be classified as digitally literate, a society needs to possess what Renee Hobbs, a prominent
scholar in digital media, defines as five competencies, which are competency to access,
analyze/evaluate, create, reflect and act.

This low digital literacy has significantly contributed to the massive and sustained circulation of
provocative and untrustworthy content in social media. As these social media users are not
competent enough to evaluate the novelty of information and reflect the impact it may generate,
they view the information the same way they receive news from newspapers or television, which
is relatively more credible. As a result, they accept untrustworthy content as fact and even decide
to share, like and re-share it with others. As long as people post, like, comment or share the hate
speech, it will keep spreading.

Education level does not always guarantee this literacy. A case of hate speech against
Yogyakarta spread by a postgraduate student in 2014 proves this. The court eventually found her
guilty, giving a lesson to others, including the educated, that without wisdom a posting in social
media could be harmful to society.

The government and civil society organizations have initiated several projects to promote digital
literacy, such as “Internet Sehat” (healthy internet) and “Internet Cakap” (literate internet).
Discourses have also loomed to promote digital literacy among students.

However, as common with education programs, it takes time to show a result. Yet, this hate
speech keeps growing and circulating, so there should be a fast response to tackle this problem.
In short, considering Indonesian people’s vulnerability to provocation on religious and ethnic
issues, the low digital literacy of Indonesian social media users and the inefficacy of alternative
solutions, hate speech banning in social media is a pressing matter.

Indeed, this policy is a rough option. The government may overact in implementing this, yet the
cost it inflicts cannot be compared to the bloodshed caused by unnecessary religious and ethnic
conflicts.

Banning hate speech is bittersweet.

_________________________________

The writer is member of the Digital Media Research Centre (DMRC) at Queensland University
of Technology (QUT), Australia, and a PhD candidate in media and communications at the same
university.
Paper Edition | Page: 7
- See more at: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/11/12/the-banning-hate-speech-social-
media.html#sthash.pA1ZcMIK.dpuf

Jakarta - Kasus penebaran kebencian yang dilakukan oleh salah satu akun facebook menjadi perhatian
serius sejumlah organisasi masyarakat yang menamai dirinya Forum Demokrasi Digital. Forum terbuka
ini mengajak para netizen dan juga pemerintah untuk bersama-sama menangani permasalahan
tersebut.

Baru-baru ini netizen dibuat geger oleh postingan akun Facebook bernama Arif Kusnandar. Isi statusnya
membuka luka lama masyarakat Indonesia soal tragedi yang pernah terjadi pada bulan Mei tahun 1998.
Arif terkesan menyalahkan pemerintah terkait nilai tukar dolar yang membumbung tinggi. Melalui
postinganya, Arif juga mengancam kejadian di bulan Mei 1998 bisa terulang lagi.

Forum Komunikasi Digital menganggap apa yang dilakukan sudah kebablasan. Forum ini sejatinya juga
menghargai kebebasan berekspresi, pun demikian tetap harus ada norma-norma yang harus diikuti.
Karena bila kelewatan malah bisa mencederai demokrasi itu sendiri. Pemerintah lantas diharapkan
punya aturan jelas untuk mengatasi permasalahan hate-speech ini.

“Saya pikir itu (kebebasan berekspresi-red) harus ada standar minimumnya. Negara harus punya aturan
yang jelas soal ini dan juga harus proporsional. Jangan semena-mena, karena tetap ada hak-hak warga
negara di situ,” ujar Haris Ashar dari Kontras yang juga tergabung dalam Forum Demokrasi Digital, di
restoran Bakoel Koffie, Cikini, Jakarta, Rabu (26/8/2015).

Tak ingin sekadar wacana, Forum Demokrasi Digital juga telah meluncurkan sebuah petisi yang bisa
diakses di situs change.org. Isinya adalah mengajak pihak-pihak terkait di pemerintahan untuk serius
memperhatikan persoalan hate-speech ini dengan menelurkan aturan-aturan yang dibutuhkan.

Tak cuma di sisi pemerintah, elemen sipil yang dalam hal ini adalah netizen juga diharapkan ikut andil
dengan melakukan edukasi yang lebih intensif melalui jalur online. Yang tujuannya agar mampu
meningkatkan kerukunan beragama, menghormati pluralisme, dan menjunjung ke-bhinneka-an di
Indonesia.

“Kami menebar petisi (soal aturan hate-speech) demi memberi masukan ke pihak-pihak terkait
(termasuk netizen sendiri). Jangan sampai kejadian Mei 1998 terulang,” pungkas Damar Juniarto dari
Forum Demokrasi Digital.

Menanggapi petisi tersebut, respon masyarakat juga terbilang cepat. Karena meski baru beberapa hari
diluncurkan, petisi yang dimaksud diklaim telah mendapat dukungan lebih dari 16 ribu orang. Angka ini
pun diharapkan dapat terus bertambah demi mencapai tujuannya.
Indonesian human rights activists and religious leaders have expressed cautious optimism over
new National Police policies on hate speech.

National Police Chief General Badrodin Haiti announced the policies in an internal
memorandum issued Oct. 8. Haiti said the memo was aimed at police so that they could better
recognize forms of hate speech and then take action, local news site Kompas.com reported.

"It must be seen in a positive way. The good purpose is to prevent social conflicts. With the
circular, the police can be more responsive in preventing conflicts in relation to ethnicities,
religions, races and tribes," Father Antonius Benny Susetyo, of the Jakarta-based Setara Institute
for Democracy and Peace, told ucanews.com on Nov. 3.

"Defaming other people based on their ethnicities, religions, races and tribes must be banned.
Universally, we aren't allowed to defame others publicly," he said.

In the seven-page memorandum, hate speech was identified as instigating hatred based on
ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and disability.

However, Father Susetyo, former secretary of the Indonesian bishops' Commission for
Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, cautioned that the new policies should be wisely
implemented.

"It should be handled carefully. Don't put it into practice arbitrarily. We need to review it
thoroughly so that it won't be misused," he said.

Natalius Pigai of the National Commission on Human Rights said the new regulations were
unnecessary, given that Indonesia already had laws in place that addressed hate speech.

Meanwhile, Slamet Effendi Yusuf from Nahdlatul Ulama, Indonesia's largest Islamic
organization, said the new policies would have a positive impact "if it serves only as a guideline
for police personnel and not as a means to curb democracy."

Opportunity

Emilia Renita Az, who coordinates the Shia Organization of Ahlulbayt for Social Support and
Education, said the police directives were an opportunity to fight for justice, allowing her
organization the opportunity to sue anti-Shia groups who use hate speech to attack her
community.

Similarly, Firdaus Mubarik, spokesman of the Ahmadiyya Indonesia Congregation, said he

believed the new policies could protect Indonesians but questioned whether the directives would
be implemented.
He noted that that Indonesia's minority Ahmadiyya Muslim community has long been a target of
hate speech from fundamentalist groups.

"There are many forms of hate speech, mostly sermons. But there are also banners, pamphlets
and text messages," he said.

Related reports

Sunni leaders accused of violating Indonesia's constitution

On Hate Speech, Dehumanization, Demonization and

Violence: The Indonesia Islamic Defenders Front
19 Maret 2014 pukul 4:55

Hate speech is a common, but incompletely understood kind of contentious discourse. The term
hate speech is most commonly used to describe disparaging remarks about ethnic,racial and
religious minorities and LGBT communities. Basically, hate speech applies extremely negative
stereotypes to individuals and groups not because of what they do or say, but because of who
they are. It contributes to and is used to justify, racism, sectarianism, discrimination, social
ostrasization,violence and even genocide.

Hate speech is like pornography. It is easy to recognize and hard to define. Hate“speech” can be
more than talk and does not always rely on language. Some of the most virulent forms of hate
speech are actually symbols, graphics, cartoons,videos and photo-shopped images.

There are no internationally accepted standards for defining hate speech, let alone for
distinguishing the merely disgusting from the life threatening. Extreme cases in which speakers
call on people to kill others or drive them from their homes are easy to spot. Others, which make
symbolic associations between people and dangerous, despised beings, substances, entities,
diseases, behaviors or objects,are not so clear. The absences of standards make it difficult to
control hate speech, especially in countries where freedom of speech is greatly valued and
legally protected.
Some countries have strict hate speech laws with severe punishments for offenders.Others have
none. In Canada advocating genocide or hatred of “any section of the public distinguished by
colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation” is punishable by as much as fourteen
years behind bars. Just across the border in the United States, there are no hate speech laws. In
the US it is legal to refer to the president as a “subhuman mongrel,” a term Nazi’s used to
describe Jews, Romani and other people they targeted for extermination. In Indonesia hate
speech is unrestricted.

In all but the most extreme cases linguistic and cultural subtleties make hate speech hard to
define. For example, to call someone a “fat pig” is insulting,especially if he/she is Jewish or
Muslim -- but it is hardly hate speech. To say “all of those people are fat pigs” may be another
story. Hate speech can also be culturally specific. Some words and expressions are vitriolic in
some societal context but nearly meaningless in others. In Indonesia, referring to people as
“cancer” is hate speech especially when coupled with the expression “which must be removed.”
In the United States calling people cancer wouldn’t make cultural sense and could hardly be
thought of as hate speech.

In this essay I draw on my experience with the Indonesian Islamic Defenders Front(FPI). There
is nothing exceptional about FPI. It is a band of thugs with an articulate, charismatic leadership
that uses hate speech and violence to intimidate ethnic and religious minorities. Unfortunately
there are similar groups in many other countries. FPI is just the one I know best.

Two examples of FPI rhetoric show how difficult distinguishing the merely disgusting from the
dangerous can be. In a video posted on YouTube in 2008 FPI leader Sobri Lubis says:

We call on the Muslim community. Let us go to war with Ahmadiyah! Kill Ahmadiyah wherever
they are! God is great! God is great! Kill! Kill! Kill! :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynunOMEtUmg

This is hate speech. Worse still, it is lethal hate speech because rank and file FPI members have
killed Ahmadiyah Muslims and savagely beaten others.

This poster located just outside FPI headquarters in Jakarta is more ambiguous.
 Indonesia Peace Without Liberal(s)

If it were to be displayed by a non-violent organization it would be contentious political

discourse. Displayed by FPI it is more sinister because the word “without” carries a thinly veiled
threat of violence. In books and on other posters FPI describes “liberals” including many of
Indonesia’s most respected Muslim intellectuals as “more satanic that Satan.” That is definitely
hate speech.

Understanding Hate Speech

What follows is a model for understanding the difference between hate speech and contentious
civil discourse. Like all models it is reductionist. But reductionism is a kind of explanation that
helps us make sense of ambiguity and complexity. We can locate contentious discourse and hate
speech on a five-point scale measuring the degree to which an individual or group endorses
symbolic or physical violence.

1. Discussion and even argument about differences -- as long as it is

conducted in civil terms.

2. Unilateral condemnation of others.

3. Dehumanization of others.

4. Demonization of others.
5. Explicit provocation of violence.

Levels1 and 2 are civil discourse because they do not implicitly or explicitly threaten violence.
Levels 3 through 5 are hate speech. They make threatening,hurtful symbolic associations and are
inherently dangerous. They are psychological violence that can easily lead to physical violence.

Dehumanization and demonization require some explanation. They are the psychological
concepts drawn from the literature on rumors and collective violence. The are the keys for
distinguishing between civil contentious discourse and hate speech.

Dehumanization is a psycho-symbolic process that defines others as less than fully human. They
are said to lack some combination of valued human qualities such as agency,independence,
compassion, consideration for others, honesty, dignity and restraint. It can also be referring to
them as non-human beings.

Psychologists distinguish between self and other directed dehumanization. Other directed
dehumanization makes negative judgments about others. Calling groups of people lazy, greedy,
deviant, perverted, dishonest (among other things) or referring to them as dogs, pigs, rats, lice,
vultures (among other animals) are but a few examples. Self directed dehumanization is a sense
of real or imagined disempowerment in the faceof real or imagined overwhelming force. Hate
speech often defines the speaker and her/his community as powerless victims, even if they are
not. Ironically as powerless victims, they are entitled to use extreme measures to
“defend”themselves against subhuman others. Hence the claim that because we cannot contain
threatening “deviants” by ordinary means, using violence against them is morally justified. This
is the type of logic FPI uses to justify attacks on Ahmadiyah Muslims and other minorities.This
is twisted logic and hate speech is twisted logic. It often appears to be logical and never actually
is.

Demonization is an extreme, and especially dangerous form of other directed dehumanization.It

defines “enemy others” as existential threats and if religious language is used, as the embodiment
of evil. Demonization involves the projection of deeply seated fears or archetypes of evil onto
opponents.
Sometimes demonization is literal. FPI, for example, adds the name “Iblis” (the devil) to those of
its long list of designated enemy others. At others it is slightly subtler, referring to enemy others
in ideological terms or as life threatening diseases. Existential threats take symbolic forms suited
to the context in which hate speech is located. Communist on Wall Street, Satan in the Vatican
and Malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa have similar meanings.

FPI Demonization

This poster is also on display at FPI’s Jakarta headquarters. It is a graphic example of the literal
demonization of enemy others. It show FPI leader Rizieq Shihab and an FPI fighter confronting a
band of demons that includes Mizra Ghulam, the founder of the Ahmadiyah movement and
many prominent Indonesian intellectuals all of whom are described as satanic, deviant, apostate,
idiotic,unbelievers. It is hard to imagine a clearer example of demonization based hate speech.

Level four hate speech, falls just short of calling for physical violence. It typically includes some
or all of the following claims:

1. The other is inherently evil.

2. This evil poses an existential threat.

3. The other cannot or will not change.

4. Therefore,the other must be destroyed.

 5. Destruction of the other is virtuous.

Conflict stemming from or justified in terms of demonization based hate speech is what Mark
Juergensmeyer calls “cosmic war.”It is a zero sum game, in which compromise and negotiation
are impossible. Hate speech does not inevitably lead to physical violence but establishes
conditions in which people are convinced that violence is justified. It can create a climate of
irrational fear that leads people who would not engage in violence themselves to condone it and
to support discrimination and other forms of symbolic violence. FPI, Indonesia and Ahmadiyah
provide a tragic example. A decade ago few Indonesians had ever heard of the Ahmadiyah. An
unending barrage of hate speech from FPI and its allies has led a majority to conclude that
Ahmadiyah should be outlawed.

Combating Hate Speech

Hate speech legislation may be well intended but it is unlikely to be successful. In countries
where it exists hate mongers skirt the edges of the law or gounder ground, often via the inter-net.
Social networking sites have become havens for hate speech.

Attempting to engage purveyors of hate speech is debate or rational discourse is futile. This is an
example of how they typically respond.

Two years ago a colleague and I attempted to have a “dialog” with FPI activists when they
stormed into our office. They told us that they wanted to have a dialog and we agreed. FPI’s idea
of dialog is “we talk, you listen and comply with our demands -- or else.” They screamed “No
photos” as they photographed usand our students. We photographed them as they marched down
the stairs.

Non-violent hate mongers change the subject, restate their positions in slightly less offensive
terms, deny that they are spreading hate or fall back on self directed dehumanization --
presenting themselves as victims, martyrs and misunderstood defenders of public virtue. FPI
describes itself as the victim of the liberal press.
What can work is to publicly hold the purveyors of hate speech accountable for their words and
actions; to call them out for what they are; and to expose the absurdity of the claims they make.
Journalists, bloggers, religious and community leaders all have roles to play in this process. So
do ordinary citizens and netizens. Taking up the pen, switching on the word processor, speaking
from the pulpit on the air and on line are steps to take. When and where possible,non-violent
demonstrations and other public events are good things to do.

This is an example. On May 9th 2012 elements of FPI and its ally the Indonesian Jihad Fighters
Council (MMI) attacked a book launching featuring Canadian Muslim feminist Irshad Manji.
They distributed hate speech leaflets, denounced Ms Manji as a perverted deviant, beat up some
members of the audience and threatened to kill everyone.

The next morning a group of activists representing civil society and Muslim organizations
gathered to organize a response. The outcome was a grand coalition united by opposition to hate
speech and violence. It included student groups from several universities, women’s
organizations, royalists, ethnic organizations, traditionalist Muslims, non-violent Islamists and
others. On May 11th ten thousand people marched to demand an end to hate speech and violence.

The Yogyakarta People’s Anti-Violence Movement

This banner reads: “Yogyakarta People’s Anti-Violence Movement. Yogya a Special Place with
a Peaceful and Secure Heart. Yogyakarta City of Tolerance.”
This was a small step on a long road. It sent FPI MMI and their friends a message that there will
be responses to hate speech and violence. The demonstration was nationally televised reaching a
potential viewership of tens of millions with the message “Say no to hate speech and violence.”

Intisari:

SE Hate Speech pada dasarnya adalah petunjuk dan panduan bagi kepolisian di lapangan
ketika terjadi dugaan ujaran kebencian (hate speech) yang berlaku internal bagi lingkungan
Kepolisian RI. Tujuan Kapolri mengeluarkan SE Hate speech ini adalah untuk
memberitahukan anggotanya agar memahami langkah-langkah penanganan perbuatan
ujaran kebencian atau hate speech.

Sebelum SE Hate Speech terbit inipun ketentuan-ketentuan soal larangan berujar kebencian
(seperti pencemaran nama baik misalnya) sebenarnya telah ada dan diatur dalam sejumlah
peraturan perundang-undangan. Inilah yang menjadi pedoman bagi masyarakat untuk
berhati-hati dalam berekspresi, baik itu di pergaulan sehari-hari di sosial media maupun
saat berdemo.

Namun, kita sebagai masyarakat juga dapat memanfaatkan SE Hate Speech ini sebagai
dasar meminta anggota polisi untuk memediasi jika suatu saat kita terlibat dalam perbuatan
dugaan ujaran kebencian.

Penjelasan lebih lanjut dapat Anda simak dalam ulasan di bawah ini.

Ulasan:

Tujuan Diterbitkannya SE Hate Speech

Polri menerbitkan Surat Edaran Kapolri Nomor: SE/6/X/2015 tentang Penanganan
Ujaran Kebencian (“SE Hate Speech”). SE Hate Speech ini tengah menjadi
perbincangan di masyarakat. Surat Edaran (“SE”) ini terdiri dari empat butir yang mengatur
antara lain lingkup perbuatan yang dapat dikategorikan sebagai hate speech dan tindak
pidana yang berkaitan.

Pada dasarnya, jika kita telusuri, tujuan Kapolri mengeluarkan SE Hate speech ini adalah
untuk memberitahukan anggotanya agar memahami langkah-langkah penanganan
perbuatan ujaran kebencian atau hate speech.

Terkait ini, dalam artikel PERADI Luhut Imbau Kapolri Cabut SE Ujaran Kebencian, Luhut
Pangaribuan menilai SE hanyalah petunjuk dan panduan bagi kepolisian di lapangan ketika
terjadi dugaan ujaran kebencian. Keberadaan SE sejatinya tak mengubah apapun. Terlepas
ada tidaknya SE, komitmen kepolisian sebagai penegak hukum dibutuhkan untuk menindak
pihak-pihak yang menanamkan kebencian terhadap suku, ras dan agama tertentu.

Mencermati tujuan SE sebagai petunjuk dan panduan bagi anggota polri dalam penanganan
kasus hate speeh ini kemudian mengingatkan kita pada bagaimana keberlakuan suatu SE
itu? Apakah mengikat masyarakat secara umum?

Keberlakuan Surat Edaran

Dalam artikel Surat Edaran, ‘Kerikil’ dalam Perundang-Undangan Dosen Fakultas
Hukum Universitas Jember, Bayu Dwi Anggono, mengatakan SE memang bukan
peraturan perundang-undangan (regeling), bukan pula keputusan tata usaha negara
(beschikking), melainkan sebuah peraturan kebijakan. SE masuk peraturan kebijakan
(beleidsregel) atau peraturan perundang-undangan semu (pseudo wetgeving).

Pandangan Bayu Dwi Anggono ini sejalan dengan sejumlah doktrin yang dikemukakan Jimly
Asshiddiqie, HAS Natabaya, HM Laica Marzuki, dan Philipus M. Hadjon. Surat-surat edaran
selalu mereka masukkan sebagai contoh peraturan kebijakan. Bayu menjelaskan bahwa
beleidsregel dan pseudo wetgeving adalah produk hukum yang isinya secara materil
mengikat umum namun bukanlah peraturan perundang-undangan karena ketiadaan
wewenang pembentuknya untuk membentuknya sebagai peraturan perundang-undangan.

Masih bersumber dari artikel yang sama, Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan Indonesia
(PSHK) juga punya pandangan serupa. Lembaga pemerhati dan pembaharuan hukum ini
berpendapat Surat Edaran bukan produk perundang-undangan, melainkan sebagai
instrumen administratif yang bersifat internal. Surat Edaran ditujukan untuk memberikan
petunjuk lebih lanjut mengenai suatu norma peraturan perundang-undangan yang bersifat
umum.

Dampak Hukum Diterbitkannya SE Hate Speech

Menyorot pertanyaan Anda soal keharusan kita berhati-hati saat berekspresi atau
mengeluarkan pendapat di sosial media atau saat berdemo, memang pada dasarnya setiap
orang dilarang mengungkapkan ekspresi berupa kebencian terhadap suku, ras dan agama
tertentu.

Jadi, sebelum SE Hate Speech ini terbit pun ketentuan-ketentuan mengenai larangan
berujar kebencian telah ada dan diatur dalam sejumlah peraturan perundang-undangan.
Peraturan perundang-undangan ini juga telah disebut dalam SE Hate Speech di samping
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (“KUHP”) (Pasal 156, Pasal 157) untuk menjerat
pelaku dugaan ujaran kebencian.

Peraturan perundang-undangan yang dimaksud adalah:

1. Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (“UU
ITE”) [Pasal 28 jo. Pasal 45 ayat (2)]
2. Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2008 ttg Penghapusan Diskriminasi Ras dan Etnis ("UU
40/2008")(Pasal 16)
3. Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2012 ttg Penanganan Konflik Sosial (“UU 7/2012”)
4. Peraturan Kapolri Nomor 8 Tahun 2013 ttg Teknis Penanganan Konflik Sosial (“Perkapolri
8/2013”)

Selain itu, ada juga pasal-pasal dalam KUHP yang disebut dalam SE Hate Speech terkait
penegakan hukum atas dugaan terjadinya tindak pidana ujaran kebencian, yaitu Pasal 310
dan Pasal 311 KUHP. Kedua pasal dalam KUHP ini dinilai tidak tepat jika dimasukkan ke
dalam SE Hate Speech. Dalam artikel PERADI Luhut Imbau Kapolri Cabut SE Ujaran
Kebencian, Mantan Menteri Hukum dan HAM yang kini menjadi Wakil Ketua Dewan
Pertimbangan PERADI versi Luhut, Amir Syamsuddin berpandangan bahwa Pasal 310 dan
311 KUHP tidak tepat dijadikan jeratan terhadap mereka yang melakukan penyebaran
kebencian.

Ini karena Pasal 310 dan Pasal 311 merupakan delik aduan yang bersifat ranah privat. Lagi
pula, polisi tak akan dapat berbuat banyak sepanjang tak ada aduan dari pengadu. Menurut
Amir, tidak ada yang berubah dengan dan tanpa SE itu. Kalau ada hate speech dapat dijerat
dengan UU yang ada.

Bentuk-Bentuk Hate Speech

Bentuk-bentuk ujaran kebencian yang dimaksud SE Hate Speech ini dapat berupa tindak
pidana yang diatur dalam KUHP maupun di luar KUHP, yaitu:1[1]
1. Penghinaan
2. Pencemaran nama baik
KLINIK TERKAIT

 Pasal untuk Menjerat Penyebar Kebencian SARA di Jejaring Sosial

 Pencemaran Nama Baik di Media Sosial, Delik Biasa atau Aduan?
 Menjerat Pembuat Situs Berita Palsu
 Apakah Menyebar Majalah Berisi tentang Agama Tertentu Dapat Dipidana?
 Risiko Pidana Menyanyikan Lagu yang Bermuatan Penghinaan

KATEGORI : HUKUM PIDANA

 Apakah Batas Hukuman Minimum Dikenal dalam KUHP?

 Perilaku Suporter Sepakbola yang Bisa Dijerat Hukum
 Menggugat Perusahaan yang Menimbulkan Polusi Suara
 Penyelesaian Hukum Jika Dua Mobil Serempetan karena Menyerobot Jalan
 Tata Cara Pengajuan Permohonan Rehabilitasi Narkotika

Klinik lainnya ++
3. Penistaan
4. Perbuatan tidak menyenangkan
5. Memprovokasi
6. Menghasut
7. Penyebaran berita bohong
dan semua tindakan di atas memiliki tujuan atau bisa berdampak pada tindak diskriminasi,
kekerasan, penghilangan nyawa, dan/atau konflik sosial.

Polisi Harus Berpedoman pada SE

Salah satu pedoman atau panduan yang diberikan oleh Kapolri kepada anggotanya melalui
SE Hate Speech ini adalah anggota Polri penting memiliki pemahaman dan pengetahuan
atas bentuk-bentuk ujaran kebencian sehingga dapat mengambil tindakan pencegahan
sedini mungkin sebelum timbulnya tindak pidana sebagai akibat dari ujaran kebencian
tersebut.2[2]

Perbuatan ujaran kebencian apabila tidak ditangani dengan efektif, efisien, dan sesuai
ketentuan perundang-undangan berpotensi memunculkan konflik sosial yang meluas dan
menimbulkan tindak diskriminasi, kekerasan, dan/atau penghilangan nyawa.3[3]

Untuk menangani perbuatan ujaran kebencian agar tidak memunculkan tindak diskriminasi,
kekerasan, penghilangan nyawa, dan/atau konflik sosial yang meluas, maka diperlukan
langkah-langkah penanganan oleh anggota Polri sebagai berikut:4[4]
1. Melakukan tindakan preventif
a. Setiap anggota polri agar memiliki pengetahuan dan pemahaman mengenai
bentuk-bentuk ujaran kebencian yang timbul di masyarakat.
b. Setiap anggota polri agar lebih responsif atau peka terhadap gejala-gejala yang
timbul di masyarakat yang berpotensi menimbulkan tindak pidana ujaran
kebencian.
c. Setiap anggota Polri agar melakukan kegiatan analisis atau kajian terhadap
situasi dan kondisi di lingkungan masing-masing terutama yang berkaitan dengan
perbuatan ujaran kebencian.
d. Setiap anggota Polri agar melaporkan kepada pimpinannya masing-masing atas
situasi dan kondisi di lingkungannya terutama yang berkaitan dengan perbuatan
ujaran kebencian.
e. Dan kepada Kasatwil agar untuk melakukan kegiatan:
 i. mengefektifkan dan mengedepankan fungsi intelijen untuk mengetahui
kondisi riil di wilayah-wilayah yang rawan konflik terutama akibat
hasutan-hasutan atau provokasi, untuk selanjutnya dilakukan pemetaan
sebagai bagian dari early warning dan early detection;
ii. mengedepankan fungsi Binmas dan Polmas untuk melakukan penyuluhan
atau sosialisasi kepada masyarakat mengenai ujaran kebencian dan
dampak-dampak negatif yang akan terjadi;
iii. mengedepankan fungsi Binmas untuk melakukan kerja sama yang
konstruktif dengan tokoh agama, tokoh masyarakat, tokoh pemuda dan
akademisi untuk optimalisasi tindakan represif atas ujaran kebencian;
iv. apabila ditemukan perbuatan yang berpotensi mengarah pada tindak
pidana ujaran kebencian maka setiap anggota Polri wajib melakukan
tindakan:
(1) memonitor dan mendeteksi sedini mungkin timbulnya benih
pertikaian di masyarakat;
(2) melakukan pendekatan pada pihak yang diduga melakukan ujaran
kebencian;
(3) mempertemukan pihak yang diduga melakukan ujaran kebencian
dengan korban ujaran kebencian;
(4) mencari solusi perdamaian antara pihak-pihak yang bertikai; dan
(5) memberikan pemahaman mengenai dampak yang akan timbul
dari ujaran kebencian di masyarakat.
2. Apabila tindakan preventif telah dilakukan namun tidak menyelesaikan masalah yang
timbul akibat dari tindakan ujaran kebencian tersebut, maka penyelesaian dapat
dilakukan melalui:
a. Penegakan hukum mengacu pada ketentuan KUHP, UU ITE, dan UU 40/2008.
b. Jika telah terjadi konflik sosial yang dilatarbelakangi ujaran kebencian,
penanganannya tetap berpedoman pada UU 7/2012 dan Perkapolri 8/2013.

Berkaitan dengan pertanyaan Anda, sebagaimana yang kami sebut di atas, keharusan kita
berhati-hati saat berekspresi atau mengeluarkan pendapat di sosial media atau saat
berdemo, memang pada dasarnya wajib dilakukan. Setiap orang dilarang mengungkapkan
ekspresi berupa kebencian terhadap suku, ras dan agama tertentu.

Namun justru, masyarakat yang terlibat dalam perbuatan ujaran kebencian dapat
memanfaatkan SE Hate Speech ini sebagai dasar meminta anggota Polri untuk memediasi
atau mempertemukan pelaku dengan korban ujaran kebencian ini. Hal ini karena salah satu
kewajiban anggota Polri apabila ditemukan perbuatan yang berpotensi mengarah pada
tindak pidana ujaran kebencian adalah mempertemukan pihak yang diduga melakukan
ujaran kebencian dengan korban.5[5]
Demikian jawaban dari kami, semoga bermanfaat.

Edaran Ujaran Kebencian, Ancaman Buat Demokrasi?

Dedy Priatmojo, Lilis Khalisotussurur, Reza Fajri, Syaefullah Selasa, 3 November 2015, 04:53 WIB

VIVA.co.id - Kapolri Jenderal Polisi Badrodin Haiti telah mengeluarkan Surat Edaran
Penanganan Ujaran Kebencian (hate speech) pada Kamis, 8 Oktober 2015 lalu. Surat ini
merupakan pedoman teknis anggota Kepolisian tentang penanganan ujaran kebencian yang kian
marak bertebaran di berbagai media, salah satu yang paling sering ditemukan adalah pada situs
jejaring sosial.

Beredarnya surat edaran Kapolri ini sontak saja menjadi pro kontra di tengah masyarakat.
Pasalnya, edaran itu menyoal penindakan bagi setiap orang yang menyampaikan pendapat di
ruang publik dengan menyebar kebencian, khususnya di media sosial. Masyarakat khawatir,
edaran ini dikhawatirkan membatasi kebebasan publik dalam menyampaikan pendapatnya di
media sosial

Dalam surat edaran yang ditandatangani Kapolri tersebut, jejaring media sosial menjadi salah
satu sarana yang turut dipantau Polri dalam hal penyebaran ujaran kebencian ini. Sementara
aspek yang dianggap dapat menyulut kebencian juga tak terbatas pada suku, agama, ras, etnis,
dan golongan.

Hal lain yang juga menjadi perhatian dalam surat edaran ini mengenai warna kulit, jender, kaum
difabel, hingga orientasi seksual. [Baca: Ini Alasan Polri Keluarkan Surat Edaran Ujaran
Kebencian]

Kepala Biro Penerangan Masyarakat Mabes Polri Brigjen Pol Agus Rianto mengatakan Surat
Edaran Kapolri ini diperlukan untuk memberi batasan dalam mengunggah sesuatu yang dapat
menimbulkan kebencian, penghinaan dan lain sebagainya.

Apalagi, Polri selama ini belum memiliki aturan teknis penanganan ujaran kebencian. Karena itu,
surat edaran ini diklaim menjadi pedoman bagi setiap anggota Polri ketika menangani ujaran
kebencian baik di level preemtif, preventif, maupun represif atau penegakan hukum.

"Pada prinsipnya ini kami lakukan untuk menjaga keamanan dan mencegah potensi timbulnya
keresahan di masyarakat. Sebab, kebebasan yang ada saat ini tentu bukan berarti tak ada
batasnya. Semua tetap harus mengacu pada norma hukum yang berlaku," ujarnya saat
diwawancarai tvOne, Sabtu, 31 Oktober 2015.

Merujuk pada Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) dan pidana lain di luar KUHP,
setidaknya ada tujuh poin tercantum dalam surat edaran terkait ujaran kebencian itu, yakni terkait
penghinaan, pencemaran nama baik, penistaan, perbuatan tidak menyenangkan, memprovokasi,
menghasut dan penyebaran berita bohong.
Meski demikian, Agus mengakui Polri tak akan sembarangan melakukan penegakan hukum
terkait 'hate speech' di media sosial, sebab akan dilakukan sesuai dengan standar operasional
prosedur (SOP) yang berlaku.

"Jika nantinya banyak laporan yang masuk, kami tentunya akan menerima laporan-laporan
tersebut. Tetapi, bagaimanapun Polri tentunya akan melakukan pendalaman, dan menganalisis
apakah memang patut dan sesuai dengan kategori yang surat edaran tersebut," kata Agus Rianto.

'Mulutmu Harimaumu'

Komisi Kepolisian Nasional (Kompolnas) M Nasser mengapresiasi Surat Edaran Kapolri tentang
penanganan Ujaran Kebencian. Namun menurut Nasser, surat edaran itu harus dibarengi dengan
petunjuk teknis yang jelas, agar anggota polisi pada tataran tingkat Polda dan Polsek seluruh
Indonesia benar-benar memahami intsruksi Kapolri tersebut.

Terutama, bagi anggota Polri yang ditugaskan di wilayah konflik seperti halnya di Lampung, dan
Jember, Jawa Timur.

"Dibutuhkan pedoman detil, biar tidak ada salah paham, Mabes Polri harus mengatur itu," ujar M
Nasser kepada VIVA.co.id, Senin, 2 November 2015.

Tapi setidaknya, dengan adanya surat edaran ujaran kebencian, polisi dapat melakukan tindakan
pencegahan dan tindakan tegas terhadap seseorang yang mengeluarkan ucapan kebencian yang
menimbulkan konflik horizontal. "Misalnya di Sampang, Madura, ada pernyataan kelompok
Syiah halal darahnya untuk di bunuh," ujarnya.

Dalam surat edaran itu, apabila upaya preventif telah dilakukan, tapi oknum yang diduga penebar
kebencian tidak mengindahkan teguran polisi, maka bisa dikenakan pidana.

Penegakan hukum ini sesuai dengan KUHP; UU Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan
Transaksi Elektronik, UU Nomor 40 Tahun 2008 tentang Penghapusan Diskriminasi Ras dan
Etnis, UU Nomor 7 Tahun 2012 tentang Penanganan Konflik Sosial dan Peraturan Kepala
Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 8 Tahun 2013 tentang Teknis Penanganan
Konflik Sosial.

[Baca: 10 Rujukan Dikeluarkan Penanganan untuk Penyebar Kebencian]

Kepala Divisi Hubungan Masyarakat, Mabes Polri Irjen Pol Anton Charliyan mengingatkan
masyarakat lebih berhati-hati dalam mengeluarkan pendapat baik di media sosial ataupun dalam
orasi lainnya. Pasalnya, setelah melakukan monitor di lapangan banyak orasi yang mengeluarkan
pendapat kata-kata yang kurang pantas.

"Makanya Kapolri mengeluarkan surat edaran agar kita semua jangan begitu. Karena kalau
begitu akan terkena dampak hukum yang di hadapi," ujar Anton Charliyan di Mabes Polri.
Meski demikian, surat edaran Kapolri ini tidak dimaksudkan untuk menghalangi atau
membungkam kebebasan pendapat masyarakat.

"Karena saya yakin tidak ada satupun yang ingin mengespresikan pendapat melalui kebencian.
Mulutmu harimau mu. Cerminan budaya dan bahasa. Tentu saja kami punya tanggung jawab
moral untuk mencegah hal itu," ujarnya.

Ancaman Demokrasi

Ahli Hukum Tata Negara Refly Harun menyatakan Surat Edaran Kapolri tentang Penanganan
Ujaran Kebencian seharusnya tidak usah diumumkan. Sebab kalau polisi terlalu 'over acting'
terhadap surat edaran ini maka akibatnya justru bisa mengancam kebebasan sipil.

Ia berpendapat penilaian terhadap penyebaran kebencian sangat bersifat subjektif. Misalnya

ketika ada seseorang yang memasang status di media sosial dengan menuliskan "Jokowi hanya
janji-janji saja" atau "Jokowi tidak memenuhi janji", kemudian berpotensi dianggap sebagai
penyebar kebencian. Akibatnya hal ini akan mengancam demokrasi.

Begitu pun ketika ada orang yang membuat status dalam media sosial dengan menulis 'Saya
tidak suka dengan polisi korup'.

"Lalu bisa dikenakan sebagai penyebar kebencian. Padahal justru bagus tujuannya. Semua orang
harus tidak suka dengan polisi korup, pejabat korup. Kan ada korupsinya. Tapi yang jadi
permasalahan itu bisa ditarik ke mana-mana dan melindungi kejahatan," ujar Refly.

Refly menambahkan, seharusnya polisi cukup bersikap pasif saja ketika ada interaksi dalam
masyarakat. Kalaupun ada pihak yang merasa terganggu maka jangan langsung diselesaikan
dengan pendekatan tindak pidana. Sebab bisa saja masyarakat justru menyelesaikan
permasalahan diantara mereka sendiri.

"Jadi biarkan masalahnya berkembang di masyarakat sendiri, biarkan tugas polisi menjaga
keamanan dan ketertiban nasional, kecuali muncul gangguan baru bertindak. Biarkan masyarakar
selesaikan persoalan di antara mereka. Siapa tahu bisa damai. Jadi tidak perlu pakai ngadu-ngadu
ke polisi. Kan capek juga polisi kalau tiap masalah mau dipidanakan," ujar Refly.

Sementara Anggota Komisi III DPR RI, Nasil Djamil meminta Polri mensosialisasikan lebih
lanjut surat edaran tersebut. Polri harus menjelaskan bentuk-bentuk ujaran kebencian yang
dilarang dalam surat edara Kapolri Nomor SE/6/X/2015 itu. Sebab, ada kekhawatiran edaran
tersebut hanya menyasar pihak tertentu, sehingga penegakan hukum menjadi cacat dan tebang
pilih.

"Untuk mempertegas bentuk-bentuk ujaran kebencian itu seperti apa," ujar Nasir. [Baca: Edaran
'Hate Speech' Kapolri, Mabes: Mulutmu Harimaumu]

Kolega Nasir Djamil di Komisi III, Desmond Junaidi Mahesa meminta Polri mengkaji ulang
surat tersebut. Menurut dia, surat itu tidak bisa menjadi pengekang kebebasan berekspresi
masyarakat sipil, yang selama ini diperjuangkan lewat jalan reformasi. Jika hal itu dilakukan
maka politikus Gerindra itu menilai Polri telah melanggar konstitusi yang berlaku.

"Kalau surat edaran itu menjadi pengekangan masyarakat sipil, saya pikir ini sudah melanggar
konstitusi kita," kata Desmond.

Jangan Resah

Terlepas dari pro kontra Surat Edaran tentang penanganan ujaran kebencian itu, Anggota Komisi
III DPR, Ruhut Sitompul mendukung surat edaran ini. Menurut dia, kebebasan berekspresi juga
harus bertanggung jawab.

"100 persen saya dukung Kapolri. Kebebasan itu harus bertanggung jawab. Ada pepatah di
kampung saya, mulutmu harimaumu. Jadi kalau sudah berani berucap, pertanggungjawabkan
ucapan itu, jangan suka-suka," kata Ruhut, Senin 2 November 2015.

Bahkan kata Ruhut, hukuman untuk yang melakukan 'hate speech' seharusnya dibikin lebih
berat. Hal tersebut demi menjaga demokrasi. "Kalau perlu lebih banyak lagi, jangan
sembarangan ngomong lah," ujar Ruhut.

Dukungan Ruhut ini didasarkan pada pengalamannya selalu mendapat ucapan dan perlakuan
yang tidak menyenangkan dari netizen. Surat edaran ini lanjut dia, memberikan angin segar
baginya, karena sebelum ada aturan ini, ia sulit melaporkan para pelaku 'hate speech'.

"Ini kan manusia yang merusak demokrasi. Kau buka saja online, tiap hari saya dimaki anjing,
babi, segalanya. Saya diam saja. Tiap hari DPR itu dimaki koruptor," kata Ruhut Sitompul.
 
Surat 'Hate Speech' Bisa Lahirkan Efek Mengerikan, Jika...

[Baca: Gara-gara Asap, Timbul Kebencian Terhadap Pemerintaan Pusat]

Sementara itu, Pakar Hukum Tata Negara Prof Mudzakir juga mengaku setuju dengan aturan
yang dikeluarkan Polri. Tapi ia masih mempertanyakan regulasi aturan tersebut. Sebab, sejauh
ini hal-hal yang dilakukan di media sosial serta sejumlah media lainnya untuk hate speech sudah
diatur dalam Undang-undang.

"Masyarakat tak perlu resah, surat edaran itu koordinasi internal kepolisian saja, tidak berlaku
untuk masyarakat. Itu agar polisi bisa mengambil keputusan di lapangan. Sebab, semua tindak
pidana yang ada di dalam surat edaran itu sudah dimuat dalam Undang-undang, seperti KUHP,
UU ITE, UU Penyiaran, dan sebagainya," kata Mudzakir.

Ia pun menyebut jika peraturan ini bukan hal yang baru. Mudzakir menyatakan lebih tertarik
pada tindakan kepolisian dalam menghukum seseorang jika yang melakukan 'hate speech'
dilakukan lebih dari satu orang, mengingat media sosial juga melibatkan sebuah group yang
berisi para teman, sahabat, atau keluarga.

"Apakah ada ukuran nilai masing-masing pelaku, kan mereka juga berbicara atau menghujat.
Mungkin pembicaraan itu sudah biasa buat mereka. Selain itu, bagaimana kalau SMS (pesan
singkat), antara dua orang. Siapa yang diamankan? Menurut saya sulit juga, kecuali bila SMS itu
disebarkan ke khalayak umum," ujar dia.

[Baca juga: Ahok: Larangan Demo Depan Istana Bukan Mau Batasi Demokrasi]

© VIVA.co.id