"The situation of freedom of expression online in Indonesia affirms that Indonesia is shifting further from human rights and democracy. This is not much different from the situation in other countries in Southeast Asia which seem to be competing to be the worst in human rights and democracy. The shr ... inking space for democracy for civil society has the potential to make conditions worse because the state is difficult to be monitored and be reminded in protecting human rights, especially freedom of expression. Indonesia actually has quite a number of regulations that protect freedom of expression online or offline from laws to the constitution. However, there are still laws that restrict freedom of expression online, such as the Criminal Code, the ITE Law, the State Flag and Symbol Law and the Pornography Law. There is also a threat in the future if the Criminal Code Bill is passed because not only it will maintain articles that are often used to criminalise freedom of expression but it will also revive articles that have been revoked by the Constitutional Court. Apart from the legal substance that limits freedom of expression online, there are also problems in the application of the law. The application of treason and the ITE Law against Papuan activists and the application hate speech against human rights activists are some examples. The article on hate speech,which should be a tool to protect minority and vulnerable groups, is instead used to attack activists because law enforcement officials interpret all kinds of criticism or dislike as hate speech. Attacks on freedom of expression in Indonesia are increasingly diverse. Initially, attacks on freedom of expression online were generally related to slander, defamation and blasphemy but now it has expanded to treason articles, hate speech and spreading fake news. It is made worse by the presence of doxing, buzzing, bullying, hacking, blocking and shutting down the internet in a certain area." (Summary and conclusion, page 25-26) more

"This report and the associated workbook seeks to contribute to the discourse in three ways. First, we hope to open an extensible documentation and overview of practices, experiences, and resources on the legitimisation of, and resistance to, state-backed internet shutdowns across the world. Second, ... we seek to enable and advance a collective understanding of emerging legal and jurisprudential frameworks being used to legitimise and resist internet shutdowns. Free and open access to such data would help human rights lawyers and civil society advocates to locate relevant jurisprudence and accordingly tailor strategies." (About this report, page 6) more

"It may be observed that, first, at the level of public perception, government actions to restrict free speech are often preceded by statements criticizing the media and foreshadowing a penalty or sanction, which are actually directed to the public and not the media, as if to prime the latter on the ... acceptability of the planned restrictions. The president and his personnel routinely come up with fresh allegations, repeated over time, to discredit journalists and the media, which, in a social media environment crowded with ‘trolls’ and which is at the mercy of algorithms, may be deeply reinforced by echo chambers and confirmation bias. Second, to justify the implementation of legal restrictions, law personnel take a very liberal interpretation of laws, which just straggles the line between what is allowable and what is not (the idea of “continuing publication”; vagueness in the terms “public interest,” “spreading panic or fear,” etc.) thereby allowing the interpretation a degree of legitimacy, since it not entirely wrong and is subjective. Third, freedom of expression is not the only battlefront, so to speak, as evinced by government’s reexaminations of corporate registrations, licenses, permits, and franchises of media entities. At their core, media entities are corporations and journalists are mostly employees (if not contributors) and in that context, there is space for government agencies to nitpick on documents submitted to their offices as part of regulatory compliance, and prepare in advance legal arguments based on records under their custody." (Summary and conclusion, page 40) more