Jakarta, Kartunet.com - Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. However, this freedom sometimes clashes with the freedom of others, especially on the internet where everyone has equal access regardless of background. This understanding emerged during my participation in a series of Focus Group Discussions (FGD) on freedom of expression on the internet, organized by Internet Sehat ICT Watch at the IDC 3D building in Jakarta (07/07).
The event, supported by XL and AXIOO among others, invited blogger representatives from several representative regions in Indonesia. From Aceh, Medan, Banjarmasin, Pontianak, Surabaya, Jakarta, Makassar, Ambon, and Papua are some of the regions I recall. They were brought together by ICT Watch to hold a discussion on freedom of expression and formulate recommendations for internet users. I was invited to represent Kartunet Community, a youth community with disabilities focused on leveraging information technology.
In the first session, titled “Social Media for Social Movement,” there was a sharing session by Ayu Oktariani (@ayuma_morie) from the Indonesian AIDS Coalition (IAC). Ayu explained how IAC uses social media like Twitter and Facebook as campaign platforms to combat negative stigma against people living with HIV AIDS (PLWHA). Through the Twitter account @ODHAberhaksehat, IAC educates the public that it is not PLWHA who should be shunned, but only HIV AIDS itself. With correct information about HIV AIDS transmission, the public does not need to avoid PLWHA, especially for simple acts like shaking hands or social interaction.
Ayu and IAC's movement reminded me of what Kartunet does with disability issues. The core objective of IAC's movement is to change public perception, which generally views PLWHA as “naughty,” immoral, or other negative stigmas. In reality, not all PLWHA contract HIV AIDS due to their own negative actions. As Ayu stated, she was not an intravenous drug user or a proponent of free sex. She contracted HIV AIDS from her legally wedded husband. Therefore, she is not at fault, and it is irrational for society to attach negative stigmas to every PLWHA.
On this occasion, Ayu also requested the participation of bloggers and internet activists in the @ODHAberhaksehat campaign. Ayu shared that currently, only three people actively contribute to IAC's social media campaign. It would certainly be very helpful if more internet activists joined in spreading positive information about PLWHA. Hmm, this is quite similar to the efforts undertaken by Kartunet Community. Many parties are needed to understand disability and help disseminate that information.
Before lunch, the event continued with a discussion session titled “Freedom of Expression and Its Impact on Society” by Lokmant Sui from Google Hong Kong and Dandhy Laksono. Lokmant Sui, who is also a blogger, explained the differences between conventional media and new media today. He highlighted how filtering efforts in new media are almost impossible. Information and transparency can no longer be contained like in conventional media. Lokmant also explained that there is already a Google Transparency Report detailing the level of information transparency in each country, and Indonesia is one of Google's concerns in Asia.
Meanwhile, Dandhy Laksono, also a journalist, began his presentation by showing a documentary video about the history of censorship in Indonesia. The video focused on the existence of the Ministry of Information during the New Order era and Harmoko as the minister at the time. Dandhy explained how the fate of mass media at that time was in the hands of the Ministry of Information with the existence of SIUP (Surat Izin Usaha Penerbitan) or Publishing Business Permits. At any time, if a mass medium was deemed “dangerous” to the government, its SIUP could be revoked by the Ministry of Information.
Dandhy then presented his observations on the increasing control of national media by oligopolistic forces. Media outlet after media outlet was consolidated through the acquisition of shares controlled by conglomerates. These owners then set the policy direction for the media they controlled, including their political orientation.
One interesting point Dandhy raised was that platforms currently play a crucial role in shaping media direction. Content is not longer been the king, but platform is the one. This statement implies that where information is directed depends on who manages it, in this case, the platform. A media worker, whether they like it or not, must follow the editorial policy set by the editor-in-chief, who is also influenced by the media owner. Thus, media workers are not entirely free to report what truly happens, but rather what the platform desires.
It was indeed an engaging discussion, especially after the ISOMA break, which was followed by the next discussion session on “Freedom of Expression and Our Social Media.” This time, the discussion featured Yogi Nugraha from Kompas TV and Shita Laksmi from HIVOS Indonesia. Shita presented her research findings at HIVOS regarding community media. She emphasized that community media serves as a “breath of fresh air” amidst mainstream media, which is often laden with industrial interests. Community media uncovers what mainstream media might not consider “sexy” but is actually needed by community members.
From Shinta Laksmi's presentation, I gained new enthusiasm for Kartunet as a community media. Kartunet.com, as a community media for youth with disabilities, has an important role in bringing disability issues, which have long been submerged in the public sphere, to the forefront. Kartunet.com bears a great responsibility to convert the voices of people with disabilities in various regions so that they can then be accessed by the public via the internet. I am confident that what Kartunet Community is fighting for is not utopian, but rather an effort to improve this nation, which has marginalized people with disabilities.
On the other hand, Yogi Nugraha, who has extensive experience in several major media outlets, revealed the inner workings of media newsrooms. Yogi admitted that as a media worker, journalistic ideals are often curtailed when they come into contact with the interests of platform owners. Unlike bloggers or citizen journalism activists who are freer to express their opinions, there are editorial rules that limit the freedom of expression for media workers.
Towards the afternoon, the event location moved to House of Eva, not far from IDC 3D Jakarta, for a short break and to commence the Focus Group Discussion (FGD). In this FGD, participants were divided into four main groups, discussing topics such as information diversity, information asymmetry, copyright polemics, and the issue of privacy versus transparency.
Several interesting points caught my attention. Regarding information asymmetry, this refers to a situation where information for a marginalized group is either withheld or made difficult to access by other groups. Typically, those who experience this are marginalized communities such as people with disabilities, the poor, PLWHA, LGBTQ individuals, and other minority groups. They usually lack widespread access to information, such as the very limited information on disability and HIV AIDS that is easily digestible by the public. The impact of this information asymmetry is the further marginalization of these groups, making them seem neglected. Therefore, it is considered important to integrate these marginalized groups into society to prevent a “social gap.”
It was also interesting when the discussion touched upon freedom of expression and the clash between privacy and transparency. This conflict has led to several cases where individuals, in their desire to express themselves, were criminalized on charges of defamation. Mr. Heru Tjatur, representing the group discussing this issue, stated that in media, an individual has two rights simultaneously: privacy and transparency. The right to demand transparency regarding a public service is held by everyone. On the other hand, an individual has the right to privacy, not to reveal their true identity when demanding transparency in public, including internet media. Problems arise when the party asked to be transparent fails to fulfill its obligations, and the party demanding and exposing wrongdoing does not obscure their identity.
There was also a discussion about the very weak legal position of bloggers or internet activists in the eyes of the law when engaging in citizen journalism. When an article is created following journalistic principles, the writer enters the realm of press law. Legal treatment applicable to official press can also be applied to bloggers or internet activists. From this, legal protection is needed, and it was stated in the forum that the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) is ready to act as a defender in such cases.
However, as a preventive measure, Pakde @BlontankPoer advised that when writing an investigation, it should be done courteously, including obscuring the individuals or groups being discussed. With the right technique, readers will still grasp the author's intended perception without creating an opportunity for direct defamation.
The FGD concluded with an agreement to give a small committee time to formulate recommendations on the issue of freedom of expression. Hopefully, the results of this FGD can serve as a guide for internet activists to be more intelligent in their freedom of expression. Caution does not mean being restrained, but rather being wiser in using elegant methods of expression. Thank you to ICT Watch Internet Sehat for inviting Kartunet Community to this enlightening event. (DPM)