The Guillotine of Words: When Speaking Becomes Treason

In 2018, schoolteacher Baiq Nuril Maknun was sentenced to six months in prison and a fine of 500 million rupiah after the Supreme Court of Indonesia convicted her of defamation under UU ITE law (Electronic Transactions Law) for recording evidence of sexual harassment she faced from her principal (CNN, 2019). She was prosecuted under Article 27(3) of Chapter VII, which states, “Any Person who knowingly and without authority distributes and/or transmits and/or causes to be accessible Electronic Information and/or Electronic Records with contents of affronts and/or defamation” (Indonesian Government, n.d.)—outlining prohibited electronic communications, but not explicitly stating their penalties. Although public outcry and legal appeals led to her eventual amnesty, many others have not been so fortunate. 

Currently, in Indonesia, many are being restricted in their right to speak out, despite our Constitution granting us the right to free speech (Indonesia Const., Art. 28E,  1945). But how is this happening, you may ask? This occurs due to legal ambiguity that enables broad and subjective interpretation, a blessing for those seeking to shield themselves from criticism, but a curse for the majority—especially activists, journalists, artists, and everyday citizens—who can’t navigate or defend themselves against these rubber laws. This blurred line between free speech and speech that constitutes criminality—which remains undefined—only worsens the problem. One justification for speech restrictions is hate speech, often defined as ‘hostile speech’. Even so, hostility is subjective and open to interpretation, leaving room for the criminalization of dissent from authorities under vague laws like Article 28(2) of UU ITE (Indonesian Government, n.d.).

Then again, this is not an issue unique to Indonesia. Citizens globally unite to fight against criminalization of speech. In Thailand, under lèse-majesté laws, activists and journalists have similarly been imprisoned (CNN, 2021), demonstrating how legal ambiguity can be exploited for political control, enabling selective prosecution of society, particularly of journalists, activists, and opposition figures, reinforcing state control.

Indonesia’s current political climate is turbulent. While the current leaders of Indonesia are pushing for ambitious economic and infrastructural development, this focus comes at the cost of civil liberties. For example, initiatives such as Indonesia Vision 2045 (Visi Indonesia Emas 2045), which aim to improve infrastructure and economic growth, have led to the deprioritization of civil liberties, highlighting the urgent need to restore balance and reemphasize their importance.

As a result, because of the UU ITE law, actions such as the taking down of “defamatory” posts on social media sites such as TikTok have now begun to occur if they are “anti-state”. For example, in 2020, in response to the omnibus law passed, which made minimum wage laws less favorable to workers and reduced the decision-making role of local communities on environmental issues that impact their lives, when the online hashtag #ReformasiDikorupsi (#ReformCorrupted) spurred in social media as well as protests, The Widodo administration detained at least 600 citizens for organizing or taking part in the demonstrations (Carnegie Endowment, 2020). Moreover, Indonesia’s national police chief issued a telegram urging every regional police department to participate in the effort to maintain control over any protests about the omnibus bill on job creation (Jakarta Post, 2020). This begs the question: to what extent is government censorship an infringement on privacy and free speech? This is an especially pressing concern when those being discredited, and later faced with force, are being established so by being branded as “foreign-influenced” or “anti-state” simply because they express an unpopular opinion. Of course, genuine incitement to violence should not be protected–but this law is not being used solely for its purpose–it is also being weaponized against critics and whistleblowers.

Furthermore, during the 2025 student protests #IndonesiaGelap (#DarkIndonesia), students were met with police crackdowns and arrests under speech laws. With protestors voicing grievances regarding economic hardship, rising unemployment, and government mismanagement, they were met with force, with some reporting being met by tear gas and facing jail time over their protesting (CNN, 2025). Bands such as the Sukatani Punk Band, who criticized police corruption and abuse of power in their song “Bayar Bayar Bayar”, faced repercussions, with the lead singer being suspiciously dismissed from her job as a schoolteacher, and to issue an apology (The Independent, 2025). Such suppression of artistic expression sends a chilling message to society: that voicing criticism—whether through music, protest, or art—can lead to professional and personal consequences. This not only silences individual voices but also weakens the role of cultural and artistic movements in holding power to account. If we sit silent and allow this to happen, our democracy is only in name. A country cannot be truly democratic if people fear speaking out. If criticism is punished, leaders face no accountability, leading to unchecked power.

In this very moment, self-censorship is becoming the norm. If people fear job loss, intimidation, or surveillance, they are less likely to speak out. The current digital criminal codes are being used to silence dissenters, whether through legal charges or intimidation tactics. Protests are viewed as threats to national stability rather than a democratic participation tool, allowing the government to track, de-platform, and punish online dissenters. 

When people, or our children, see artists, students, and activists being silenced, they will stop speaking out—even if they disagree with the government. A society where people are afraid to express opinions is not free. And without open debate, the public cannot make informed decisions, leading to manipulation and misinformation.

Indonesia’s fight for free expression is entering a critical stage, and with increasingly sophisticated suppression methods, resistance will require new strategies. But the longer speech restrictions exist, the harder it becomes to reverse them. Future leaders can inherit and expand these powers, making repression the norm rather than the exception.

Please use your voice and make those who are comfortable uncomfortable. Support independent media, protect those who speak out, engage in civic education, and demand legal reform that protects your free expression.  After all, to be silent is to be complicit. If we stay silent, our words may soon face the guillotine, and speaking out will no longer be a right, but a crime.