Problematika RUU Penyiaran oleh Kelompok 1 Sistem Hukum Indonesia

Summary

The script discusses the revision of Indonesia's Broadcasting Law No. 32 of 2002, highlighting the need for clarity in defining new, social, and digital media. It addresses controversies such as the potential for the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) to restrict freedom of expression and the proposed regulation of journalistic works by KPI, which could limit press freedom and investigative journalism. Concerns about the KPI's dual role as a regulator and dispute resolver are raised, along with worries about political intervention in journalism. The summary also touches on the public's limited access to information and the potential for increased government control over broadcasting.

Takeaways

• 📚 The group S will present the discussed material with a moderator and various presenters.
• 📜 The RUU Broadcasting Bill is a revision of the Broadcasting Law No. 32 of 2002, initially proposed from 2009 to 2019 but never enacted.
• 📊 The revision aims to address controversies and clarify definitions between traditional and digital media platforms.
• 📡 The revision started due to competition between terrestrial news platforms and digital journalism platforms.
• 👥 The RUU Broadcasting Bill seeks to bridge public interest and government access to information.
• 📻 The bill proposes merging RRI (Radio Republik Indonesia) and TVRI (Televisi Republik Indonesia) into RTRI for national unity and better public information dissemination.
• 📑 The bill aims to create legal certainty for managing public broadcasting institutions and to promote national unity and cultural values.
• ⚖️ The revision includes controlling journalistic content and addressing concerns over freedom of expression and political interference.
• 📝 The bill mandates content verification by KPI before being uploaded to digital platforms, which has raised concerns among content creators and journalists.
• 🎙️ The bill includes controversial articles that may restrict investigative journalism and impose penalties for content deemed harmful or inappropriate.

Q & A

What is the main topic of discussion in the script?

The main topic of discussion in the script is the revision of the Broadcasting Law (RUU Penyiaran) in Indonesia, including its background, objectives, and the controversies surrounding it.

Why is the revision of the Broadcasting Law considered urgent?

The revision of the Broadcasting Law is considered urgent due to the frequent controversies that have arisen during its implementation and the need to clarify definitions between new media, social media, digital media, and their distinction from conventional media.

What is the role of the KPI (Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia) in the context of the Broadcasting Law revision?

The KPI is involved in the revision process to ensure that public broadcasting institutions can serve as a bridge of interest between the public and government officials for transparent access to information. It also has the authority to resolve journalistic disputes in the broadcasting field.

What are the concerns regarding the KPI's role in regulating journalism and investigative reporting?

There are concerns that the KPI's role in regulating journalism could limit press freedom, hamper investigative journalism and criticism of the government, and lead to potential misuse of power due to its history of imposing sanctions on media critical of the government.

What is the controversy surrounding the definition of broadcasting in the new law?

The controversy lies in the inclusion of digital platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, which have different operating logics compared to traditional broadcasting. The new law's definition of broadcasting may not adequately address the unique characteristics of digital platforms.

What is the issue with the proposed regulation of content on digital platforms?

The issue is that digital platform operators are required to verify their content with the KPI before broadcasting, which could stifle creativity and limit the diversity of content available to the public.

What are the potential implications of the proposed Article 8A regarding the KPI's authority?

Article 8A could lead to an overlap of authority between the KPI and the Press Council (Dewan Pers), potentially causing confusion and conflict over the resolution of journalistic disputes.

What is the controversy surrounding the proposed Article 28A regarding the content of subscription broadcasting?

Article 28A is controversial because it prohibits the broadcasting of content that is harmful to national interests, national defense, and includes elements of pornography, sadism, and challenges to race, religion, and LGBT+ behavior, which some argue limits content diversity and viewer satisfaction.

What are the concerns about the proposed Article 34F that requires digital platform operators to verify their content with KPI?

The concerns are that this requirement could hinder the creativity of content creators and journalists, as they would need to ensure their content complies with broadcasting standards and content guidelines set by the KPI before publishing.

What is the potential impact of Article 42 on press freedom and public access to information?

Article 42 could potentially weaken press freedom by limiting the scope of investigative journalism and critical reporting, as it requires broadcasters to comply with the broadcasting standards set by the KPI, which may restrict access to diverse information.

What are the implications of the proposed Article 50B regarding the continuous broadcasting of investigative journalism?

Article 50B could limit the continuous broadcasting of investigative reports on issues like corruption, as it prohibits the continuous airing of news that could be considered as damaging to one's good name or reputation.

What concerns are raised by the proposed Article 51E regarding the settlement of journalistic disputes?

Article 51E raises concerns about weakening the role of the Press Council in protecting press freedom and hindering investigative journalism, as it could lead to lengthy and costly legal processes for resolving disputes, potentially discouraging journalists from publishing sensitive cases.