KEMERDEKAAN MENYAMPAIKAN PENDAPAT DALAM UUD 1945 | Ternyata Bukan Termasuk Hak Asasi Manusia

Summary

In this video, the speaker explores the misinterpretation of Article 28 in the 1945 Indonesian Constitution, specifically regarding freedom of speech, association, and assembly. Contrary to common belief, these freedoms are not considered human rights but rather freedoms that are subject to legal regulations. The speaker emphasizes that expression should not be confused with the right to insult others, highlighting the importance of constructive criticism. The distinction between constitutional freedoms and human rights is clarified, shedding light on how freedom of speech must align with existing laws, particularly regarding defamation and public criticism.

Takeaways

• 😀 Article 28 in Indonesia's 1945 Constitution guarantees freedom of association, assembly, and expression, but it is not part of the human rights section of the Constitution.
• 😀 The freedom to express thoughts is not an absolute constitutional right but is subject to laws and regulations.
• 😀 Article 28 is found under the chapter concerning citizens and residents, not under the human rights chapter.
• 😀 The construction of the language in Article 28 implies that freedom of expression is regulated by laws and is not automatically a human right.
• 😀 Indonesia's Constitution distinguishes between freedom of expression and human rights, emphasizing regulated freedom over unconditional rights.
• 😀 The interpretation that people have an unconditional constitutional right to speak freely is a misinterpretation of Article 28.
• 😀 The Constitution's Section on Human Rights (Articles 28a-28j) does not specifically address the right to free speech in public.
• 😀 The freedom to express thoughts, whether orally or in writing, must align with regulations and not violate other laws, such as defamation laws.
• 😀 Criticism is valid when it is constructive and educational, not when it is insulting or demeaning to others.
• 😀 The idea that freedom of speech allows for insulting others is a misunderstanding, as it contradicts regulations on defamation in Indonesian law.
• 😀 Constructive criticism is a tool for addressing issues without resorting to degrading language or harmful expressions.

Q & A

What is the main point discussed in the transcript?

The main point discussed is the misunderstanding surrounding the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech in Indonesia. The speaker clarifies that the freedom of speech, including the right to express opinions, is not categorized under human rights in the 1945 Constitution but rather under citizenship rights, which are subject to regulations.

How does the speaker interpret Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution?

The speaker explains that Article 28, which guarantees the freedom to associate, assemble, and express opinions, does not belong to the section on human rights in the Constitution. Instead, it is part of the section on 'citizenship and residency,' meaning it is not framed as an absolute human right, but rather as a freedom regulated by law.

What key difference is highlighted between Article 28 and Articles 28A-28J?

Article 28 is about freedom of expression, but its phrasing requires compliance with laws, unlike Articles 28A to 28J, which explicitly define human rights. The key difference is that Article 28 does not guarantee an unconditional right to free speech, but instead allows it within the framework of legal regulations.

Why does the speaker believe many people misunderstand the Constitution's stance on free speech?

The speaker believes many people misunderstand because they assume that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the Constitution, whereas in reality, the Constitution treats it as a regulated freedom within the context of citizenship rights, not as an unrestricted right.

How does the speaker argue that the public views criticism in relation to free speech?

The speaker argues that many people confuse criticism with insults. While criticizing someone, one does not need to use degrading or insulting language. Criticism can be constructive and respectful without attacking someone's dignity or reputation.

What does the speaker suggest is a common misconception regarding the use of offensive language in criticism?

The speaker suggests that a common misconception is that offensive language, such as calling someone derogatory names, is seen as a form of valid criticism. In reality, such language is not criticism but insult, and real criticism should focus on issues without undermining personal dignity.

How does the speaker differentiate between free speech and the right to insult others?

The speaker clarifies that while free speech is allowed, it should not be interpreted as the right to insult or defame others. Insulting language, like calling someone an animal, does not contribute to a valid criticism. Proper criticism should be constructive and focused on issues.

What legal framework does the speaker reference in relation to speech that harms others?

The speaker references the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUH Pidana) sections on defamation, highlighting that while freedom of speech is protected, speech that harms someone's reputation, such as defamation, is still subject to legal consequences under Indonesian law.

How does the speaker propose to improve the quality of public discourse?

The speaker proposes that people should aim to use more educational and respectful language in criticism. Instead of insulting others, they should focus on discussing the issues and using language that encourages constructive dialogue.

What conclusion does the speaker reach about the nature of the constitutional right to free speech?

The speaker concludes that the right to express opinions is not an absolute human right but a regulated freedom. It should not be interpreted as a freedom to insult others, and it must be in line with the laws and regulations set by the government.