When a post is questioned by others, content creators often immediately look for articles that can defend them. The most frequently mentioned name is Law Number 9 of 1998 concerning the Freedom to Express Opinions in Public. This law is real, still in effect since it was enacted on October 26, 1998, and its title sounds exactly like what is needed. The problem is, the explanation of the law itself states the opposite.
The most frequently misdirected reference
The General Explanation of Law 9/1998 closes its scope with one sentence that is rarely quoted: this law regulates the forms and procedures for expressing opinions in public and does not regulate the expression of opinions through mass media, whether print or electronic.
The content of its articles is consistent with that limitation. Article 9 paragraph (1) only recognizes four forms of expressing opinions: demonstrations, parades, public meetings, and free forums. Article 10 paragraph (3) requires written notification to the police at least 3 x 24 hours before the activity begins. Article 18 paragraph (1) threatens imprisonment for up to 1 year for anyone who obstructs the activity with violence or threats of violence. The entire framework is designed for people gathering in physical spaces, not for those pressing the upload button.
Articles that mention electronic media in writing
For uploads, the references are found elsewhere, and three of them explicitly mention the channels.
Article 28E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution guarantees the right of every person to freedom of association, assembly, and expression. Article 28F adds the right to communicate and obtain information, including the right to convey information using any available channels. It is the phrase "any available channels" that accommodates channels that did not exist when the article was drafted.
Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights, enacted on September 23, 1999, elaborates on this in more detail. Article 14 paragraph (2) recognizes the right to seek, obtain, possess, store, process, and convey information using any available means. Article 23 paragraph (2) literally mentions the media: every person is free to have, express, and disseminate opinions according to their conscience, orally or in writing, through print and electronic media.
The third layer comes from Law Number 12 of 2005, which ratifies the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 19 paragraph (1) of the covenant guarantees the right to express opinions without interference, and paragraph (2) includes the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information orally, in writing, in printed form, through artistic works, or by other media of their choice.
If you prefer to see the explanation directly, the legal basis for freedom of expression for content creators is also discussed in a class clip.
The limits are written in the same sentence
These three references do not provide unconditional freedom, and the conditions are not hidden in other articles. They are all attached to the same sentence.
Article 23 paragraph (2) of Law 39/1999 closes its sentence with five things that must be considered: religious values, decency, public order, public interest, and national integrity. Article 19 paragraph (3) of the covenant states that this right carries special obligations and responsibilities, so it can be limited, but only in accordance with the law and only for two purposes: to respect the rights or reputation of others, and to protect national security, public order, health, or public morals. Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution follows the same pattern and emphasizes that restrictions must be established by law.
Therefore, a useful question when you are reprimanded is not whether your post is protected, but whether the restrictions imposed on it have a legal basis and fall into one of the purposes mentioned above. Both questions can be answered by reading the text, not by guessing.
The same direction is evident in recent developments. On August 28, 2026, the Constitutional Court granted the petition in Decision Number 282/PUU-XXIII/2025 and stated that Article 240 along with its explanation and Article 241 of the Criminal Code are contrary to the 1945 Constitution, considering that the government and state institutions must be open to oversight, criticism, and public opinion. It should be noted that the limits protecting the reputation of individuals were not affected by this decision.
Sources
- Law Number 9 of 1998 concerning the Freedom to Express Opinions in Public, JDIH BPK
- Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights, JDIH BKN
- Law Number 12 of 2005 concerning the Ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, JDIH BPK
- Human Rights Protection in Articles 28A to 28J of the 1945 Constitution, Hukumonline
- Constitutional Court Cancels Articles on Defamation of Government and State Institutions in the National Criminal Code, Hukumonline