In recent weeks, Indonesia has been gripped by a heated debate over the boundaries of freedom of expression, triggered by the arrest of a university student for creating and sharing a meme depicting President Prabowo Subianto and former President Joko Widodo in a kissing pose. The image, which quickly went viral on social media, has divided public opinion: some view it as a creative form of political satire, while others see it as an affront to public morals and respect for national leaders.
The incident has reignited longstanding questions about the limits of artistic and political expression in Indonesia, a country with a complex relationship between tradition, modernity, and democracy. At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question: Is political satire a crime, or is it a vital part of democratic discourse that should be protected, even when it offends?
As authorities invoke the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE) to justify legal action against the meme’s creator, civil society organisations, legal experts, and ordinary citizens are weighing in on what this means for Indonesia’s commitment to freedom of speech. The outcome of this debate will not only determine the fate of a single student but could also shape the future of creative and political expression in the world’s third-largest democracy.
The origin of this case is quite simple, but its impact has been huge. A female student from ITB created an image showing President Prabowo and former President Joko Widodo kissing. She posted it on social media, and within hours, it went viral, sparking widespread discussion and meme wars across Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok. The public quickly became divided: some saw it as bold political satire, while others considered it disrespectful and inappropriate.
The most serious reaction came from law enforcement. The police immediately took action, charging the student under the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE), particularly articles related to decency and defamation. Soon after, the student was detained and faced legal proceedings. Many were shocked because memes are usually seen as harmless jokes or political commentary, but this time it led to police involvement.
The case quickly became a trending topic. Activists, artists, and legal experts spoke out. Amnesty International Indonesia, for example, emphasised that peaceful expression-including political memes-should not be criminalised. Meanwhile, some members of the public supported the police’s actions, arguing it was necessary to uphold national moral values.
So, this kissing meme case is more than just about a funny image; it has become a battleground between freedom of expression, the law, and cultural values in Indonesia. Who would have thought that a single post could stir up an entire nation?
The legal basis for the arrest and prosecution of the student primarily rests on Indonesia’s Electronic Information and Transactions Law, commonly known as UU ITE. This law, enacted in 2008 and revised several times, regulates electronic information and communication, including social media content. While UU ITE aims to combat cybercrime, misinformation, and online defamation, many of its provisions are criticised for being overly broad and vague, leading to potential misuse against freedom of expression.
Key articles often invoked in cases like this include:
- Article 27(1), prohibits the distribution of electronic information that violates decency. The term “decency” is not clearly defined, allowing for subjective interpretation that can criminalise artistic or political expressions.
- Article 27(3), addresses defamation and insults through electronic media. Although intended to protect individuals’ reputations, this article has been used to silence critics and political dissenters (you must know that things like this often happened during the Mulyono regime).
- Article 28(2), criminalises hate speech and incitement to violence online.
In recent years, the Indonesian Constitutional Court has made rulings to limit the scope of UU ITE’s application. For example, a 2025 decision restricted who can file defamation complaints, excluding government officials and corporations to prevent abuse of the law. However, many problematic clauses remain, and the law still poses a threat to free speech, especially in the digital space.
Critics argue that UU ITE’s vague language and harsh penalties create a “chilling effect,” discouraging people from expressing political opinions, satire, or criticism freely. This is especially concerning in a democracy where open dialogue and dissent are essential.
In the case of the meme, the authorities applied UU ITE’s provisions on decency and defamation to justify legal action, framing the image as offensive and damaging to the reputations of the political figures involved. This raises important questions about whether the law is being used to protect public morals or to suppress legitimate political expression.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right protected by Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to express opinions and ideas freely. Additionally, Indonesia is a party to international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which further reinforces the right to free speech, including political expression and artistic creativity.
Political satire, including memes, has long been recognized globally as a legitimate and important form of expression that contributes to democratic discourse. Satire challenges those in power, encourages public debate, and helps hold leaders accountable. In Indonesia’s vibrant democracy, such expression is crucial for transparency and citizen participation.
However, freedom of expression is not absolute. It can be limited to protect public order, morality, and the rights of others, but such limitations must be clearly defined, necessary, and proportionate. This principle is enshrined both in Indonesian law and international human rights standards.
In practice, though, many observers argue that the current legal environment, particularly the application of UU ITE, imposes excessive restrictions on free speech. The vague wording of “decency” and “defamation” articles often leads to arbitrary enforcement, disproportionately affecting activists, journalists, artists, and ordinary citizens who criticize political figures.
Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International Indonesia, have repeatedly called on the government to reform UU ITE to better protect freedom of expression. They emphasize that peaceful political satire, even if provocative or offensive to some, should never be criminalized.
The case of the meme highlights the tension between Indonesia’s constitutional guarantees and the realities of legal enforcement, raising urgent questions about how to balance respect for cultural values with the need to uphold democratic freedoms.
The controversy surrounding the meme also touches on deeply rooted cultural and moral values in Indonesia. Respect for political leaders and public figures is traditionally emphasised, and many Indonesians hold conservative views about propriety, especially regarding public displays of affection or depictions that challenge social norms.
For some, the image of two prominent male politicians kissing crosses a line of decency and respect. It may be seen as offensive, disrespectful, or even provocative in a society where such expressions are taboo. This reaction is often tied to cultural, religious, and social beliefs that shape what is considered acceptable public behaviour.
However, offence is inherently subjective. What one group finds offensive, another may see as a legitimate form of critique or artistic expression. In pluralistic societies, this tension is common and requires careful balancing.
Art and satire often aim to push boundaries and provoke thought. They use symbolism and exaggeration to highlight political realities or contradictions. The meme in question likely intends to send a critical message rather than to insult or degrade.
Therefore, labeling the image simply as “immoral” overlooks its potential as a tool for political commentary. It is important to differentiate between genuine obscenity or hate speech and provocative art that challenges power structures.
This debate reflects broader questions about how societies negotiate cultural sensitivities while protecting freedom of expression, especially in a diverse country like Indonesia.
The legal action against the meme creator has broader implications beyond this single case. It sends a strong signal to artists, activists, and ordinary citizens about the risks of expressing dissent or using satire in Indonesia’s digital space. This can create a “chilling effect,” where people self-censor out of fear of legal repercussions.
Memes and digital art have become powerful tools for political commentary and social critique worldwide, especially among younger generations. Restricting such expressions risks stifling creativity and silencing important voices in public discourse.
Moreover, the case highlights the tension between protecting cultural values and upholding democratic freedoms. While respect for tradition and morality is important, it should not come at the cost of suppressing legitimate criticism and artistic innovation.
Civil society groups and legal experts have called for urgent reforms to UU ITE and related laws to ensure they do not undermine freedom of expression. They argue that laws should clearly distinguish between harmful speech and peaceful satire or criticism.
Ultimately, how Indonesia navigates this balance will shape its democratic future and its reputation as a country that respects human rights and creative freedom.
The case of the meme depicting President Prabowo and former President Joko Widodo kissing has sparked a vital conversation about the limits and protections of freedom of expression in Indonesia. It highlights the complex interplay between law, culture, and politics in a diverse society.
While cultural sensitivities and respect for public figures are important, they should not be used to justify the criminalisation of peaceful political satire and artistic expression. Laws like UU ITE, with their vague and broad provisions, risk being weaponised to suppress dissent and silence critical voices.
Protecting freedom of expression, including controversial and provocative art, is essential for a healthy democracy. It enables open dialogue, holds power accountable, and fosters creativity and innovation.
Indonesia stands at a crossroads. The choices made now regarding legal reforms and societal attitudes toward political satire will shape the country’s democratic future and its commitment to human rights.
Ultimately, political satire is not a crime—it is a fundamental part of democratic life that must be safeguarded.
