Palace Respect Mk Declose on Defamation Article does not apply to the setting

Jakarta – The Constitutional Court (MK) has decided that the defamation article does not apply to government institutions or posts. The palace emphasized that the government complied with the decision of the Constitutional Court. “As for the results of the ruling of the Constitutional Court, we first officially received an excerpt or copy of the ruling of the Constitutional Court, which will of course coordinate immediately. Secondly, the government of course respects what the MK decision is and will certainly make the decision when the decision said Wednesday (30/4/2025). Indonesia has. But most importantly, to let the freedom of opinion based on a sense of responsibility, “Prasetyo said. Prasetyo hopes the community is not with hatred opinions. He also hoped that opinions are conveyed, accompanied by data. I think this is the most principle of the results of the decision of the Constitutional Court, “he said. The court granted a lawsuit related to the defamation article of the MK’s good name to allow a lawsuit number 105/puu-xxii/2024 by a resident named Daniel Frits Maurits Tangkilisan. Law, Section 45 paragraph (4) of the ITE Act, sued, section 28 paragraph (2) of the ITE Act, to section 45A paragraph (2) of the ITE Act. Affairs lawsuit related to Article 27A, Article 45 paragraph (4), Article 28 paragraph (2), and Article 45A paragraph (2). Article 28: (2) all deliberately and without the right to distribute and/or transfer electronic information and/or electronic documents, or to influence others, or a sense of hatred or hostility of certain individuals and/or groups based on race, nationality, ethnicity, skin color, religion, gender, gender, mental disability, or physical weed in form 45: (4) of electronic Electronic system is performed, as referred to in Article 27A, is sentenced for a maximum of 2 years to imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of RP. 400,000,000 Section 45a: (2) Any person who intentionally and without the right to distribute and/or surrender electronic information and/or electronic documents to give up and/or certain community groups based on race, nationality, ethnicity, skin color, religion, faith, gender, mental disability, or a maximum imprisonment of 6 years and a maximum paragraph (2). RP fine second to the number 11 years 2008 regarding ITS is contrary to the Constitution of 1945 and does not have a legitimate power bond, as long as it is not interpreted ‘other than government institutions, a group of people with specific identities or certain, institutions, corporations, occupations, or positions’ 3. interpretation or a good name of a person ‘4. The phrase ‘distributes and/or sends electronic information and/or electronic documents that others incite, invites or influences to cause a sense of hatred or hostility towards certain individuals and/or group groups’ in section 28 paragraph (2) and section 45a paragraph (2) of the legislation and number 1 2024 11 of 2008 Concling of Concerary is not a conditional Electronic information and/or electronic documents containing the actions/distribution of hatred based on certain identities that are performed intentionally and publicly, which have real risks for discrimination, hostility or violence “Remember: Remember Haris-Fatia’s lawsuit. The inspirational story of exemplary police candidates here