Perbedaan Pembuktian dalam Putusan Pemidanaan dan Bebas Tindak Pidana Pencemaran Nama Baik Melalui Media Sosial (Analisis Putusan PN No. 115/ Pidsus/ 2023/ PN Bir dan Putusan MA No. 2303 K/Pidsus 2024)

Abstract

Defamation through social media is a form of crime against honor that is increasingly common along with the rapid development of information technology. This crime poses its own challenges, especially in terms of proof, because the elements of honor and good name are subjective and often give rise to different interpretations among law enforcers. The problems in this thesis consist of how the regulations related to the crime of defamation in Indonesian criminal law, how the relationship between proof of the crime and the form of the judge's decision, and how the judge's considerations differ in proving the element of defamation in Decision No. 115/PidSus/2023/PN BIR and Supreme Court Decision No. 2303 K/Pidsus 2024. The type of research used is normative legal research with a statutory approach and a case approach. The data sources used are secondary data which are analyzed qualitatively to answer the problems in this paper. Legal regulations related to defamation are regulated in Article 27 paragraph (3) in conjunction with Article 45 paragraph (3) of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions. The provisions regarding evidence in Indonesian criminal procedure law refer to the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code and have developed through various laws and regulations outside the Criminal Procedure Code. The criminal procedure system in Indonesia adheres to a negative system of evidence according to law, which requires the fulfillment of evidence as regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code and the judge's conviction in the proof process. Based on the results of this study, it is concluded that the difference in the judge's considerations in proving the element of defamation is the basis for the difference in decisions between the Bireuen District Court and the Supreme Court. The Bireuen District Court considered the defendant's comments to be a form of criticism that was still within the limits of freedom of expression so that the elements of Article 45 paragraph (3) in conjunction with Article 27 paragraph (3) of the ITE Law were not fulfilled and the defendant was acquitted. On the other hand, the Supreme Court considered the element of defamation proven based on legal facts obtained from evidence in court and sentenced him to 4 months' imprisonment with an 8-month probationary period.