Legal Regulation Of Hate Speech Offences with a Restorative Justice Approach 1. Kurniawan, 2. Judhariksawan, 3. Slamet Sampurno, 4 Maskun.
1. Kurniawan, Program Doktor Ilmu Hukum Universitas Hasanuddin Makasar. email: advkurniawan88[at]gmail.com
2. Judhariksawan, Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar. email: judhariksawan[at]gmail.com
3. Slamet sampurno, Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar. email: slametsampurno[at]gmail.com
4. Maskun, Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar. email: maskunlawschool[at]yahoo.co.id
Abstract
Abstract
This research focuses on the legal regulation of hate speech within the legal definition. Hate speech refers to words, behaviors, writings, or performances that are prohibited because they can incite social conflict, violence, and prejudiced attitudes from both the perpetrators and victims of such actions. The enforcement of hate speech laws is inseparable from legal substance and legal culture. The objective of this study is to formulate legal regulations regarding hate speech offenses and identify different law enforcement processes. This research is categorized as qualitative normative research (doctrinal). The approaches used in this study are conceptual, historical, legal, comparative, and case approaches.
The results of the research show that Article 28 paragraph 2 states that anyone who intentionally and without right incites, invites, or influences others to distribute and/or transmit information aimed at stirring up hatred or hostility towards individuals and/or certain groups based on ethnicity, religion, nationality, race, or gender through Electronic Information, Electronic Information, and/or Electronic Documents shall be punished. Based on this formulation, the prohibited act differs from the essence of Article 28 paragraph (2), where the prohibited act is actually ^causing others to distribute and/or transmit information^ as a consequential element (material offense). The expansion of the meaning of intergroup in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 76/PUU-XV/2017 concerning the substantive review of Article 28 paragraph 2 and Article 45 paragraph 2 is considered contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. The term intergroup not only includes ethnicity, religion, and race but also encompasses other entities not represented by ethnicity, religion, and race, which are then categorized as intergroups. Through systematic interpretation, the term ^group^ in Article 156 of the Criminal Code can be used to determine the criteria for the concept of ^intergroup^ in Article 28 paragraph (2). However, the qualification of what entities fall into the category of groups or intergroups is not further explained. Based on this formulation, it can be said that this article covers acts outside the electronic realm since the prohibited act is ^causing others to distribute and/or transmit information,^ whereas it should be contextualized with the Information and Electronic Transactions Act (ITE) where the prohibited act should be ^speech^ or ^proselytization^ through electronic means. Furthermore, clarification is needed regarding ^community groups,^ where community groups refer to other inherent and unchangeable identities, not intended to insult individuals, legal entities, state institutions, public authorities, or positions.
Keywords: Keywords: Legal Regulation, Hate Speech, Restorative Justice.
