Objectivity and the Ethics of Freedom of Expression in the Perspective of Democracy in Indonesia
Keywords:
freedom of expression, objectivity, communication ethics, digital democracyAbstract
This study examines the objectivity of the ethics of freedom of expression in the perspective of democracy in Indonesia. Using a qualitative library-research (studi kepustakaan) approach, data were collected from national and international journals, scholarly books, legislation, and official documents, then analysed through content analysis and source triangulation. The findings reveal four key dimensions: (1) democracy and freedom of expression, where the right to speak is a prerequisite for inclusive and participatory democracy; (2) communication ethics and objectivity, which require that expression be grounded in facts, accuracy, and respect for human dignity; (3) digital democracy, disinformation, and polarisation, where algorithmic echo chambers and the spread of unverified information threaten deliberative quality; and (4) the empirical condition of Indonesian democracy, which shows progress in digital participation alongside persistent challenges of civil liberty restrictions and political polarisation. The study concludes that objectivity in communication ethics is a normative foundation for balancing the protection of freedom of expression with ethical responsibility, ultimately strengthening substantive and deliberative democracy.
Downloads
References
[1] Sumaktoyo, N. G., & Soedirgo, J. (2026). When are identity-based groups harmful to democracy? Victimized majority narratives and Muslim groups in Indonesia. Political Psychology, 47(4), e70159, pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.70159
[2] Hall, M. E. K., Leigh, B. T., & Solomon, B. C. (2026). From free speech advocates to critics: The Trump administration's new rhetoric promotes support for censorship among Trump voters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 123(21), e2532084123, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2532084123
[3] Mayolaika, S., Effendy, V. V., Delvin, C., & Hanif, M. A. (2021). Pengaruh kebebasan berpendapat di sosial media terhadap perubahan etika dan norma remaja Indonesia. Jurnal Kewarganegaraan, 5(2), pp. 826–836. https://doi.org/10.31316/jk.v5i2.1842
[4] Pratama, E. J., Kotijah, S., & Aripkah, N. (2026). Independensi putusan hakim dalam memutus perkara pidana terkait kebebasan berpendapat di media sosial (Studi disparitas putusan). Al-Zayn: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial & Hukum, 4(3), pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.61104/alz.v4i3.1234
[5] Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), pp. 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317
[6] Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barberá, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Political Polarization Research Program, pp. 1–95. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139
[7] Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe, pp. 1–109. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3997755
[8] Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020). Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 U.S. election. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), pp. 472–480. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0833-x
[9] Zed, M. (2018). Metode penelitian kepustakaan (pp. 1–136). Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
[10] Sugiyono. (2022). Metode penelitian kualitatif (pp. 1–322). Alfabeta.
[11] Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed., pp. 1–456). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781
[12] Moleong, L. J. (2021). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif (Rev. ed., pp. 1–410). PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
[13] Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics (pp. 1–397). Yale University Press.
[14] Diamond, L. (2019). Ill winds: Saving democracy from Russian rage, Chinese ambition, and American complacency (pp. 1–320). Penguin Press.
[15] Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere (pp. 1–301). MIT Press.
[16] Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty (pp. 1–141). John W. Parker and Son.
[17] Christians, C. G., Fackler, M., Richardson, K. B., Kreshel, P. J., & Woods, R. H. (2020). Media ethics: Cases and moral reasoning (11th ed., pp. 1–432). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003031888
[18] Ward, S. J. A. (2019). Disrupting journalism ethics: Radical change on the frontier of digital media (pp. 1–200). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429462047
[19] McQuail, D. (2013). Journalism and society (pp. 1–264). SAGE Publications.
[20] Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power (2nd ed., pp. 1–328). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190696726.001.0001
[21] Sunstein, C. R. (2021). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media (pp. 1–280). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv346rjm
[22] Freedom House. (2024). Freedom in the world 2024: The mounting damage of flawed elections. Freedom House, pp. 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9921-2024013
[23] Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFENet). (2024). Laporan situasi hak-hak digital Indonesia 2024. SAFENet, pp. 1–60. https://safenet.or.id/id/2024/laporan-digital-rights-indonesia-2024/
