KEBEBASAN BERPENDAPAT TERHADAP PRESIDEN DIJADIKAN SEBAGAI UJARAN KEBENCIAN

Abstract

ABSTRAK Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis batasan antara kebebasan berpendapat dan ujaran kebencian terhadap Presiden, serta mengidentifikasi faktor-faktor yang menyebabkan terjadinya kesalahan penafsiran dalam praktik hukum. Fokus penelitian diarahkan pada persoalan ketika kritik politik yang sah kerap dianggap sebagai penghinaan atau ujaran kebencian terhadap Presiden. Untuk menganalisis persoalan tersebut digunakan pendekatan hermeneutika hukum, yakni suatu teori penafsiran yang menekankan pentingnya dialog antara teks, konteks, dan upaya kontekstualisasi, sehingga tafsir hukum tidak berhenti pada bunyi literal pasal. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan sifat deskriptif-interpretatif. Data diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan dengan menggunakan dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, serta kajian kasus. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kaburnya batas antara kritik dan penghinaan Presiden sering menimbulkan kriminalisasi ekspresi publik. Kritik yang substantif terhadap kebijakan negara kerap direduksi menjadi serangan personal, sebagaimana terlihat pada kasus Rocky Gerung (2023), Nanang dan Muzakir (2002), serta kasus lainnya. Faktor penyebabnya antara lain adalah multitafsir norma, bias politik, rendahnya pemahaman publik, sikap represif aparat penegak hukum, serta framing media yang mempersempit ruang interpretasi. Kesimpulan penelitian ini menegaskan bahwa problematika utama atas batas kebebasan berpendapat dan ujaran kebencian bukan hanya pada pasal penghinaan Presiden, tetapi pada ruang tafsir yang luas dan rawan disalahgunakan. Kata Kunci: Kebebasan Berpendapat, Ujaran Kebencian, Penghinaan Presiden, Hermeneutika Hukum, KUHP ABSTRACT This research aims to analyze the boundaries between freedom of expression and hate speech directed at the President, as well as to identify the factors that lead to misinterpretation in legal practice. The study focuses on the issue of political criticism that is often regarded as insult or hate speech against the President. To examine this issue, the research employs the legal hermeneutics approach, a theory of interpretation that emphasizes the importance of dialogue between text, context, and efforts of contextualization, so that legal interpretation does not merely stop at the literal meaning of the provision. The research method used is normative legal research with a descriptive-interpretative character. Data were collected through a literature study using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The results show that the blurred line between criticism and insult to the President often leads to the criminalization of public expression. Substantive criticism of state policies is frequently reduced to personal attacks, as seen in the cases of Rocky Gerung (2023), Nanang and Muzakir (2002), and others. The contributing factors include ambiguous legal norms, political bias, low public understanding, repressive attitudes of law enforcement, and media framing that narrows the space for interpretation. The study concludes that the main problem concerning the boundary between freedom of expression and hate speech lies not only in the existence of the articles on presidential insult, but also in the broad scope of interpretation, which is prone to misuse. Keywords: Freedom of Expression, Hate Speech, Criminal Act of Insulting the President, Legal Hermeneutics, Criminal Code