ASEAN Regional Coalition to #StopDigitalDictatorship Article 144 of the old Criminal Code (spreading these clauses can hinder societal critiques directed defamation of kings or heads of friendly countries), at the government or those in authority for the Article 207 of the old Criminal Code (defamation of shortcomings of a prevailing system or events. This authorities or public bodies), and Article 208 of the is due to the potential distortion of such criticism old Criminal Code (spreading defamation against into an offence that falls under criminal law, posing authorities or public bodies). a barrier to open expression. 13 Regarding the defamation-related articles, human rights advocates Haris Azhar and Fatiah Maulidiyanti, along with the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) and the Independent Journalists Alliance (AJI), filed a judicial review lawsuit in the Indonesian Constitutional Court. Article 14,Article 15 as well as Article 310 Paragraph (1) of the old Criminal Code have been declared unconstitutional by the Indonesian Constitutional Court in March 2024.14 However, the new Criminal Code still maintains repressive articles related to defamation.Articles 218-219 in new Criminal Code resurrect clauses prohibiting the act of insulting the president, reminiscent of lèse-majesté provisions crafted to safeguard the honour of a head of state in a monarchy. The language employed in the new Criminal Code specifies “attacks towards the honour and dignity of the President and/or Vice-President”, mirroring the explanation used for defamation, described as “degrading or damaging the good name or dignity, including through insults or slander”.15 Controlling Narratives: The Criminal Code’s Stance on Spreading Fake News Despite the changes in the Criminal Code, Indonesia has consistently taken a strong stance against the proliferation of fake news. The old Criminal Code, specifically Articles 14 and 15, addressed the issue of fake news, with Article 14(1) being particularly significant as it prohibited the deliberate dissemination of false news or statements inciting societal disturbance. In July 2023, a coalition of human rights groups raised concerns about Article 14 and 15, contending that it infringed upon the state’s responsibility to uphold freedom of expression and access to information.17 This led to the Constitutional Court’s decision to annul these articles in March 2024.18 However, the introduction of the new Criminal Code has reignited discussions around fake news, as it revisits a similar provision. Articles 263 and 264 of the new Criminal Code still criminalise people who spread fake news, but with a small twist: replacing the term “disturbance” These two articles were broadened by the existence of Articles 240 and 241, which extend to include insults directed at state institutions like the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR), Regional House of Representatives (DPD), Supreme Court, and Constitutional Court, deeming with “riot”. This recent development regarding the criminalisation of fake news shows the continued importance of advocating for digital rights. While many believe that contemporary societies equate to democracy and enhanced liberties, the reality is that these governments may not always prioritise such acts as criminal offences.16 the liberation of their own people.19 The existence of Articles 218-219 and Articles 240- Blurred Lines: The Unsettling Landscape of Religious Blasphemy in Indonesia 241, indeed shows the regression of democracy, maintaining the similar provision of old criminal code. It serves as tools to stifle public criticism Indonesia has multiple criminal provisions concerning through legal mechanisms, impeding the exercise blasphemy, with the most well-known is the so- of the right to freedom of opinion. The presence of called Blasphemy Law (Presidential Instruction 74 Dawn of Digital Dictatorship: Weaponizing the Law Against Online Speech in Southeast Asia