JurnalPost.com - Have you ever seen a thread on X, a post on Threads, or a TikTok video exposing alleged criminal activity, only for it to go viral within hours and capture the attention of law enforcement?
This phenomenon is increasingly becoming a topic of discussion in the digital space. A case previously unknown to the public can suddenly become a national concern after being shared thousands of times by social media users.
This situation has given rise to a popular expression among the public: "No Viral, No Justice", a satirical critique suggesting that justice only moves when a case gains widespread attention on the internet.
For Generation Z, who grew up alongside the evolution of digital technology, social media is no longer just a place to share experiences or seek entertainment. Platforms like X, Instagram, Threads, and TikTok now also function as public complaint forums, where people voice grievances, expose alleged violations, and demand accountability from specific parties.
However, behind the power of social media to drive attention toward a case, a fundamental question arises for the public, especially for law students: why does the enforcement of justice seem to wait for the decision of an algorithm?
On one hand, the power of the digital community is worth appreciating. Social media can help highlight issues that previously received little attention, such as alleged sexual violence, road rage, abuse of power, and illegal extortion practices.
Public pressure sometimes compels relevant institutions to provide explanations and accelerate follow-ups on public reports. In this context, netizens can act as social watchdogs who remind authorities of their responsibilities.
However, on the other hand, this power also presents a threat in the form of trial by social media, a situation where an individual is seemingly judged by public opinion before going through the proper legal process.
When an accusation spreads without adequate fact-checking, the public can easily pass unilateral judgment. The phenomenon of spill the tea , initially considered a way to expose an issue, can even evolve into the dissemination of private data (doxxing), digital bullying, and intimidation against someone who has not been proven guilty.
As a result, the digital space, which should be a means for public participation, potentially turns into a court without a judge, without proper evidence, and without the opportunity for a balanced defense.
When Public Opinion Confronts the Principles of a Rule-of-Law State
From a legal perspective, public attention toward a case is part of freedom of expression and public oversight. However, this freedom still has boundaries, especially when it concerns the rights, honor, and privacy of others.
Indonesia, as a rule-of-law state (rechtsstaat), places the judicial process as the mechanism to determine an individual's guilt based on rules and valid evidence.
There are several legal principles and provisions that need to be considered in understanding the phenomenon of judgment through social media.
1. The Presumption of Innocence (Presumption of Innocence)
Article 8 paragraph (1) of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power asserts that anyone suspected, arrested, detained, prosecuted, or brought before a court must be considered innocent until a court verdict declares their guilt and has obtained permanent legal force (inkracht).
This principle is a vital foundation in the administration of fair criminal justice.
In practice, virality often blurs the line between allegation and conclusion. Someone merely mentioned in a post can immediately be labeled a criminal, even though the investigation or evidentiary process has not been completed.
In reality, short videos, snippets of conversations, or screenshots spread on the internet do not necessarily depict the entire event.
Electronic evidence may have evidentiary value in legal proceedings, but its authenticity, relevance, context, and validity must still be examined according to applicable regulations.
Therefore, public opinion must not replace the objective examination process. An individual's right to a fair trial (fair trial) must be respected, even if the case they are facing has become a matter of widespread public attention.
2. Defamation in the New Criminal Code (KUHP)
Spreading accusations via social media must also consider legal provisions regarding defamation.
Since January 2, 2026, Indonesia has implemented the Criminal Code (KUHP) based on Law Number 1 of 2023.
With the enactment of this Criminal Code, the provisions of Article 27A and Article 45 paragraph (4) of Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning the second amendment to the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law are no longer in effect based on its transitional provisions.
Regulations regarding defamation are now contained, among others, in Article 433 of the Criminal Code.
Article 433 paragraph (1) regulates the act of attacking someone's honor or reputation verbally by accusing them of something to be known by the public. Meanwhile, paragraph (2) regulates defamation through writing or images that are broadcast, displayed, or posted in public places.
For written defamation, the provision carries a maximum imprisonment of one year and six months or a category III fine.
Additionally, Article 441 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code allows for a sentence increase of up to one-third if certain criminal acts of insult are committed using information technology.
However, not every criticism, complaint, or post that harms someone's reputation is automatically a criminal act of defamation.
The assessment must consider the elements of the act, the context of the delivery, the intent, and the exceptions for actions taken for the public interest or out of self-defense.
This is important to understand so that defamation rules are not used to silence legitimate criticism, while still providing protection to individuals who are victims of unlawful accusations.
3. Prohibition of Doxxing in the Personal Data Protection Law
Another phenomenon that often appears when a case goes viral is doxxing, which is the dissemination of someone's private information without consent or a valid legal basis.
In practice, this can include the dissemination of National Identity Numbers (NIK), home addresses, personal phone numbers, family information, or other identities that allow someone to become a target of intimidation.
Indonesia already has Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection (PDP Law).
Article 65 paragraph (1) prohibits the unlawful acquisition or collection of another person's personal data with the intent to gain benefits that could result in harm to the personal data subject.
Meanwhile, Article 65 paragraph (2) prohibits the unlawful disclosure of another person's personal data, while paragraph (3) regulates the prohibition of the unlawful use of personal data that does not belong to them.
The criminal provisions are stated in Article 67. The intentional and unlawful disclosure of personal data as referred to in Article 65 paragraph (2) can be punished with a maximum imprisonment of four years and/or a maximum fine of Rp4 billion.
Meanwhile, the unlawful acquisition or collection of personal data that meets the elements of Article 65 paragraph (1) can be punished with a maximum imprisonment of five years and/or a maximum fine of Rp5 billion.
Thus, the act of exposing someone's identity on social media cannot be justified simply because that person is currently the focus of public attention.
Every action must still be assessed based on the elements of violation regulated in the legislation.
Perspective of a Universitas Pamulang Law Student
As a student of the Law Study Program at Universitas Pamulang, I understand that one of the fundamental goals of law is to ensure justice, protect human dignity, and provide access to legal protection for all levels of society without discrimination.
From that perspective, the phenomenon of "No Viral, No Justice" can be viewed as a warning regarding the issue of the justice gap (justice gap) that remains a challenge in society.
When a report only gains attention after going viral, there is a concern that access to justice is not entirely determined by one's rights as a citizen, but rather by their ability to attract public attention.
Then, what is the fate of people who do not have the ability to build a narrative on social media? What about residents in remote areas, vulnerable groups, or those who do not have extensive digital networks?
Must they first have thousands of followers for their complaints to be noticed?
This question is important because justice should not turn into a privilege for those who have significant influence in the digital world.
Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia has affirmed the principle of equality of citizens before the law or equality before the law.
This principle means that every citizen has the right to receive equal legal treatment, without being distinguished by social status, economic power, popularity, or the ability to utilize social media.
If law enforcement responses are more easily obtained by parties who succeed in attracting public attention, while other public reports are ignored, this condition can cause serious issues regarding public trust in legal institutions.
However, criticism of the virality phenomenon does not mean that the public should stop voicing injustice through social media.
On the contrary, public participation remains necessary as part of the oversight of state administration and law enforcement. What needs to be strengthened is the awareness that public oversight must be carried out responsibly.
The public needs to distinguish between conveying alleged violations and passing a verdict. Voicing a case does not mean being free to spread personal identities, commit intimidation, or declare someone guilty without a process of proof.
On the other hand, law enforcement officials also need to ensure that every report receives professional, transparent, and proportional handling, without having to wait for pressure from the digital community.
Social media should function as a means of oversight and expressing aspirations, not replace the authority of investigators, public prosecutors, or judges.
Ultimately, the main issue of the "No Viral, No Justice" phenomenon does not lie in how great the power of netizens is, but in how the legal system is able to provide justice that is accessible to everyone.
Justice should not be determined by the number of views, comments, or how often a case appears on the timeline.
As a law student, I view that the success of law enforcement should be measured by its ability to protect the rights of the public, ensure a fair process, and provide legal certainty without discrimination.
Because the real courtroom is not a comment section, and legal decisions should not be determined by an algorithm.
Justice must be present because the law works, not merely because a case managed to go viral.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response