TINJAUAN YURIDIS YANG BERMUATAN PENGHINAAN MENURUT KETENTUAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 11 TAHUN 2008 TENTANG INFORMASI DAN TRANSAKSI ELEKTRONIK (ITE) DAN KITAB UNDANG-UNDANG HUKUM PIDANA (KUHP)
| Main Author: | Widyarti, Indah |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis NonPeerReviewed Book |
| Bahasa: | ind |
| Terbitan: |
, 2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
https://eprints.untirta.ac.id/11533/1/TINJAUAN%20YURIDIS%20YANG%20BERMUATAN%20PENGHINAAN%20MENURUT%20KETENTUAN%20UNDANG-UNDANG%20NOMOR%2011%20TAHUN%202008%20TENTANG%20INFORMASI%20DAN%20T~1.pdf https://eprints.untirta.ac.id/11533/ |
Daftar Isi:
- One crime that often sticking to the media is about punishment against those who expressed criticism through social media account with another name humiliation. Because the crime is still being debated is Article 27, paragraph 3 of the insult or defamation because the act ITE has not been described or limitation of content and defamation. The research used in this paper is a normative legal research, and the approach taken by the conceptual approach, the comparative approach, and the history approach. In order to find answers to the problems of defamation in the provisions of the Law of information and electronic transactions as defined in the identification of the problem, then the theory is used as a knife analysis: grand theory (Criminal Law Policy), middle range theory (Rule of Law) and applied theory (Criminal liability). The identification of the problem is how the juridical constraints against defamation in the ITE Law No.11 of 2008 and how the criminal liability for defamation in the ITE Law No.11 of 2008 and the Criminal Code. Based on the research results, the applicability of Article 27 paragraph (3) regarding this insult can not be separated from the principal legal norms, namely, Article 310321 of the Criminal Code but in accordance with Article 63 of the Criminal Code that is applicable is containing the most severe criminal threats. Dab in accordance with Article 103 of the Criminal Code, the Act ITE Article 27 paragraph (3) was included in the complaint-based offense so many cases are not up to the court because already withdrawn by the complainant. The greatest obstacle in solving this case is the availability of facilities and infrastructure in tools to detect evidence