[ad_1]
Jakarta, CNN Indonesia –
Lembaga Institute for the Reform of Criminal Justice (ICJR) Speed Gisella Anastasia (GA) and the man in the video, MYD, cannot be convicted. ICJR reasoned that the video was for private purposes and was not intended to be viralized to the public.
For your information, the police have identified Gisel and MYD as suspects under Article 4 paragraph 1 of Article 29 of Law No. 44 of 2008 on Pornography or Article 28 of the Law on Pornography.
The ICJR considers that there is an important limitation in the Pornography Law that governs that parties who commit the act of ‘doing’ as in Article 4 of the Pornography Law cannot be punished if it is done for personal gain and self-interest.
“Therefore, the act of doing pornography cannot be punished if it is done for one’s own interests or for personal gain,” said the official ICJR statement on Tuesday (12/29).
Meanwhile, regarding article 8 of the Pornography Law, the ICJR said that the treaty on the discussion of the Pornography Law explained that what is defined as a criminal act is the production, dissemination and use of pornography in public space.
Article 8 of the Pornography Law regulates: “Every person is deliberately prohibited or with their consent from becoming an object or model containing pornographic content. The ban on becoming a model, according to ICJR, should still be in a business setting and not personal interests.
“So as long as the content is of personal interest, even as an actor in a content, the provisions of the Indonesian law and constitution protect these rights. Such actions cannot be penalized,” said ICJR.
Based on the above explanation, ICJR asked Polda Metro Jaya investigators to focus on the party that released the video to the public.
“Investigators must understand that if GA, MYD do not want the video to be distributed to the public or for commercial purposes, then they are victims who must be protected,” ICJR added.
In the case of pornographic videos, the imposition of articles against GA and MYD is different from the case that caught Peterpan vocalist Nazril Ilham aka Ariel in 2010.
Ariel is subject to article 29 in conjunction with article 45 paragraph 1 of the Pornography Law, article 27 of Law Number 11 of 2008 on Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE) and article 282 of the Penal Code. Ariel is said to have displayed images or objects whose content is known to violate decency.
[Gambas:Video CNN] (ryn / ain)
[ad_2]
