/data/photo/2020/12/23/5fe31e618f762.jpg)
[ad_1]
JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com – Artist Gisella Anastasia (30) and a man with the initials MYD were named suspects in the case of distribution of pornographic videos, Tuesday (12/29/2020).
The police explained that the decision was made after two title cases and the questioning of both as witnesses.
Both Gisel and MYD claimed to be actors in an exciting video that went viral in early November 2020. They admit to making the video in 2017 for personal gain only.
“This is the result of the title of the case carried out yesterday, raising the status of the witness against GA’s sister, as a suspect,” said Meteo Jaya Police Public Relations Chief Kombes Pol Yusri Yunus.
“MYD (also) as a suspect,” Yusri continued.
Also Read: Criminal Law Expert: Police Should Have Searched For First Hot Video Broadcaster Before Gisel Cheating
Both Gisel and MYD are believed to have layered articles on the Pornography Act (UU).
“We suspect article 4, paragraph 1, article 29 or article 8 of law number 44 on pornography,” Yusri said.
Police confirmed that they would call Gisel and MYD as suspects in the near future. Both face a maximum sentence of 12 years in prison. However, on the other hand, the police have yet to reveal the perpetrator who first distributed the exciting video.
“(The first question from the spreader) we are still going ahead,” Yusri said.
The victim cannot be convicted
The Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR) researcher Maidina Rahmawati assessed that the police decision to establish Gisel and MYD as suspects was inappropriate.
In fact, ICJR considers Gisel and MYD to be victims. This is because the sex videos made are for personal gain, not for distribution.
Also read: Facts about Gisel’s determination on the suspect and the male actor in the exciting video
“The ICJR recalls the fundamental note of this case, that whoever is in the video, if they do not want it to be publicly distributed, cannot be convicted,” Maidina said in a written statement on Tuesday (12/29/2020).
Maidina referred to the explanation in Article 4 of the Pornography Act that parties who make pornographic content cannot be punished if they do so for their own benefit.
Another debate, Meidina said, is related to article 8 of the Pornography Law regarding the prohibition of becoming a model or object with pornographic content. In relation to this, he admitted to having studied the treatise on the discussion of the Pornography Law.
In the treaty, what is defined as a criminal act is the creation, dissemination and use of pornography in public space.
He stressed that the ban on becoming a pornographic model should remain in a commercial setting, not personal interests.
“Investigators must understand that if GA, MYD does not want the video to be distributed to the public or for commercial purposes, then they are victims who must be protected,” he said.
Also read: The exciting case of the video, this is an explanation of the article of the pornography law that accuses Gisel
Not careful
On the other hand, an expert in criminal law from the University of Trisakti, Abdul Fickar Hadjar, assessed that the police had worked in accordance with the law to determine the suspects Gisel and MYD.
Abdul Fickar admitted that Gisel and MYD couldn’t really be convicted if they recorded their sexual activities for personal gain. However, video creators can find themselves trapped because their carelessness has caused the content to be widely disseminated to the public.
“If it is spread without their knowledge, it means that they are not careful that the video is spread widely,” said Abdul Fickar.
Gisel himself, when consulting the famous lawyer Hotman Paris Hutapea, admitted that he lost his cell phone three years ago. Abdul Fickar felt that Gisel should have immediately informed the police at that time.
“If the cell phone is lost, we know that there is pornographic content, we must report it to the police. So that we can obtain irresponsible legal protection since the cell phone was lost, ”said Abdul Fickar.
Abdul Fickar assessed that Gisel’s case was similar to the case that caught up with singer Ariel Peterpan in 2011. Ariel produces pornographic videos for personal gain, but his carelessness causes the video to spread.
Ariel was also sentenced to three years and six months in prison and a fine of 250 million rupees.
“So if you create content like that, keep it in a secure medium, not easily accessible to others,” said Abdul Fickar.
Chase video broadcasters
Although there were pros and cons, Meidina and Abdul Fickar agreed that the police had to hunt down the perpetrator who first released the exciting video into cyberspace.
“Investigators need to get back to the right approach, that is, investigate the party that distributed the video to the public,” Meidina said.
They both thought the police should first find the broadcaster of the exciting video of artist Gisella Anastasia and a man with the initials MYD. After the video broadcaster was found, the police could catch Gisel and MYD as the creator and model of the pornographic content.
Also read: Police call Gisel to create exciting videos for personal documentation
“I should have been looking for who distributed it first,” Abdul Fickar Hadjar told Kompas.com on Tuesday (12/29/2020).
“There is a criminal incident. Who is the perpetrator, who is responsible. The evidence is sought. One of the evidence to catch Gisel is the spreader,” he continued.
However, Abdul Fickar also considered that the police were not wrong in having already mentioned Gisel and MYD as suspects. Because, both have also recognized those who recorded and played a role in the viral video.
“If this artist admits that his cell phone is missing, puts it carelessly and then spreads, that is the determination of this model as something normal. Something that should be, has also been confirmed, “said Abdul Fickar.
