Since protests rejecting the allowances of members of the House of Representatives (DPR RI) erupted on August 25, 2025, the wave of demonstrations has continued to spread across Jakarta and other cities. These demonstrations once again expose the brutality of the Indonesian National Police, accompanied by concrete measures to restrict broadcasting and suppress public access to independent and impartial information. Such restrictions target not only television and radio, but also the digital sphere—an essential channel for civil society to monitor the course of protests at multiple sites.
On August 27, the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs summoned representatives of TikTok and Meta Indonesia amid the ongoing demonstrations—a move that immediately drew sharp criticism from civil society for opening the door to digital censorship. Although the Deputy Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs insisted the meeting had nothing to do with the protests, a day later, on August 28, the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) Jakarta issued a directive to 66 broadcasters, urging them not to air coverage of the protests at the DPR, even instructing that reporting be kept from “provoking tensions” and instead framed in a “calm and peaceful” tone. Responding to the directive, the Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs declared on social media that the widely circulating claim—particularly on social platforms—that the government had banned national television stations was a hoax.[1]
The threat of state-sanctioned censorship in the digital sphere became undeniable on August 30, when at 3:40 p.m. President Prabowo Subianto ordered the military and police to carry out a “strict crackdown” on protesters. Just hours later, at 8:40 p.m.,[2] TikTok’s Live feature—relied upon by civil society to document events on the ground, monitor police brutality, and circulate urgent medical aid information—was suddenly made inaccessible in Indonesia.
THE URGENCY OF CIVIL SOCIETY’S FREEDOM TO REPORT IN DIGITAL SPACES
Between August 28–31, 2025, civil society documentation circulated on social media once again exposed the systematic pattern of repressive police actions across multiple protest sites. Police deployed excessive and unwarranted violence—reflecting global patterns of brutality against civilians—on a massive scale in many cities. Incidents included brutal beatings, the firing of rubber bullets, the use of expired tear gas, and even fatal violence when a police tactical vehicle rammed into protesters and crushed an online motorcycle driver to death.
In this context, civil society’s role in the digital sphere is crucial as vital proof of independent and impartial reporting. Without videos, photos, and real-time accounts disseminated on platforms such as X, Instagram, and TikTok, police brutality risks never being objectively exposed—or worse, manipulated and erased from the public record. Digital platforms enable civil society to collect evidence, uphold independent narratives, and challenge the state and mainstream media’s monopoly over information, which too often misrepresents or ignores police violence. Social media enables anyone to share their findings and reports directly, leveling the playing field of ordinary people with the established media outlets, which in Indonesia is sometimes owned or affiliated with certain political parties.[3]
The National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) reported that police had arrested at least 951 protesters since August 25, 2025.[4] Meanwhile, the Lokataru Foundation documented that during the August 28 protest alone, police detained 600 people at Jakarta Metropolitan Police headquarters.[5] Police carried out these arrests and detentions without clear legal basis and subjected detainees to torture during interrogation, deepening the scale of human rights violations and adding to the long record of police brutality against civilians. Police also frequently obstructed access to legal assistance and denied detainees their right to counsel. In a context where state institutions fail to guarantee accountability, civil society coverage and documentation remain the most vital instruments to ensure police brutality is not erased from public memory and not buried under impunity.
STATE CENSORSHIP VS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
The brutality of security forces and the restrictions on coverage during the protests directly intersect with human rights guaranteed under the constitution and international law. The right to information is a fundamental right, as enshrined in Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution and Article 14 of Law No. 39/1999 on Human Rights, which guarantees every person the right to seek, obtain, possess, store, process, and convey information through any means. In the context of demonstrations, citizen documentation and live broadcasts on social media are a concrete exercise of that right.
Yet state actions move in the opposite direction. The KPI circular, the summoning of digital platforms, and the blocking of TikTok Live clearly signal interventions that restrict public access to independent information. Under universally recognized human rights standards, any restriction on the right to information must meet three strict requirements:
- Prescribed by law
To date, no open regulation provides a legal basis for blocking TikTok Live or for KPI’s instruction that coverage adopt a “calm and peaceful” tone. Absent clear and transparent legal grounds, such measures amount to arbitrary censorship. - Legitimate aim
International instruments such as the ICCPR, the Siracusa Principles, and the Johannesburg Principles allow restrictions on the right to information for reasons of national security or public order. But these provisions cannot be twisted to silence criticism or conceal state violence. In this case, censorship has been deployed to suppress reporting on police brutality and the swelling protests—an outright violation of human rights and democratic norms. - Necessity and proportionality
Even if the government invokes security concerns, a sweeping ban on live streaming is neither necessary nor proportionate. There is no evidence that less restrictive measures, such as moderating harmful content, were even attempted. The result is a public stripped of access to independent documentation, while the unchecked power of security forces grows.
THE DANGERS OF STATE-SANCTIONED MEDIA CENSORSHIP
In a climate of escalating state-sanctioned censorship, press freedom faces serious threats—both in terms of what can be published and the safety of journalists in the field. Access restrictions, content takedowns, and the criminalization of journalists are forms of repression that directly undermine the press’s core functions. In 2024 alone, the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) recorded 73 cases of violence against journalists and media between January 1 and December 31. Repressive practices by police forces have also been well documented during public protests; during the #ReformasiDikorupsi demonstrations against the Omnibus Law on Job Creation, for example, police repeatedly forced journalists to delete footage that captured acts of violence against civilians.[6]
Moreover, in March 2025, intimidation against independent media resurfaced, this time targeting journalists from Tempo. The delivery of a severed pig’s head followed by a headless rat carcass coincided with President Prabowo Subianto’s remarks just weeks earlier, in which he openly condemned foreign-funded media outlets and accused them of attempting to “divide” the nation.[7]
The role of the press becomes all the more vital amid intensifying censorship and restrictions on social media access during mass protests often met with police brutality: to document state violence so facts are not erased by an official monopoly of narratives; to push for transparency and accountability as the foundation of a healthy democracy; and to provide space for civil society to record and challenge abuses of power. Independent citizen reporting and alternative media outside the mainstream must also be supported to sustain impartial counter-narratives. If restrictions and censorship are allowed to persist—especially under the pretext of removing so-called “provocative content” from social media during waves of protests across the country—society will be stripped of one of its last mechanisms of social control over both the security apparatus and the government.
IJRS condemns acts of censorship against protest coverage—both in physical spaces and in digital platforms—and urges the following:
- The Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs (Komdigi), TikTok, and Meta Indonesia to immediately restore all restricted social media platform features and to halt censorship of content related to protests.
- Komdigi and KPI must guarantee space for independent reporting and impartial counter-narratives, rather than censoring or treating them as attacks. As regulators, both institutions are obliged to protect the role of the media in demanding accountability from those in power, not to reinforce the monopoly of news coverage.
- Alternative media and civil society to continue independent reporting and provide impartial counter-narratives as a means to challenge the monopoly of information surrounding protest demands.
- State apparatus, including the military, police, and other institutions to refrain from criminalizing journalists and civil society actors covering demonstrations.
- State apparatus, including the military, police, and other institutions to cease all forms of violence against journalists and protesters documenting demonstrations.
[1] Detik.com. “National TV Stations Prohibited from Covering DPR Protest? Communication and Digital Affairs Minister: Not True.” Last accessed August 31, 2025. https://www.detik.com/sumbagsel/berita/d-8087240/media-tv-nasional-dilarang-meliput-demo-dpr-menkomdigi-tidak-benar
[2] Liputan6.com. “This Is Why TikTok Temporarily Disabled the Live Feature in Indonesia.” Last modified August 31, 2025. Accessed August 31, 2025. https://www.liputan6.com/tekno/read/6146667/ini-alasan-tiktok-matikan-fitur-live-sementara-di-indonesia.
[3] Kompas.com. “AJI Finds Six Problems in the Media Ahead of the Election”. Accessed August 31, 2025. https://www.kompas.id/artikel/enam-masalah-media-jelang-pemilu-2024
[4] Kompas.com. “Komnas HAM: 951 People Detained by Police in Relation to the August 25 and 28 Demonstrations”. Accessed August 31, 2025. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2025/08/29/14392601/komnas-ham-951-orang-ditahan-polisi-terkait-aksi-demo-25-dan-28-agustus.
[5] Tempo.co, “Lokataru: Police Arrest 600 Demonstrators,” accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.tempo.co/hukum/lokataru-polisi-tangkap-600-demonstran-2064174.
[6] DetikNews. “AJI Condemns Police Officer’s Action of Deleting Journalist’s Recording of Protest in Palu.” Accessed August 31, 2025. https://news.detik.com/berita/d-4722028/aji-kecam-aksi-oknum-polisi-hapus-rekaman-wartawan-peliput-demo-di-palu.
[7] International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), “Indonesia: Probe Demanded after Severed Animal Parts Sent to Tempo Magazine,” IFJ Media Centre, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.ifj.org/media‑centre/news/detail/category/press‑releases/article/indonesia-probe-demanded-after-severed-animal-parts-sent-to-tempo-magazine ifj.org.
