Content Blocking Within 4 Hours, To What Extent Does the Government Have the Authority?

The Government has the authority to address digital content that violates the law. However, what happens when content is categorized as disinformation or hate speech? On the one hand, restrictions are necessary to protect the public. On the other hand, blocking powers that are not subject to clear limitations may create legal uncertainty and affect freedom of expression.

This issue arises under Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs Decree No. 127 of 2026 on Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents Containing Disinformation and/or Hate Speech (Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs Decree 127/2026). This Decree categorizes such content as content that causes public concern and disrupts public order.

In its statement of position published on the official website of the Indonesian Coalition for the Democratization and Moderation of the Digital Space (Koalisi Damai), the coalition considers this Decree legally problematic and potentially threatening to freedom of expression.

What, then, does the Decree regulate, and what are the limits of the Government's authority to block content?

The Obligation to Block Content Within Four Hours

Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs Decree 127/2026 imposes an obligation on Private-Scope Electronic System Operators (Penyelenggara Sistem Elektronik or PSE) providing User-Generated Content services to comply with orders to terminate access to content containing disinformation and/or hate speech.

Pursuant to the SECOND DICTUM, urgent orders to terminate access must be handled as soon as possible without delay, and no later than four hours after receipt. Meanwhile, the THIRD DICTUM stipulates that operators' compliance is monitored through the Content Moderation Compliance System (Sistem Kepatuhan Moderasi Konten or SAMAN).

In its considerations, the Decree refers to Article 40 of Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions, as most recently amended by Law No. 1 of 2024 (Electronic Information and Transactions Law or ITE Law). This provision provides a legal basis for the Government to protect the public interest against the misuse of electronic information and to prevent the dissemination of information prohibited under laws and regulations.

Accordingly, the issue is not merely whether the Government has the authority to terminate access to content, but also how the categories of content subject to blocking are determined and how that authority is exercised.

What Are the Limits of Disinformation and Hate Speech?

In the considerations of Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs Decree 127/2026, the Government identifies several risks associated with the dissemination of disinformation and hate speech, ranging from public concern, public panic, and disruptions to public order to horizontal conflicts based on particular identities.

However, the operative provisions of the Decree do not set out operational definitions of disinformation and hate speech or detailed criteria for determining when content falls within these categories. The Decree also does not specifically establish an objection procedure for parties whose content has been made inaccessible.

Koalisi Damai highlights this issue because categories that lack adequate boundaries may be interpreted broadly. In practice, false information, controversial opinions, criticism of the Government, and hate speech are distinct matters and should not automatically be treated in the same manner.

This issue is relevant to Constitutional Court Decision No. 105/PUU-XXII/2024, which provides an interpretation of the hate speech provision under Article 28 paragraph (2) of the ITE Law. The Decision emphasizes the importance of establishing limits on the dissemination of hatred based on particular identities to ensure that criminal provisions are not applied excessively to expressions protected by law.

Nevertheless, that Decision does not automatically invalidate Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs Decree 127/2026. The consistency of this Decree with higher-ranking legislation must still be assessed based on its regulatory substance and legal basis.

What Happens If Content Is Blocked Incorrectly?

The deadline requiring blocking to be carried out within no more than four hours raises questions about how content is reviewed before an order is issued and how erroneous blocking decisions can be corrected.

For internet users, blocking does not merely mean losing access to a particular post. Removed content may also contain policy criticism, public information, or opinions that are important to public discourse. Accordingly, clear criteria and mechanisms for handling objections are essential elements in the exercise of this authority.

It should be noted that Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs Decree 127/2026 does not explicitly regulate objection procedures in its operative provisions. This does not, in itself, establish that no remedial mechanism exists under other provisions. However, the Decree also does not provide a detailed explanation of how content owners may request a review of blocking decisions they consider erroneous.

Closing

Oversight of digital content is necessary to address information that violates the law. However, the effectiveness of a policy cannot be measured solely by the speed of blocking or platform compliance. Clear definitions, procedural transparency, and mechanisms for correcting errors are also important to ensure that the Government exercises its authority in a measured manner.

Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs Decree 127/2026 demonstrates that content moderation regulation is not merely a technical matter between the Government and digital platforms. This policy also concerns legal certainty for members of the public who use the digital space to obtain and communicate information.

Therefore, clear boundaries regarding the content that may be blocked and accountability for access termination decisions remain essential. Without both, efforts to maintain order in the digital space may create uncertainty regarding the distinction between unlawful content and legitimate expression.

Sources:

• Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs Decree No. 127 of 2026 on Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents Containing Disinformation and/or Hate Speech.

• Indonesian Coalition for the Democratization and Moderation of the Digital Space (Koalisi Damai), Statement of Position on Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs Decree 127/2026.

• Law No. 1 of 2024 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions.

• Constitutional Court, Decision No. 105/PUU-XXII/2024.