Indonesia’s Broadcasting Bill and the Quiet Return of Censorship in SRHR and Queer Expression
By Dina Chaerani
Why a “broadcasting” revision could reshape Indonesia’s digital speech, especially for investigative citizen journalism, CSE, and LGBTIQA+ lives.
I was editing a short investigative video when I realised I had developed a new form of muscle memory.
Before I post anything about comprehensive sexuality education (CSE), such as consent, coercion, pleasure, violence, pregnancy, stigma, I do not just check facts. I check the risk. I check whether a sentence can be twisted into “immorality.” I check whether a screenshot can endanger someone. I check whether telling the truth will cost the person telling it. That is what it means to do citizen journalism in a country where sexuality is a public debate, but also public panic.
And then I read the leaked draft of Indonesia’s Broadcasting Bill revisions, and the risk calculus shifted again. Because this draft does not just debate what should be on TV, it hints at a future in which the state seeks to consolidate the digital public sphere, platforms, streaming, and creator content under a broadcasting-style control system (SAFEnet, 2024; ABC News, 2024).
“Modernisation” is the easy headline. “Expansion of control” is the hard question.
On paper, the revision appears to be an update: the 2002 broadcasting framework was designed for a TV-and-radio world, whereas streaming platforms, podcasts, and social media shape today’s public discourse. The problem is how that update is being attempted.
SAFEnet’s statement, based on a draft dated 27 March 2024, warns that the bill would intensify censorship in digital spaces and extend regulatory reach to platforms, while leaving too much room for vague interpretation (SAFEnet, 2024). ABC News similarly reported widespread concerns that the proposed changes could affect journalists, content creators, and public speech online (ABC News, 2024).
When a law expands into new terrain, definitions matter. When definitions are unclear, discretion becomes power.
The investigative journalism clause: “You can report, just do not investigate.”
One of the draft’s most controversial elements is a provision widely criticised as restricting the broadcast of investigative journalism (Reuters, 2024; International Federation of Journalists [IFJ], 2024). Reuters reported that Indonesia’s Press Council warned that the proposal would undermine media independence and contradict existing protections, as the press law prohibits censorship and bans (Reuters, 2024).
This is not an academic worry. Investigative journalism is often how corruption is documented, environmental crimes are traced, and abuse of power is brought to light. If you raise the legal and political costs of “investigation,” you do not just weaken journalism; you also weaken accountability itself (Human Rights Committee, 2011; Reuters, 2024).
Moreover, the clause directly targets the ecosystem on which creators rely. Citizen journalism is often investigative by necessity: it starts with what “everyone knows” but no one is allowed to say, then it follows the trail of evidence.
The LGBTIQA+ provision: censorship disguised as “content standards”
The second alarm bell is even more explicit: the leaked draft includes a prohibition on content portraying LGBT “behaviour,” which civil society groups and journalists’ associations describe as discriminatory and dangerous (Alliance of Independent Journalists [AJI], 2024; ASEAN SOGIE Caucus, 2024). AJI warned that the revisions risk pushing Indonesian journalism “toward darkness,” citing the discriminatory nature of the provisions and their broader implications for freedom (AJI, 2024). The ASEAN SOGIE Caucus mapped how anti-LGBT provisions appear across multiple parts of the bill—suggesting this is not a single accidental sentence but a recurring orientation in the draft (ASEAN SOGIE Caucus, 2024).
For artists and musicians, this is immediately relevant. Reuters reported backlash from filmmakers and civil society groups, including concerns about restrictions on creative expression, because when a law labels queer existence as a prohibited “behaviour,” it turns storytelling into a legal risk (Reuters, 2024).
Moreover, here is the part we need to name clearly: this is not about “protecting children.” It is about erasing a community from public life.
One simple example: because this is how chilling effects work
Imagine a musician releases a music video that includes a queer love story, two women holding hands, a trans character simply existing, and a lyric that refuses shame. Nothing explicit. Nothing pornographic. Just human.
In a legal environment where LGBT “behaviour” is treated as prohibited content, that same art can become the target of pressure, takedowns, or self-censorship, long before any court case ever happens (Reuters, 2024; ASEAN SOGIE Caucus, 2024). Censorship does not always manifest as a dramatic ban. Sometimes it arrives as a quiet incentive to delete yourself.
Where SRHR and CSE get caught in the same net
If you work in SRHR, you already recognise the pattern: once “morality” becomes a legal standard for speech, it rarely stops at queer representation. It spreads, especially to education about bodies, consent, contraception, abortion, and violence.
Global technical guidance on CSE is clear that comprehensive sexuality education is evidence-informed and grounded in human rights and gender equality (UNESCO et al., 2018; World Health Organisation [WHO], 2018). Furthermore, OHCHR’s framing of SRHR explicitly includes access to services and information as part of the entitlements necessary to exercise their rights (OHCHR, n.d.).
That is why this bill is an SRHR issue, not just a media issue.
A broad censorship framework, especially one that explicitly targets LGBTIQA+ content, creates a pathway for CSE explainers, survivor-led reporting, and public-interest information to be treated as “improper” simply because it deals with sex honestly. That does not protect youth. It leaves them with myths, stigma, and silence (WHO, 2018; OHCHR, n.d.).
The bill is still a draft. It is the moment to act.
Lawmakers involved have stressed the revisions are still in early stages and subject to change (Reuters, 2024). That fact should not reassure us; it should clarify the timing. Drafts are when norms are set, when problematic clauses are either removed or become the new baseline.
Komnas Perempuan has urged that the bill must align with human rights principles and gender justice, warning that expanded oversight of “digital broadcasting” must be clearly defined to avoid threatening freedom of expression (Komnas Perempuan, 2025). That warning matters because a vague scope is precisely how “broadcast regulation” drifts into “internet regulation.”
Indonesia already has a legal foundation that should be relevant here. The Press Law states that the national press shall not be subject to censorship, banning, or broadcast prohibition (Republic of Indonesia, 1999). Internationally, Indonesia is a party to the ICCPR, and the UN Human Rights Committee has emphasised that restrictions on expression must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate, standards that vague morality-based controls routinely fail to meet (Human Rights Committee, 2011).
So the real question is not, “Do we need a modern law?”
The real question is, “Modern law for what: public interest, or public control?”
What I am asking for
If the Broadcasting Bill is truly meant to serve the public in a digital era, it should not be built on clauses that chill investigation and erase marginalised people.
At a minimum, the draft should:
Remove provisions that restrict investigative journalism and create overlapping authority that undermines press independence (Reuters, 2024; IFJ, 2024).
Remove discriminatory language targeting LGBT “behaviour,” across content standards, subscription broadcasting, and advertising (AJI, 2024; ASEAN SOGIE Caucus, 2024).
Clarify the scope, especially regarding platforms, so “digital oversight” does not become a backdoor to broad online censorship (SAFEnet, 2024; Komnas Perempuan, 2025).
Explicitly protect public-interest information, including SRHR and CSE content, consistent with human rights frameworks recognising access to information as central to SRHR (OHCHR, n.d.; UNESCO et al., 2018).
Because creators like me are not trying to be reckless, we are trying to be useful. We verify. We contextualise. We report carefully, often with fewer protections than those afforded to formal newsrooms. And we tell stories that are frequently missing from mainstream coverage, especially about sexuality, consent, and the lived realities of LGBTIQA+ Indonesians.
If the price of that work becomes silent, Indonesia does not become safer.
It becomes quieter and less free.
References
ABC News. (2024, May 29). Critics say changes to Indonesia’s Broadcasting Law will restrict investigative journalism and online free speech. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-30/indonesia-broadcasting-bill-concern-ban-investigative-journalism/103884430
Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI). (2024, May 16). Revisi Undang-Undang Penyiaran: Melanggengkan kegemaran negara dalam membatasi kebebasan. https://aji.or.id/informasi/revisi-undang-undang-penyiaran-melanggengkan-kegemaran-negara-dalam-membatasi-kebebasan
ASEAN SOGIE Caucus. (2024, June 14). The Indonesia Broadcasting Bill: A threat to freedom of press and expression. https://aseansogiecaucus.org/latest/asc-statements/216-the-indonesia-broadcasting-bill-a-threat-to-freedom-of-press-and-expression
Human Rights Committee. (2011). General comment No. 34: Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression (CCPR/C/GC/34). Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf
International Federation of Journalists. (2024, May 23). Indonesia: New Broadcasting Bill threatens democracy and press freedom. https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/article/indonesia-new-broadcasting-bill-threatens-democracy-and-press-freedom
Komnas Perempuan. (2025, April 30). Komnas Perempuan: Pastikan revisi RUU Penyiaran perhatikan perspektif HAM dan gender. https://komnasperempuan.go.id/kabar-perempuan-detail/komnas-perempuan-pastikan-revisi-ruu-penyiaran-perhatikan-perspektif-ham-dan-gender
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (n.d.). Sexual and reproductive health and rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/women/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-rights
Republic of Indonesia. (1999). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 40 Tahun 1999 tentang Pers. Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Republik Indonesia. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Download/33870/UU%20Nomor%2040%20Tahun%201999.pdf
Reuters. (2024, May 22). Indonesia mulls ban on investigative journalism, LGBT content. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/indonesia-mulls-ban-investigative-journalism-lgbt-content-2024-05-22/
SAFEnet (Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network). (2024, May). RUU Penyiaran jangan jadi RUU penyensoran. https://safenet.or.id/id/2024/05/ruu-penyiaran-jangan-jadi-ruu-penyensoran/
UNESCO, UNAIDS, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women, & World Health Organization. (2018). International technical guidance on sexuality education: An evidence-informed approach (Revised ed.). UNESCO. https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/ITGSE.pdf
World Health Organization. (2018, March 14). International technical guidance on sexuality education. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/9789231002595