The press still in danger despite 'Playboy' ruling

The Jakarta Post ,  Jakarta   |  Tue, 04/10/2007 3:11 PM  |  Opinion

Patrick Guntensperger, Jakarta

The South Jakarta District Court that acquitted Erwin Arnada, the editor of the Indonesian version of Playboy magazine, deserves some guarded applause.

That it deserves applause is self-evident to anyone who has the good sense simply not to purchase material if it seems likely to offend, as well as to those of us who believe in press freedom.

Although the court did not specifically address the issue, it is clear that Playboy was being singled out for prosecution largely because of its almost iconic stature as a publication that deals with sexuality. Before the first issue hit the streets of Jakarta, there were violent protests and much hand wringing over declining morals; clearly our self-appointed moral guardians were aware of the content of Playboy magazine, at least in other countries. That there would be some legal reaction to the distribution of a purely Indonesian edition was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

Predictably, charges were levied against the editor as soon as the magazine started to circulate; the urgency of the matter was made clear by the speed and dispatch with which this matter was brought to trial. To say that it was done with more efficiency and dedication to the task than one is accustomed to from Indonesia's public servants would be an understatement.

Let us simply observe that if the average civil servant in Indonesia paid that much attention and devoted that level of focus to his work every day, this country would be running like a Swiss watch.

Of course all this attention was largely a result of the fact that the culprit was Playboy and not some new local girlie magazine. Everyone knows what lies between the covers of Playboy. Obviously, one could hardly claim to be shocked to find titillating photographs in there. My only surprise was at finding not a single exposed female nipple in the issue I bought, and for that reason I won't buy another.

It occurs to me that people who shared my reaction have a more legitimate claim to be shocked, even offended, by the Indonesian edition of Playboy than do those who find it too risqui. To those people, we can simply say, don't buy it! Those of us who were vainly hoping for a wholesome little frisson are the ones who were genuinely taken aback at the content.

However, most of the people I know who have looked approvingly at Playboy's photographs are not the kind of people who would insist that the magazine publish exactly what they demand for the benefit of their neighbours. No, we would let people choose for themselves what to read or look at.

We won't insist that others read Playboy and we won't demand that our standards of aesthetics be adhered to by people we don't even know. It would have been cause for unrestrained applause had the South Jakarta District Court taken anything like that into consideration when delivering its not guilty verdict.

Unfortunately, the reasons behind the acquittal do little to advance the cause of freedom of expression. Presiding Judge Efran Basuning declared that under his interpretation of the country's Criminal Code, he didn't believe that the photographs he examined in such minute and painstaking detail could be categorised as pornography.

While this is a good thing, it doesn't help other editors determine exactly where the line is drawn; in fact it makes it clear that there is no line, there is only a judge's personal view to be consulted as a yardstick. Unfortunately, the only way to consult a judge's views is to get oneself charged with a crime and see how he decides at trial.

The judge did say that the charges should have been filed under the Criminal Code. He is certainly right about that, but as long as the Criminal Code retains laws that can be used (or abused), that is the mechanism the truly self-righteous will employ to drive home their agendas.

The Press Law, the judge suggested, would have been the more appropriate mechanism to adjudicate this matter; it doesn't contain provisions for imposing the two-year jail sentence called for by the prosecution. It seems clear that the honourable judge missed the point of the prosecution's choice of employing the Criminal Code.

The zealous defenders of morality were not looking for the most reasonable approach, the most objective and just manner of determining culpability; they were looking for the heaviest blunt instrument with which to bludgeon others into falling into line.

In the final analysis, the case gets mixed reviews. Thumbs up because of the decision. The content of the magazine was clearly not pornographic by any rational definition. Thumbs down, because the Criminal Code still allows for similar charges, and will almost certainly continue to be abused.

The main problem however, is that the next person charged with a similar offence will still have to have his work scrutinised by a judge to determine whether it meets his personal criteria for acceptability. He might draw a more rigid judge, one who is more easily swayed by vocal criticism, or one who is just having a bad day.

Say, here's an idea! Perhaps instead of leaving it to that particular individual to decide, we might consider leaving it up to each individual to decide what to read and what to disregard.

The writer is a Jakarta based social and political commentator and risk analyst. He lectures and writes frequently on a variety of social, business, and political issues. He may be reached at pguntensperger@yahoo.ca

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.