Improving Public Literacy in Hate Speech Cases on Social Media as an Effort to Mitigate Legal and Social Impacts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1504.10Keywords:
literacy, hate speech, social media, pragmatics, lawAbstract
Hate speech does not receive serious attention from the community, so hate speech cases often recur. This research seeks to explain the forms and types of potentially criminal speech, especially insults on social media, as well as the mindset developed by insult perpetrators. This research uses a qualitative method that focuses on one issue of defamation. The data source is a copy of the final decision of a defamation case. The data was collected from the Supreme Court website using the observation method. The data was analyzed using pragmatics to interpret the intention of the offender's speech. This study found that the form of insults can be in the form of accusations, curses, a combination of accusations and curses, and ridicule. Furthermore, insults contain violations of maxims in pragmatics, namely violations of the maxim of quality, maxim of wisdom, and maxim of agreement. From a legal perspective, such speech can be prosecuted if it is done intentionally, contains accusations, is disseminated to the public, contains swear words, and defames the victim. Therefore, social media users need to know the dangers of insults, one of which is through insult case literacy. The pattern of behavior shows that speakers focus on Emphasizing their bad things, eliminating their good things, emphasizing their good things, and eliminating our bad things.
References
Alexander, L. J. (2000). Freedom of speech (Vol. 1). London: Ashgate Pub Ltd.
Anne, W. M., & Judith W. (2014). Social Media a Double-Edged Sword. Accountancy Ireland, 46, 32-34.
Blaxter, L., Christina H., & Malcolm T. (2001). How to research second edition. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. London: Allyn and Bacon.
Budiawan, R. Y. S., & Rawinda F. M. (2016). Kajian linguistik forensik: Kontroversi tuturan artis zaskia gotik dalam kasus penghinaan lambang negara [Forensic linguistic study: Controversy over artist Zaskia Gotik's speech in the case of insulting state symbols]. In Seminar Internasional Isu-isu Mutakhir dalam Kajian Bahasa dan Sastra [International Seminar on Latest Issues in Language and Literature Studies], 1—15.
Cahyono, A. S. (2016). Pengaruh media sosial terhadap perubahan sosial masyarakat di Indonesia [The influence of social media on social change in Indonesian society]. Jurnal Publiciana, 9(1), 140-157.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five tradition. London: Sage Publications.
Gitari, N. D., Zuping Z., Damien H., & Long J. (2015). A lexicon-based approach for hate speech detection. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 10(4), 215—230. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijmue.2015.10.4.21
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.) Syntax and semantics, 3 speech acts. New York: Academic Press.
Hartini, L., Aceng R. S., & Dadang S. (2020). Linguistik forensik terhadap perbuatan tidak menyenangkan di media sosial (kajian pragmatik) [Forensic linguistics of unpleasant actions on social media (pragmatic studies)]. Jurnal Deiksis, 12(3), 259—269. https://doi.org/10.30998/deiksis.v12i03.5416
Karjo, C. H. (2016). Identifying hate speech in tweets. In Prosiding Seminar Tahunan Linguistik (SETALI 2016) [Proceedings of the Annual Seminar on Linguistics (SETALI 2016)]. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Retrieved December 3, 2023, from https://repository.upi.edu/28438/
Kesuma, T. M. J. (2007). Pengantar metode penelitian bahasa [Introduction to language research methods]. Yogyakarta: Carasvatibooks.
Kreidler, C. W. (1998). Introducing English semantic. London: Routledge.
Kroeger, P. R. (2019). Analyzing meaning: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Second corrected and slightly revised edition. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Kurniasih, D. (2019). Ujaran kebencian di ruang publik: Analisis pragmatik pada data pusat studi agama dan perdamaian PSAP solo raya [Hate speech in public spaces: Pragmatic analysis of data from the PSAP Solo Raya Center for Religion and Peace Studies]. Jurnal Studi Agama Islam dan Masyarakat, 15(1), 49—57. https://doi.org/10.23971/jsam.v15i1.1153
Kusno, A. (2016). Bentuk-bentuk pelanggaran prinsip kesopanan dalam ceramah keagamaan [Forms of violation of the principle of politeness in religious lectures]. Jurnal LiNGUA, 11(2), 103—115. https://doi.org/10.18860/ling.v11i2.3502
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313
Mangantibe, V. (2016). Ujaran kebencian dalam surat edaran kapolri nomor: se/6/x/2015 tentang penanganan ucapan kebencian [Hate speech in the National Police Chief's circular number: se/6/x/2015 concerning handling hate speech]. Jurnal Lex Crimen, 5(1), 159—162. https://doi.org/10.31599/jkn.v1i3.30
Mey, L. J. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Ningrum, D. J., Suryadi, & Dian E. C. W. (2018). Kajian ujaran kebencian di media sosial [Study of hate speech on social media]. Jurnal Ilmiah Korpus, 2(3), 241—25.
Nockleby, J. T. (2000). Hate speech. New York: Macmillan.
Permatasari, D. I. (2019). Tindak tutur ilokusi ujaran kebencian Facebook tahun 2017-2019 [Illocutionary speech acts of Facebook hate speech in 2017-2019]. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia.
Reddy, V. (2002). Perverts and sodomites: Homophobia as hate speech in Africa. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 20(3), 163—175. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073610209486308
Rosenfeld, M. (2003). Hate speech in constitutional jurisprudence: A comparative analysis. Cardozo Law Review, 24, 1523—1567. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.265939
Santosa, R. (2021). Dasar-dasar metode penelitian kualitas kebahasaan [Basics of linguistic quality research methods]. Surakarta: UNS Press.
Simorangkir, R. T. E., & Prasetyo. (2008). Kamus hukum [Legal dictionary]. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Soesilo, R. (1981). Pokok-pokok hukum pidana, peraturan umum dan delik-delik khusus [The main points of criminal law, general regulations and special offenses]. Bogor: Politea.
Strauss, A., & Corbin J. (2003). Dasar-dasar penelitian kualitatif [Basics of qualitative research]. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Belajar.
Sudaryanto. (1993). Metode dan aneka teknik analisis bahasa [Methods and various techniques of language analysis]. Yogyakarta: Duta Wacana University Press.
Sugiyono. (2013). Metode penelitian pendidikan pendekatan kuantitas, kualitas, dan r&d [Educational research methods approach quantity, quality, and R&D]. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Suhandano. (2017). Linguistik forensik kesaksian ilmu bahasa dalam sidang pengadilan. In Seminar Nasional Bahasa, Sastra, dan Budaya, 1(1), 20—29.
Tazkiyah, I., Fadillah A. R., Kusuma F. W., Siswantoro M. F., & Cahyono S. A. (2021). Peran anonimitas terhadap cyberbullying pada media sosial [The role of anonymity in cyberbullying on social media]. In Prosiding Seminar SITASI. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://sitasi.upnjatim.ac.id/index.php/sitasi/article/view/74
Timofeeva, Y. A. (2002). Hate speech online: Restricted or protected-comparison of regulations in the United States and Germany. Germany: J. Transnat'l L. & Pol'y.
Wahyudi, H. S., & Sukmasari M. P. (2014). Teknologi dan Kehidupan Masyarakat [Technology and Community Life]. Jurnal Analisa Sosiologi, 3(1), 13 – 24.
Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in hate speech. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674065086
Weber, L. (2002). Marketing to social web: How digital customer communities build your business. USA: Willey Inc.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Studi kasus desain & metode [Case study design & methods]. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
