Main Article Content

Abstract

The raising of the Jolly Roger flag from the anime series One Piece in mid-2025 gave rise to significant normative tensions between the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression and national security interests in Indonesia. This study examines the aspects of legal certainty and utility in this phenomenon using normative juridical methods with a conceptual and legislative approach. The analytical framework is based on Gustav Radbruch's theory of legal objectives and Lawrence Friedmann's theory of legal systems. The results of the study reveal a fundamental disparity in interpretation: the state applies a rigid security approach by qualifying the flag raising as an act of treason and provocation, while society interprets it as a legitimate symbolic social critique within the corridor of human rights. The criminalization of this expression is considered to have an inadequate legal basis, considering the absence of mens rea, the failure to fulfill the element of aanslag, and the inconsistency of the applied norms with the principle of lex certa. From a socio-legal perspective, law enforcement officers experience a cultural stuttering in distinguishing fictional symbols from real separatist threats. This study recommends a restorative justice approach as an alternative to criminalization, to prevent the chilling effect that undermines democratic space. The research's originality lies in its analysis of popular culture as a medium for social criticism within the Indonesian criminal law framework, an approach previously unexplored in domestic literature.

Keywords

Freedom of Expression Human Rights Benefit Certainty Popular Culture

Article Details

How to Cite
Muttaqin, I., & Nurzaman, R. A. (2026). Between Benefits and Legal Certainty: A Legal Analysis of the Raising of the One Piece Flag in Indonesia as a Form of Freedom of Expression. Golden Ratio of Data in Summary, 6(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.52970/grdis.v6i2.2006

References

  1. Afdhali, D. R., & Syahuri, T. (2023). Idealitas Penegakkan Hukum Ditinjau Dari Perspektif Teori Tujuan Hukum. Collegium Studiosum Journal, 6(2), 555–561. https://doi.org/10.56301/csj.v6i2.1078
  2. Albercht, H. J. (2001). Settlements Out of Court: A Comparative Study of European Criminal Justice Syastem. Research Project Report (Research Paper 19) South African Law Commission.
  3. Ansori, L. (2018). Reformasi Penegakan Hukum Perspektif Hukum Progresif. Jurnal Yuridis, 4(2), 148. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.35586/.v4i2.244
  4. Ariana. (2022). Bahan Hukum Primer Dan Sekunder. Jemis, Vol. III.
  5. Arief, H., & Ambarsari, N. (2018). Penerapan Prinsip Restorative Justice Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Di Indonesia. Al-Adl: Jurnal Hukum, 10(2), 1689–1699. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.31602/al-adl.v10i2.1362
  6. Buana, M. S. (2010). Hubungan Tarik-Menarik Antara Asas Kepastian Hukum (Legal Certainty) Dengan Asas Keadilan (Substantial Justice) Dalam Putusan-Putusan Mahkamah Konstltusl. Universitas Islam Indonesia. https://dspace.uii.ac.id/handle/123456789/8648
  7. Fajar, M., Achmad, Y., & Empiris, D. penelitian hukum : normatif dan. (2010). Dualisme Penelitian Hukum: Normatif & Empiris. Pustaka Pelajar. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=M-jWSAAACAAJ
  8. Mertokusumo, M. S., & Pitlo, A. (1993). Bab-bab tentang penemuan hukum. Citra Aditya Bakti. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=SDsxtwAACAAJ
  9. Mertokusumo, S. (1999). Mengenal Hukum : Suatu Pengantar. https://lib.ui.ac.id/detail?id=20101970&lokasi=lokal
  10. Moeljatno. (2002). Asas-asas hukum pidana. Cetakan Ke-Tujuh.Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. https://simpus.mkri.id/opac/detail-opac?id=5490
  11. Moeljatno. (2021). KUHP (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana). Bumi Aksara. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=_TZCEAAAQBAJ
  12. Muladi. (2000). Prinsip-Prinsip Pengadilan Pidana Bagi Pelanggar HAM Berat Di Era Demokrasi. Makalah Seminar, 27 April 2000.
  13. Prayogo, T. (2018). Penerapan Asas Kepastian Hukum Dalam Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 Tahun 2011 Tentang Hak Uji Materiil Dan Dalam Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 06/Pmk/2005 Tentang Pedoman Beracara Dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 13, 191–201. https://doi.org/10.54629/jli.v13i2.151
  14. Rizky, R. (2008). Refleksi Dinamika Hukum Rangkaian Pemikiran Dalam Dekade Terakhir (1 Cet.1). Jakarta: Percetakan Negara Republik Indonesia.
  15. Santoso, A. (2012). Hukum, Moral & Keadilan. Prenada Media. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=N29ADwAAQBAJ
  16. Satjipto, R. (2000). Mengajarkan Keteraturan Menemukan Ketidak-Teraturan (Teaching Order Finding Disorder) Tiga puluh Tahun Perjalanan Intelektual dari Bojong ke Pleburan. Pidato Mengakhiri Masa Jabatan Sebagai Guru Besar Tetap Pada Fakultas Hukum Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, 15 Desember 2000.
  17. Stern Taulats and Roura Capellera v. Spain. (2018). Stern Taulats and Roura Capellera v. Spain. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22itemid%22:[%22002-12046%22]%7D
  18. Sudarto. (1990). Hukum Pidana I. Cetakan ke-dua. In Semarang: Yayasan Sudarto Fakultas Hukum UNDIP. Semarang.
  19. Sumartini, S., Nurwahyuni, & Kholik, S. (2022). Kedudukan Hukum Dalam Perspektif Negara Hukum Modern. Jurnal Suara Hukum, 4(1), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.26740/jsh.v4n1.p224-242
  20. Wadhana, P. (2011). Implementasi Supremasi Hukum Guna Mengoptimalkan Keamanan dalam Negeri dalam Rangka Memperkokoh Ketahanan Nasional. Lembaga Ketahanan Nasional RI.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.