Mitigating Disinformation: Reflection of #NoNotAgain Campaign in Nepal for Indonesia

Ahead of election day in Nepal, a #NoNotAgain campaign movement has emerged on Facebook advocating people not to vote for some incumbent prime ministerial candidates. The campaign criticized the candidates' failures during their previous terms in office. Nepal’s Election Commission then reacted by demanding that the Facebook page be shut down through the threat of imprisonment or fines. With a normative legal research method that uses statutory, factual, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this article is prepared with the aim of analyzing the legality of the Nepal Election Commission’s restriction efforts on the freedom of expression of Nepalese through the restriction requirements contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Given that this phenomenon is related to the conditions that Indonesia will face in the 2024 general election, therefore, this article also seeks to find the ideal formulation of disinformation mitigation mechanism while respecting freedom of expression. The results of this study show that the response of Nepal’s Election Commission has violated freedom of opinion and expression. By reflecting on Nepal's experience, Indonesia can employ several alternative methods in dealing with disinformation.


A. Introduction
As the general election activities were underway, the Election Commission Nepal (the institution in charge of elections, "EC") was shocked by the appearance of a "No, Not Again" Facebook page calling for a campaign not to vote for the candidate for defense prime minister. 1Through various 1 Shristi Karki: Many Nepalis Say No, Not Again.https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/many-nepalis-say-no-not-again/.accessed 13 November 2022.

Candra Kresna Wijaya.
Uti Possidetis: Journal of International Law, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2024)   40 posts with the hashtag #NoNotAgain, the Facebook page that has 39,000 followers 2 display photos and elaborate explanations of the ineligibility of the candidate in question. 3emed to be spreading propaganda and hate speech, Nepal's EC urged the Facebook page to be shut down immediately. 4Nepal's EC even stated that it was ready to take the matter to the law, which would put the initiator of the campaign under the threat of five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 RS. 5 The measures taken by the Nepal's EC above, despite aiming at stopping what is considered 'hate speech', have the potential to kill a critical element in any electoral process in a democratic country, which is the discourse to make choices. 6In this case, when people are not allowed to discuss freely to determine who is entitled to their vote, their choice may be premature because it is not preceded by careful consideration of sufficient information.In fact, in essence, elections are a medium for people to elect their representatives in government. 2
On the other hand, the Nepal's EC concerns cannot be blamed.This is because the practice of manipulating information has been used massively to favor a party in an election.In fact, political science scholars have classified this practice as "a fraud of pre-vote".7It is logical, then, for any election management institution to attempt to counteract such practices in order to realize "free and fair elections."From the description above, it can be illustrated that the process of organizing elections is always faced with an intersection between the public's right to information and efforts to avoid manipulation practices.This issue intersects with the rules in international law, specifically in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights-as ratified by Nepal 8 -which guarantees freedom of expression, but calls for restrictions on that guarantee. 9 Referring to the assessment of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, the Nepal's EC move to silence the organizers of the #NoNotAgain campaign is considered to have threatened the freedom of expression of the Nepalis people. 10However, such threats are not necessarily invalid, given that the ICCPR allows restrictions on freedom of expression.Certainly, in this case, restrictions cannot be carried out arbitrarily, out of the corridors that have been determined by the law as stated in Article 19 paragraph (3) of the ICCPR.
As a country that has experienced the practice of manipulating information during elections, Indonesia should learn from Nepal for its #NoNotAgain campaign. 11Moreover, Indonesia's next simultaneous election will be held in 2024, one year away from the time of this article.In previous elections, campaigns were operated in the digital space, which contained numerous false or misleading information.The seriousness of the Indonesian government to tackle this condition can be seen in the discourse of the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology ("Kominfo") which sets the option of closing several major sites such as Facebook, Google and TikTok if deemed necessary to stop the circulation of fake news. 12Although it is still a plan, to ensure the legality of the implementation of the discourse in the future, it is necessary to conduct a more in-depth study, considering that Indonesia is also a state party to the ICCPR. 13e first discussion of this article seeks to answer the question of whether or not Nepal's EC action falls within the standard of restriction of freedom of expression according to the international law it accepts, namely the ICCPR, through an examination of various decisions of the Human Rights This is what the author tries to express in the second discussion of this article.This discussion contains manifestations of national legal formulations for the purpose of countering disinformation, which still follow the standards of human rights restrictions under international law that have been reviewed in the first part.

Nepal's EC Response to the #NoNotAgain Campaign
The conditions for limiting freedom of expression include three things commonly referred to as the three-part test or Siracusa principle14 and must be cumulatively fulfilled. 15To determine the legitimacy of the restrictions on the #NoNotAgain campaign, the assessment of the fulfillment of the three conditions of restriction must be analyzed more deeply.

a. Condition That the Restriction is Provided by Law ("Provided by Law")
This is a legality requirement, which aims to ensure that restrictions on expression have been established by law or other legally binding regulations and documents adopted under the law, 16 authorized by the legislative institution. 17It also requires that a country's laws allow its people to regulate their behavior in accordance with the law, and provide adequate guidance to those responsible for the execution of these rules to ensure what types of expression are truly restricted and what are not. 18The law in this context must be accessible to the public and synchronized with the objectives of the ICCPR.Based on the explanation above, it can be understood that it is very difficult to justify restrictions in order to protect the reputation of public figures.This is because the figure is the object of criticism and opposition. 28erefore, people cannot be limited in their freedom of expression if the implementation of that freedom is a form of criticism.

c. Requirement That the Restriction Must Be Proportional to Achieve the Purpose of the Restriction
The proportionality test determines whether the action taken does not impede public discussion that affects people's lives, 29 where the restrictions imposed are also appropriate to achieve their protective function, 30 and is the least intrusive measure ("less intrusive measure"). 31Ultimately, a country must demonstrate a clear and direct link between the expression and the threat at hand. 32 The approach to this criteria has had similar results, for example in the case of Marques de Morais v.
Angola, where the person concerned was arrested,  However, it is recognized that protecting the reputation of public figures can be difficult to enforce in the context of restrictions on freedom of expression.Third, restrictive measures must be proportionate and not threaten the right itself.This is important not only because it imposes unnecessary and unreasonable sanctions, but also because there are lighter alternative sanctions that can be applied.
Therefore, the author will further explain the steps that Indonesia can take to implement mitigation against the threat of disinformation and measures in line with the

Context of General Elections
The circulation of disinformation in the context of elections can be addressed through effective mechanisms at certain stages, such as at the pre-circulation, during circulation, and post-circulation stages of disinformation.
Through these mechanisms, restrictions on freedom of expression can be in line with international and national legal instruments.

a. Optimizing Media Literacy Skills as an Antidote to the Spread of Disinformation
In Indonesia, the percentage of internet users in survey which stated that 73% of a total of 10,000 respondents used social media as a means of extracting information. 37This shows that the community has been able to utilize the internet as a source of information.
However, this does not indicate a high level of understanding of the population's media literacy.
In detail, the digital literacy index in Indonesia is categorized as moderate, as seen from the index score obtained floating above the value limit of 3.00 out of an Although it is an effort to protect from the rampant disinformation outbreak, the GNLB #SiBerkreasi program is not free from praise and criticism from the public. 39On the one hand, the literacy program movement deters the public from negative content in circulation, including through initiatives to disseminate 39 Dadan Kurnia.Analisis Kritis Terhadap Gerakan Nasional Literasi Digital Dalam Perspektif Good Governance.Jurnal Academia Praja.Vol. 4, No. 1. 2021.p. 113.mechanisms are needed under the threshold of limiting the right to expression, to realize a digital ecosystem that is free from disinformation and other negative content. 41Dongfang Gaozhao.Flagging fake news on social media: An experimental study of media consumers' identification of fake news.Government Information Quarterly.Vol. 38, No. 3. 2021. p. 1. 42 ARTICLE 19, 2022.Moderasi Konten dan Pemangku Kepentingan Lokal di Indonesia.p. 9 43 Meta Transparency Centre: Content restrictions based on local law.https://transparency.fb.com/data/content-restrictions/.accessed 14 November 2022.
The warning of misleading content has a substantial psychological effect in responding to disinformation for users to respond critically to an issue. 45donesia cannot be said to have optimized its content moderation options.The weakness of content moderation in Indonesia lies in the difficulty of reaching the offices of social media platforms. 46Moreover, the process of submitting and reviewing content by social media platforms takes a long time.In 2017, Rudiantara, the then Minister of Communication and Information, criticized the difficulty of outreach, the slow response, and doubted that foreign social media platforms' policies could understand local issues. 47 an effort to counter non-responsive action, the defiance of social media platforms to implement content moderation, a country often gives ultimatums through constitutional practice in the form of fines and penalties, 48 as well as national scope blocking. 49German law enforcement through The Network Enforcement Act ("NetzDG"), imposes large fines for platforms' noncompliance with the removal of content deemed illegal under the German Criminal Code. 50Austria enforced a similar policy through The Communications Platforms Act in 2021, in response to hate speech, harassment, and the spread of disinformation on online platforms.As stated in the Act's provisions, social media platform providers with more than 100,000 users in Austria are required to establish effective reporting and removal procedures within 24 hours to 7 days.Failure to comply may result in fines totaling €10 million to the company, and €1 million to the managing board member of the social media platform. 51donesian law enforcement is one of the countries that enforce this non-proportional policy through Article 45A of the ITE Act.Individuals who violate this Article through the spread of false and misleading news may be subject to a fine of up to Rp. 1,000,000,000 (one billion

c. Urgency of Information Monitoring and Assessment Program Projection
In the practice of restricting freedom of expression, the government's view must be consistent with international instruments, and the process must be accompanied by detailed analysis and assessment.
However, the spread of disinformation has increased exponentially in a short period of time as elections approach.The Rabat Plan of Action aims to help judicial authorities define restrictions on freedom of expression to identify cases where speech acts may constitute incitement to hatred and be punishable.In assessing the appropriateness of restrictions on freedom of expression through the test, it must consider: 1) the social and political context; 56 2) speaker status, 57 3) intention to incite the audience against the target group; 58 4) content and form of speech; 59 5) spread rate; 60 dan 6) possibility of causing harm. 61Through the Rabat Plan of Action, it is expected to realize the digital information biome, without any violation of human rights.

C. Conclusion
The Committee ("HRC")-a body established under Article 28 of the ICCPR with the function of monitoring the implementation of obligations under the covenant.The answers found are then used as a benchmark in examining the legality of the implementation of the Indonesian government's discourse in tackling disinformation during the election.Reflecting on how Nepal dealt with the #NoNotAgain campaign and the condition of Indonesia's legal arrangements regarding digital space, the formulation of disinformation mitigation mechanisms while respecting freedom of expression should be developed in order to achieve a balance between the right to information to finalize choices in elections and the obligation to maintain an orderly condition.
the limitation imposed by the Nepal's EC does not fulfill the entire three-part test.This means that restrictions on freedom of expression cannot be justified under the ICCPR.Looking at the case in Nepal, it is hoped that the experience can be a valuable lesson for Indonesia in regulating restrictions on freedom of expression, especially in the context of elections.It is important to pay attention to the applicable requirements when facing restrictions on freedom of expression, especially ahead of the 2024 electoral contestation.Restrictions on criticism of political figures must meet several criteria, as outlined earlier.First, the restriction must be in accordance with applicable law and have clear boundaries.Second, restrictions must have a well-defined purpose, one of which is to protect the reputation of individuals.
overall value of 5.00.The index score includes several pillars including the Digital Skills Pillar, Digital Culture Pillar, Digital Ethics Pillar, and Digital Safety Pillar.From the set of pillars above, the one that plays a role in measuring public understanding of information processing and data literacy, as well as critical thinking is the Digital Skills Pillar, which scored 3.44 out of 5.0. 38Furthermore, individuals who carry a high digital literacy index are more likely to disseminate hoax news and reduce positive habits in digesting online news.Instead of achieving enlightenment, digital literacy skills are used haphazardly to mislead.However, it cannot be denied that the even distribution of increased digital media literacy of the public can reduce the obscurity of information through careful analysis and evaluation.The step taken by the Indonesian government is an inter-institutional collaboration, namely a comprehensive media literacy program called the National Digital Literacy Movement (Gerakan Nasional Digital Literasi) #SiBerkreasi ("GNLB #SiBerkreasi") in 2018, with the hope of facing the challenge of misleading information and increasing the country's digital competitiveness.The program focuses on digital skills, digital culture and ethics in responding to disinformation; providing webinars aimed at educating the public to become good citizens online; and socializing digital literacy to various sectors, especially the education sector, by integrating digital media literacy materials into the formal curriculum.

b.
Formulation of "Content Moderation" under the Threshold of Violation of Freedom of Opinion and Expression In general, social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram strive for content moderation through fact checking flagging 41 , filter, removal, labelling, content demotization in controlling illegal content. 42Countries can collaborate with these social media companies to restrain the flow of sensitive information if it conflicts with each country's policies. 43However, account suspension and aggressive content removal features, 44 including misleading content, is considered more intrusive and can violate the right to expression guaranteed in the ICCPR and foreign constitutions.The use of the fact-checking flagging approach still provides media consumers with the right to receive information.
rupiah) and/or imprisonment for a maximum of 6 (six) years.The provisions of the law listed above are a disproportionate criminalization paradigm based on Article 19 paragraph (3) of the ICCPR.Reflecting on the implementation of restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression in various countries, it is not wrong to say that law enforcement is oppressive, and controversially serves the political purpose of silencing opposition and criticism.
Nepal's EC response to the #NoNotAgain campaign criticizing the prime ministerial candidate in the 2022 general election is a violation of the freedom of opinion and expression guaranteed by the ICCPR.In the first category, no justification can be submitted, while in the second category, even if there is a justification for limiting freedom of expression, it must follow the three-part test in accordance with Article 19 paragraph (3) of the ICCPR.However, Nepal's EC action does not fulfill all three conditions, as the parameters of the restriction are vague and unnecessary, making it disproportionate.Nepal's condition will be relevant for Indonesia in preparation for the upcoming elections in 2024.Kominfo's option to close major websites to stop the spread of fake news has the potential to violate people's freedom of expression.Therefore, it is necessary to formulate alternative mechanisms such as increasing digital literacy, content moderation, and monitoring programs that adopt the thresholds in the Rabat Plan of Action, especially related to disinformation and hate speech.Through these alternatives, when dealing with the phenomenon of widespread disinformation, the government should take steps that least violate freedom of expression when available.
detained, or had his travel restricted, for writing criticism of the Angolan president.The Committee argued that the severity of the sanctions imposed on him could not be considered a proportionate measure to protect public order or the honor and good name of the President; a public figure who was therefore subject to criticism and opposition.33Asimilar point was made by the Committee in Adonis v. Philippines case, where a radio broadcaster was imprisoned for defamation.The Committee found this in violation of Article 19 of the ICCPR, not only because the sanction was unnecessary and unreasonable, but also because lesser sanctions were available. 34/www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Opinion/ElectionsReportDigitalAge.pdf.accessed 14 November 2022.
To tackle this issue, Bawaslu is in the stage of Through disinformation, it can spark the fire of hatred in the form of hate speech, which is the most serious abuse of the right to freedom of expression. 54Thus, proactive information review should include testing through the Rabat Plan of Action threshold test, legalized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 55