Hate Speech and the Freedom Discourse

: Hate speech accompanies intellectual freedom in new media. In the context of Indonesia, this phenomenon is very important during a political event such as legislative elections, presidential election, or elections of regional head. Since the 2014 presidential election, the term 'haters' was widely known, titled people with golden messages hateful to certain people or groups. Especially for netizens (youth users) - the Y and Z generation, the practice of communication with these hate messages should receive special attention. In addition to the heir of the nation, this is what coloring cyberspace now. They are native to the digital world (digital native). They are aware of the right to speak and express but understand that the online realm is the public domain inherent in normative responsibility. This paper reviews efforts to send hate messages through hate speech legislation (Hate Speech) laws and how ITE laws against hate speech acts.


I. INTRODUCTION
The danger of hate speech against democracy is beyond doubt.
European countries that have had bad experiences with hate propaganda like the Nazis in general have more strict regulations to ban hate speech. While America where civil liberties became an important part in national history chose to tolerate hate speech.
However, a hate crime is set in its own legislation. In some cases, the United States also has a precedent for punishment of hate speech which is strongly perceived as causing violence. 1 The dangers of hate speech are also affirmed by the United Nations which in 1966 issued the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which prohibited "hate campaign against incitement, incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence". 2 However, regulation limiting hate speech is controversial because it limits freedom of speech which is a fundamental aspect of democracy. The critics of the prohibition of hate speech believe that keeping the freedom of speech as a basic right is more expensive than the danger that can be prevented from the punishment of speech that is considered dangerous. 3 A similar debate took place in Indonesia.
Hate speech is not prohibited in this country, but its application is At that time the discourse on the dangers of SARA (tribal, religious, and racial) sentiments was used by the rulers as a basis of legitimacy to suppress political opponents. Political freedoms recently enjoyed by Indonesians have made efforts to limit freedoms easily suspected.
In addition, hate speech legislation is linked to a clause on desecration that has been used as a source of legitimacy for discrimination and persecution against minority religious groups. This raises the dilemma of law enforcement against hate speech in Indonesia. This dilemma creates a 'no action' situation that makes hate speech in Indonesia spread freely without the slightest hindrance. 4 This condition provides an opportunity for the transformation of some hardliners to divert the arena of struggle from 'bomb-armed warfare' to 'war with the words'. 5 As a result, leaders or hard-line media are free to campaign against individuals or other groups based on communal sentiments, including calls for violence and murder. to provide as accurate data on hate speech, its rules, and implications.
The point is to reinforce the hypothesis, to reinforce the old theory or in the framework of formulating a new theory. 7 In this case the researcher did the use of language by the speakers through the words produced, then the data obtained is recorded, Sudaryanto. 8  Not only spreading false news (hoax), not infrequently the irresponsible parties also spread speech hatred (hate speech) through social media. Hate speech is a news that has a contempt or defamation content, where initially the owner of the social media account just wrote what he or she thinks. However, sometimes they forget that what they write can be read by people who also use social media.
As time goes by, the spread of hate speech has become a business field for irresponsible people. One of them is saracen. Saracen is a hoax news maker group that works professionally and has thousands of accounts in carrying out its action. This group has a very neat with the intention that their content be known or more publicly known.
In 2007  The criminal sanction for such action is regulated in Article 45A of the EU Law, which is a criminal sanction for any person who knowingly and without right to disseminate information intended to inflict hatred or hostility on certain individuals and / or community groups based on SARA with a maximum imprisonment of 6 (six) years and / or a maximum fine of Rp1,000,000,000.00 (one billion rupiah).
Although the right to express and express opinions publicly for the right to obtain and disseminate information is a basic right of every

IV. CONCLUSION
From the existing opinion can be concluded that the news lie or hoax that lead to hate speech (hate speech) can be done various social among members of the community. Do not conceal lies and hate speech is allowed to exist or exist can also adversely affect the emergence of national and state divisions. Hence the need for synergy between the community and law enforcement officers. As a party the public must be smart in determining whether the information used can be the truth or lie and not directly to get information, that must do the examination first, although the information obtained is hate Hate messages are increasingly sensitive in the online realm. For a pluralistic society (multiracial, multiethnic, multi-religious), the impact of hate messages is alarming. The motto "Unity in Diversity" can be shaky, if we ignore the messages of hatred (eg thick SARA nuance) in the online realm. Cases that have occurred as a result of spreading hate messages are enough to be valuable lessons.
In addition to using techniques through regulation, cultural efforts through increased media literacy are relevant to do. This media literacy is used on the empowerment of netizens in responding to