Prank Victims Can Drag Content Creators To Prisons If Losses

JAKARTA A content created by the @galihloss account has recently disturbed the public. The social experiment content created by the YouTuber is considered very detrimental to the victim.

Recently, a video appeared showing how the TikTok celebrity Galih Loss tried to play the motorcycle taxi driver. Feeling disturbed by the content creator, the ojol driver then shouted and called security officers. But at the same time, the content creator claimed to be a victim of motorcycle robbery. Luckily the security forces were not provoked by content creator claims.

Warganet assessed that the content created by the @galihloss account was disturbing and dangerous. Moreover, the safety of the victim is threatened if the person at the location around him is provoked by the screams of Galih who calls driverojol a thief.

Actually, this is not the first time content has been troubling viral on social media. YouTuber Ferdian Palaka was also blasphemed by netizens in 2020 because of his prank content.

In the video he uploaded, Ferdian provides basic necessities to a transvestites. But when the parcel was opened, it turned out that Ferdian's gift was not really basic necessities, but contained garbage. The content was considered outrageous and he received blasphemy from netizens.

Even though he apologized and withdrew his uploaded video, netizens were already furious with Galih's behavior. Especially after being investigated, almost all of the content he made was not educational and disturbing. Galih's comment column is full of anger from netizens, even demanding that the content creator be secured by the police.

Is it possible for someone to sue a YouTuber who did the prank and then recorded it and uploaded the video without the victim's permission?

Prank according to the Crambridge Dictionary page is designated as a hoax or act of null and void against someone with the aim of becoming a joke/guyyan but causing no harm or damage.

The content of pranks that have been widely distributed lately is quite disturbing to the public. According to criminal law observer Farizal Pranata Bahri, content of social experiments may actually be carried out as long as no legal norms are violated, be it immorality, religion, or applicable law.

But the prank content is a problem when it violates the norms mentioned above.

Farizal added, if the victim objected to the videoprank uploaded by a content creator, then the victim could file a civil objection by suing an unlawful act.

"For the criminal realm, it can be prosecuted by Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions (UU ITE), the Pornography Law and other laws as long as there are criminal elements that are violated," Farizal told VOI.

"Especially the ITE Law, if this is about the victim's personality, which turns out that during the video process contains losses to his personality, then it can be reported criminally," he added.

Meanwhile, quoted by Law Online, YouTube's actions can be categorized as acts of insult or defamation regulated in Article 310 of the Criminal Code (KUHP).

Soesilo in his book entitled The Criminal Code (KUHP) and his Complete Comments on Article Demi Articles in the explanation of Article 310 of the Criminal Code explain that insulting' is attacking someone's honor and good name. Those who are attacked usually feel'malur', and respect' who are attacked here only about honor about good name, not'respect' in the sexuil field, an honor that can be defamed because it is offended by a member of his genitals in the sexual lust environment.

R. Soesilo is still explaining that in order to be punished according to this article, the insult must be carried out by accusing someone of committing a certain act with the intention that the accusation be spread (known to many people). The alleged act does not require an act that can be punished such as stealing, embezzling, adultery and so on, enough with ordinary actions, of course an act that is embarrassing.

Farizal explained that the article governing insults and defamation through electronic media (videos) is regulated in Article 27 paragraph (3) of the ITE Law, which reads that every person intentionally and without rights distributes and/or transmits and/or makes accessible Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents that contain insults and/or defamation.

Meanwhile, the criminal threat for people who violate Article 27 paragraph (3) of the ITE Law is regulated in Article 45 paragraph (3) of Law 19/2016.

Galih and other YouTubers should be more careful in creating content. The threat of reporting from victims who are subject to pranks is very likely, as experienced by Ferdian Palaka. This YouTuber from Bandung was once dragged to prison in May 2020 after his transvestigated transvestites reported to the police.

Despite running away, Ferdian was arrested at Merak Harbor, Banten, along with his friends and uncle. After being arrested, he was immediately taken to the Bandung Polrestabes detention cell.

One month later, Ferdian Palaka and two of his colleagues were declared free thanks to peace efforts between him and the lawyer facilitated victim.

What happened to Ferdian Palaka should be a lesson for other YouTubers to be more careful in creating content. The point is, do not let content created harm others.