[ ABSTRAK
Tulisan ini membahas ruang publik sebagai tempat untuk arena berdebat dan menyampaikan gagasan bagi setiap orang. Namun, dalam konteks hari ini, ruang publik tidak lagi semata ruang dalam artian fisik, tetapi juga ruang di ranah virtual. Di ruang publik di media sosial, komunikasi face-to-face tidak lagi berlaku, termasuk jarak komunikasi seperti ruang publik dalam artian fisik. Sebagai ruang publik, media sosial seperti Facebook, Twitter, Path, dan Kompasiana bersifat bebas akses dan menjadi tempat bertemunya berbagai ekspresi, gagasan dan pendapat. Dalam tulisan ini dibahas lima kasus penggunaan ranah publik di media sosial, meliputi kasus Florence di Path, kasus penghinaan Jokowi di Facebook, kasus penghinaan Ahok di Twitter, kasus Prita dan RS Omi dan kasus Jilbab Hitam. Kasus tersebut menggambarkan bahwa meskipun prinsip kebebasan menyampaikan pendapat di ruang publik berlaku, pengguna bukan berarti dapat menyampaikan opini yang merugikan individu, kelompok atau institusi lain. Opini yang disampaikan tidak mengandung provokasi, baik berbentuk trolling ataupun flaming, sehingga pengguna tidak terjerat kasus hukum. Kasus penggunaan ruang publik dapat menciptakan sebuah gerakan sosial yang dijalankan para pengguna ruang publik. Sifat gerakan sosial tersebut bisa mendukung ataupun menjatuhkan subjek.
ABSTRACTThis paper explains about public sphere as the place for debatting and giving the idea for everyone. But, in today’s context, public sphere is not only a sphere in physical way, but also virtual way. In social media, it is no longer effective for face to face communication, including distance as is found in public sphere. As public sphere media, social media like Facebook, Twitter, Path and Kompasiana have free access and become a place where any expressions, ideas and opinions meet. In this paper, discussion is made regarding five cases related to the use of public sphere in social media including Florence case in Path, Jokowi humiliation on Facebook, Ahok humilation on Twitter, Prita and Omni Hospital case and also Jilbab Hitam case. The cases reveal that inspite of the principle of freedom of expression in public sphere, social media users are not meant to convey any opinion that may harm an individual, group or institution. Opinion delivered does not contain any provocations, either “trolling” or “flaming” so that the user will not be legally or lawfully caught. Cases of the use of public sphere may bring about a social movoment by public sphere users. The nature of this social movement may either support or bring down the subject., This paper explains about public sphere as the place for debatting and giving the idea for everyone. But, in today’s context, public sphere is not only a sphere in physical way, but also virtual way. In social media, it is no longer effective for face to face communication, including distance as is found in public sphere. As public sphere media, social media like Facebook, Twitter, Path and Kompasiana have free access and become a place where any expressions, ideas and opinions meet. In this paper, discussion is made regarding five cases related to the use of public sphere in social media including Florence case in Path, Jokowi humiliation on Facebook, Ahok humilation on Twitter, Prita and Omni Hospital case and also Jilbab Hitam case. The cases reveal that inspite of the principle of freedom of expression in public sphere, social media users are not meant to convey any opinion that may harm an individual, group or institution. Opinion delivered does not contain any provocations, either “trolling” or “flaming” so that the user will not be legally or lawfully caught. Cases of the use of public sphere may bring about a social movoment by public sphere users. The nature of this social movement may either support or bring down the subject.] |
MK-Dodi Prananda.pdf :: Unduh