Dinar Candy, pornography, freedom of expression, and the law

Dinar Candy expressed her feeling to PPKM by wearing bikini in the roadside which caused her be stipulated as the suspect of phornography. Dinar Candy’s case brought to the thoughts on the limitation of pornography meaning and the determination on freedom of expression in action of wearing bikini. The research is conducted through a qualitative approach using secondary data. The results show, first: phornograph is limited by ‘subjective reason’ such as if the phornography is aimed for personal interest, then the action is not phornography. The other is ‘action-room limitation’ in which an action can be formulated as phornography if the standard and characteristic in the room where the action is done consideres that the action is obscene or aims to sexual exploitation. The room refers to specific place such as beach, roadside, hotel, or other specific places, not wide social room. Second: If someone’s feeling is expressed by wearing bikini in a room which based on its decency standard allows to wear bikini, then the action can be determined as freedom of expression. In contrary, in a room where bikini is considered against morality, or it is spread to public, then such action is againsting the phornogrphy law.How to cite item: Donandi S, S. (2022). Dinar Candy, pornography, freedom of expression, and the law. Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum, 13(2). 202-213. doi:10.26905/idjch.v13i2.6517.