On Monday, 1 September 2025, Delpedro Marhaen—a young Indonesian human rights defender—was arbitrarily arrested and detained under questionable circumstances. Authorities have charged him with multiple offenses, including incitement to hatred, raising serious concerns about the legitimacy of the case. 

Police allege that Delpedro appears in a video encouraging students, some reportedly under the age of 18, to participate in what they describe as “anarchic actions.” This footage, supposedly recorded between 25 to 31 August 2025, is being cited as allegedly a key factor in the escalation of peaceful demonstrations into violent confrontations. Yet, as of 3 September, the video in question has not been made public, and the legal rationale behind its classification as incitement remains unclear. 

International human rights standards, particularly the Rabat Plan of Action, offer a clear framework for assessing whether speech constitutes incitement to hatred or violence. This framework is encapsulated in the acronym CSI-CEL: Context, Speaker, Intent, Content, Extent, and Likelihood of Harm. Each of these six elements must be evaluated collectively and rigorously before any expression can be deemed unlawful.

In practice, this means that authorities must demonstrate—at the outset and throughout the investigative process—that all six criteria are met. If even one element is absent or unsubstantiated, such as a lack of demonstrable harm or intent, then the expression should not be restricted, nor should the speaker face criminal charges. 

Even if we hypothetically accept that the video contains inflammatory rhetoric—such as Delpedro urging viewers to attack police officers—the burden of proof remains high. Law enforcement must establish a direct causal link between the video and the violent acts committed during recent protests. Did the footage genuinely incite individuals to, say, throw stones at police? Or were those actions a response to longstanding grievances, such as systemic police brutality? 

Investigators must also ask: Was Delpedro’s role in society influential enough to provoke violence? Did his words carry sufficient weight to inspire unlawful, violent behavior? How widely was the video disseminated, and how many people actually saw it? More importantly, did those viewers act solely because of the video, or were their actions shaped by broader social and political frustrations? 

These questions are not rhetorical—they are essential to any fair and lawful determination of incitement. Without clear, cumulative evidence that Delpedro’s speech meets all CSI-CEL criteria, the charges against him lack a solid foundation. 

In light of these considerations, it is premature and legally unsound to accuse Delpedro Marhaen of inciting hatred or violence. The absence of transparent evidence and the failure to apply internationally recognized standards suggest that his arrest may be politically motivated rather than grounded in law. 

Additionally, what makes this case especially troubling is the broader pattern it exemplifies: the misuse of ambiguous legal provisions to suppress dissent. Indonesia’s own constitutional protections for freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are being eroded when authorities circumvent due process and rely on regressive interpretations of what constitutes hate speech. 

Rather than weaponizing vague laws to stifle criticism, the government should confront the underlying causes of public unrest. Allegations of corruption, abuse of power, and environmental degradation must be investigated transparently and impartially, in full accordance with legal safeguards and international human rights standards. 

The frustration driving recent protests stems not from Delpedro’s words, but from systemic violations and state-backed harm. He is not the source of the anger—he is merely its messenger.