In a case that has reignited fierce debate over Indonesia’s blasphemy laws and freedom of expression, Ratu Thalisa, a transgender influencer widely known as Ratu Entok, has been sentenced to two years and 10 months in prison by the Medan District Court in North Sumatra. The conviction, handed down on Monday, stems from comments made during a TikTok livestream that were deemed blasphemous under Indonesia’s Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law. The ruling has drawn sharp criticism from human rights groups, who argue it represents a broader trend of stifling dissent and personal expression in the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation.
Ratu, whose TikTok account @ratuentokglowskincare boasts around 442,000 followers, was found guilty of violating Article 45A of the 2024 ITE Law. The incident in question occurred during a livestream on 2 October 2024, when Ratu responded to a viewer’s suggestion to cut her hair to appear more masculine. Holding up a picture of Jesus Christ, she reportedly said, “You [Jesus] should not look like a woman. You should cut your hair so that you will look like his father,” referring to the viewer’s father. While the comment appears to have been intended as a playful retort, it sparked outrage among some Christian groups in North Sumatra, leading to her arrest just six days later on 8 October 2024 after five organisations filed a complaint accusing her of hate speech and blasphemy.
Presiding Judge Achmad Ukayat, announcing the verdict, stated that Ratu’s actions had “disrupted public order” and risked “undermining religious harmony” in the community—aggravating factors that influenced the court’s decision. However, the sentence of two years and a fine of Rp 100 million (approximately US$6,000)—with an additional three months’ imprisonment if unpaid—was lighter than the four years and six months demanded by prosecutors. Mitigating factors included Ratu’s admission of guilt, her public apology, and her lack of a prior criminal record. Following the verdict, Ratu indicated she would take seven days to decide whether to appeal, while prosecutors immediately announced their intention to seek a harsher penalty. 
A Chilling Effect on Freedom of Expression
The case has drawn international attention, with human rights organisations condemning the conviction as an overreach of Indonesia’s legal framework. Usman Hamid, executive director of Amnesty International Indonesia, described the ruling as a “shocking attack” on Ratu’s freedom of expression. “While Indonesia should prohibit the advocacy of religious hatred that incites discrimination, hostility or violence, Ratu Thalisa’s speech does not meet that threshold,” he said in a statement (Amnesty International Indonesia, 12 March 2025). Hamid called for the authorities to overturn the conviction and release Ratu immediately, arguing that the application of the ITE Law in this context is both arbitrary and repressive.
Indonesia’s blasphemy laws and the ITE Law, first introduced in 2008 and revised multiple times, have long been contentious. Critics argue that these laws are often weaponised to silence dissent, target minorities, and curb free speech online. According to Amnesty International Indonesia, 121 individuals have been convicted of blasphemy since 2018, while between 2019 and 2024, at least 560 people were charged under the ITE Law for exercising their freedom of expression, with 421 convictions. Offences under the law frequently include defamation and hate speech, though the vague wording of provisions often leaves room for subjective interpretation by authorities.
Ratu’s case is not an isolated incident. In September 2023, a Muslim woman was sentenced to two years in prison for blasphemy after posting a TikTok video in which she recited an Islamic prayer before eating pork—an act forbidden in Islam. In another instance last year, a TikToker was detained for blasphemy after posting a video quiz asking children, “What kind of animals can read the Quran?” These cases highlight a pattern of using blasphemy and digital expression laws to police personal behaviour and online content, often with severe consequences for those targeted.
Cultural and Religious Sensitivities in a Diverse Nation
Indonesia, with a population of over 270 million, is a culturally and religiously diverse archipelago, where Islam is the dominant faith, practised by approximately 87% of the population. The country’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but in practice, religious harmony is a deeply sensitive issue, and the state often intervenes to maintain what it perceives as social stability. Blasphemy laws, rooted in both colonial-era legislation and post-independence statutes, are seen by some as a necessary tool to prevent sectarian conflict in a nation with significant Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and other minority communities.
However, these laws disproportionately affect marginalised groups, including religious minorities, activists, and, as in Ratu’s case, members of the LGBTQ+ community. Transgender individuals in Indonesia already face significant social stigma and legal challenges, with limited protections against discrimination. Ratu’s high-profile status as an influencer may have amplified the backlash against her, as her visibility on platforms like TikTok challenges traditional gender norms in a conservative society. Her conviction raises questions about the intersection of gender identity, religious expression, and digital rights in Indonesia—issues that are increasingly coming to the fore as social media reshapes public discourse.
International Human Rights Obligations
Indonesia is a signatory to several international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. Critics, including Usman Hamid, argue that the country’s blasphemy laws and their application under the ITE Law violate these commitments. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has repeatedly called for the repeal or amendment of such laws globally, noting that they often fail to meet the threshold of proportionality and necessity required under international law.
The case of Ratu Thalisa also underscores broader regional challenges in Southeast Asia, where governments frequently use legal mechanisms to control online spaces. In neighbouring countries like Thailand and Vietnam, laws such as Thailand’s Computer Crime Act and Vietnam’s Law on Cybersecurity have similarly been criticised for restricting freedom of expression. While Indonesia’s democratic framework offers more space for dissent than some of its neighbours, the increasing use of the ITE Law suggests a troubling convergence with more authoritarian approaches to digital governance.
What Lies Ahead for Ratu and Indonesia’s Legal Landscape?
Ratu’s decision on whether to appeal her sentence could set a significant precedent for how blasphemy and hate speech cases are handled in Indonesia’s courts. An appeal might draw further international scrutiny, potentially pressuring the government to reconsider its approach to such laws. However, it could also result in a harsher sentence if prosecutors succeed in their push for a longer term. For now, Ratu remains in custody, a symbol of the precarious balance between individual rights and collective sensitivities in Indonesia.
Beyond Ratu’s individual case, there is a growing call for legal reform. Activists and civil society groups have long advocated for the revision or repeal of the ITE Law, particularly provisions related to defamation and blasphemy. In recent years, there have been discussions within Indonesia’s parliament about amending the law to better protect freedom of expression, though progress has been slow. Any potential reform would need to navigate the complex interplay of religious, cultural, and political forces that shape public policy in the country.
Speculative analysis suggests that if the government were to relax restrictions on digital expression, it could foster greater public dialogue and innovation in a rapidly digitising society. However, such a move might also provoke backlash from conservative groups who view strict laws as essential to maintaining moral and social order. Without clear evidence of political will for reform, these possibilities remain unconfirmed, and the trajectory of Indonesia’s legal landscape uncertain.
A Test for Indonesia’s Democracy
Ratu Thalisa’s conviction is more than a single legal outcome; it is a litmus test for Indonesia’s commitment to democratic principles in an era of digital transformation. As social media platforms like TikTok become battlegrounds for cultural and political expression, the state’s response to perceived offences will shape the boundaries of acceptable speech for millions of users. For now, Ratu’s case serves as a stark reminder of the risks faced by those who challenge societal norms, whether through humour, identity, or critique.
For human rights advocates, the fight is far from over. The international community, alongside local activists, will likely continue to press for Ratu’s release and broader legal changes. Whether these efforts will translate into meaningful reform remains to be seen, but the conversation around freedom of expression in Indonesia has rarely been more urgent. As the nation grapples with its identity as a pluralistic democracy, cases like Ratu’s will remain at the heart of a critical debate: how to balance individual liberties with the demands of a diverse and often divided society.
