<![CDATA[AbstrakPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji mengenai urgensi perlindungan jurnalis terhadap tindak pidana pencemaran nama baik menurut Pasal 27 Ayat (3) UU ITE dengan studi putusan Pengadilan Negeri Bireuen Nomor 42/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Bir. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif atau doktrinal yang bersifat preskriptif. Penelitian ini menggunakan sumber bahan hukum primer dan sekunder. Teknik analisis yang digunakan yaitu dengan metode silogisme yang menggunakan pola berpikir deduktif. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian yang dilakukan dapat disimpulkan bahwa bahwa penerapan tindak pidana pencemaran nama baik menurut pasal 27 ayat (3) Undang-Undang ITE terhadap profesi jurnalis masih menjadi problematika dalam praktek litigasi, dikarenakan pasal 27 ayat (3) UndangUndang ITE bersifat Terlalu luas, sedangkan menurut Undang-Undang Pers persoalan pemberitaan diselesaikan berdasarkan mekanisme UU No. 40 Tahun 1999 tentang Pers, yakni pengajuan hak jawab, hak koreksi, atau diadukan ke Dewan Pers. Berdasarkan analisis tersebut, Putusan Hakim Nomor: 42/ Pid.Sus/2019/PN Bir. tidak tepat karena selain seharusnya diselesaikan dengan mekanisme Dewan Pers terlebih dahulu, unsur-unsur dalam Pasal 27 ayat (3) Undang-Undang ITE sebagaimana yang diterapkan oleh Hakim tidak semuanya terpenuhi.Kata kunci : Perlindungan Hukum, Putusan Hakim, Pencemaran Nama Baik, Pers. AbstractThis study aims to examine the urgency of protecting journalists against criminal defamation according to Article 27 Paragraph (3) of the ITE Law with a study of the Bireuen District Court decision Number 42 / Pid.Sus / 2019 / PN Bir. The research used normative or doctrinal legal research which are prescriptive. The sources of this research are included primary and secondary legal materials. The analysis technique that has been used was the syllogism method which uses deductive thinking patterns. Based on the results of this legal research, it can be concluded that the application of criminal defamation according to article 27 paragraph (3) of the ITE Law on the journalist profession is still problematic in litigation practice, because article 27 paragraph (3) of the ITE Law is too broad, whereas according to the Press Law, reporting problems are resolved based on the mechanism of Law no. 40 of 1999 concerning the Press, namely submitting the right of reply, the right of correction, or a complaint to the Press Council. Based on this analysis, the Judge’s Decision Number: 42 / Pid.Sus / 2019 / PN Bir. is inappropriate because apart from being supposed to be resolved by a Press Council mechanism first, not all of the elements in Article 27 paragraph (3) of the ITE Law as applied by the Judge are fulfilled.Keywords : Legal Protection, Judge’s Decision, Defamation, Press.]]>
