To start off the International Women’s Day (IWD) 2025 Celebration, Girl Up UNS (Universitas Sebelas Maret) moderator, Fatimi Hanum Sabila explains three cases of violence against women, of which two of them becomes viral on social media. The first case is that of a student of PPDS Universitas Diponegoro, while the second case is a tragic case of a fried food seller in West Sumatera, which does not become viral. The organizer distributes mentimeter to participants in order to gauge their ideas, and display the answers on the screen.

A number of answers point to the difference in cases, based on whether they are uploaded into the social media and become viral or not, and where there will be serious attention being given when viral, although the case may not end up in justice, as its dealing is only a show of institutional “good will.” Non-viral case(s) will not get the same serious attention, and will be far from getting any justice. There are also answers that suggest that non-viral cases will go to the prosecutor without any handover, except that it is marked as harassment.

One FEB student, Husni says that the viral case – the first case – shows that there is something wrong with PPDS program that it waits until the case becomes viral (publicly known) that it shows interest (when the case has already been known for a while while the authority did not do anything with it). The second case – a women selling fried food – becomes viral, and the local community makes use of it as an opportunity to make money from something that is essentially terrible. The question is whether justice is coming after a case becomes viral? No. There should be justice for the victim(s) regardless, so that the victim(s) has/have a peaceful mind.

The second session of the talkshow introduces Fitri Haryani, a resource person from Yayasan SPEK-HAM. She says that rule of legal is not yet enforced in the context of the now-viral case and the police response to it. She can prove this through three cases – two of which are only addressed in response to the case being viral. Fitri insists that justice should proceed without a case being viral.

She adds that in the digital era, everyone wants to bring good news of all situation, despite their ignorance, including of the accountability, and of the impacts to victims. This shows that communities need validation – whether positive or negative. “People bring news of all sort into social media? Bombastic? Validation?” asks Fitri.

So how do we respond in this digital age? There is Information and Electronic Transaction Law to prove that the authority needs to respond. What needs to be upgraded? Virality requires objective. The latter informs whether it is used to access justice or just for mere popularity. This has to do with the ethical code of who will be exposed, as in journalism ethics that requires informed consent. There is something missing here, regarding how to publish something. There should be confirmation to the person and/or family. Unfortunately, people are ignorant of such thing.

Fitri adds that publication should not just make use of something without referencing the source. This is infringement of a person’s rights. The digital track will appear someday. Not only close families but the people in general will get to access it. There is ethical code for journalists. For example, when a journalist brings news about a suicide or war, there is a disclaimer or trigger warning.

As moderator, Hanum asks whether the legal system is dependent on virality? Fitri says yes and no. It depends on the access to justice. She gives an example about the Law on Sexual Violence. There are things to keep such as secrecy. This has to do with the impacts that can happen – i.e psychologically. The law enforcement agency must keep such things as digital records, for example, to strengthen the case it is investigating, which it can only give to few people with clear relevance. There are rules about who then can access such secrets. Even legal accompaniment are not allowed to mention names, or even the geographical location. Somebody can get sued for breaking such rule.

SPEK-HAM sent a letter to the local Police with regards to a case relating to a TikTok content, and sent the attachments to the Provincial Police Chief and to the National Police Chief, asking them to force the content to be taken down, otherwise SPEK-HAM will sue.

The question then is what is the risk of virality in court? Does it affect court proceedings? Fitri answers that viralty strengthens evidence because it is a digital evidence, that can be used in legal proceeding. If something is wrong, there are Information and Electronic Transaction Law and the Criminal Law. It should be proven that the content has effects on community, as nobody has looked into the effects on community. Rather, they only see the viral effects.

The other issue is what situation is prevalent in the community. If it is viral, then what happens to the community members who do not understand social media? “Should it proceed in such manner that a case will get the attention of law enforcement when it has become viral?,” asks Fitri.

Then what roles does publication have in strengthening the public? The answer is it depends on the caption, simply because there are captions that do not have any perspective at all about victims. That leads not to empathy, but stigmas, for example with regards to victim’s appearance, painful words for victims: or pictures or visual shown. This has effects. “People follow and quickly respond without careful consideration about what they do, without caption with a perspective on victims,” says Fitri. She also emphasises that the importance of digital awareness in community in order to prevent misuse of social media. This way, they know what is truly important and what are relevant with regards to FOMO (fear of missing out). We witness such quick changes nowadays without similar enhancement in literacy, and people do not really understand the pressure of globalization, and capitalism, all people have mobile phones without truly understanding their critical use.

Then, what is the solution, when dealing with victims of violence? The answer is: do not judge, listen attentively, without blaming victims, trust the victims, without confirming to other people. If referral is necessary, then find information about services that victims can access, and finally improve literacy. (Ast)