Kebebasan berekspresi dan paradoks privasi dalam hubungan pertemanan

Abstract views: 166890 , PDF downloads: 1512
(Bahasa Indonesia) downloads: 0


The development of information technology is misinterpreted as a place of expression without control. Social media has blurred the boundary between private space and public space. Frequent phenomena such as taking and using photos of friends without permission. This seems to be a paradox between the right to freedom of expression in friendship. This study aims to assess freedom of expression and the limitations of privacy in cyberspace. The researcher will examine several cases of violations of privacy through photos and their impact on victims. This research method uses a qualitative approach. The technique of collecting data uses interviews, literature studies and documentation. The theory used is the theory of computer- mediated communication and using the concept of a privacy violation to help answer problems in this study. Through this research, it is expected to obtain applicative solutions in an effort to resolve privacy issues and limits in friendship.


Baghai, K. (2012). Privacy as a Human Right : A Sociological Theory.
Bhasin, M. L. (2006). Guarding Privacy on the Internet. Global Business Review, 7(1), 137–156.
Fischer-Hübner, S., & Hedbom, H. (2013). Benefits of Privacy-Enhancing Identity Management. Asia Pacific Business Review, 4(4), 3–13.
Griffin, E. (2011). A First Look at Communication Theory (8th ed). McGraw Hill.
Lahlou, S. (2008). Identity, social status, privacy and face-keeping in digital society. Social Science Information, 47(3), 299–330.
LaRose, R., & Cho, H. (1999). Privacy issues in Internet surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 17(4), 421. Retrieved from
Masur, P. K., & Scharkow, M. (2016). Disclosure Management on Social Network Sites : Individual Privacy Perceptions and User-Directed Privacy Strategies.
Michalis, M., & Smith, P. (2016). The relation between content providers and distributors: Lessons from the regulation of television distribution in the United Kingdom. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 665–673.
Miles, M. (2015). Photography, Privacy and the Public. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 11(2), 270–293.
Negara, U. D., Indonesia, R., Indonesia, N., Yang, A., Kuasa, M., Indonesia, P. N., … Presiden, W. (1945). Amandemen Undang-undang Dasar 1945, Republik Indonesia, 4(1), 1–12.
Park, Y. J. (2013). Digital Literacy and Privacy Behavior Online. Communication Research, 40(2), 215–236.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Nontraditional Regulations, and Innovations in Darning-Centered, Doctoral Education, Including Faculty Meetings That Are Interesting and Important, an Indication of Knovation of the Highest Order. Qualitative Inquiry. Retrieved from
Petronio, S. (2013). Boundaries of privacy: dialectics of disclosure. Choice Reviews Online (Vol. 40).
Roessler, B., & Mokrosinska, D. (2013). Privacy and social interaction. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 39(8), 771–791.
Tirosh, N. (2017). Reconsidering the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ – memory rights and the right to memory in the new media era. Media, Culture and Society, 39(5), 644–660.
Trepte, S. (2015). Social Media , Privacy , and Self-Disclosure : The Turbulence Caused by Social Media ’ s Affordances.
UU No. 20 Tahun 2008. (2008). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia. UU No. 20 Tahun 2008, (1), 1–31.
von Pape, T., Trepte, S., & Mothes, C. (2017). Privacy by disaster? Press coverage of privacy and digital technology. European Journal of Communication, 32(3), 189–207.
Youm, K. H., & Park, A. (2016). The “right to be forgotten” in European Union law: Data protection balanced with free speech? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(2), 273–295.
How to Cite
, & . (2019). Kebebasan berekspresi dan paradoks privasi dalam hubungan pertemanan. Jurnal Studi Komunikasi, 3(2), 215-229.