This research is based on the problem related to the inconsistency in the judge's decision in interpreting the element of "violating decency" related to the case of
spreading pornographic content on electronic media, especially in Decision Number 260/Pid.Sus/2023/PN.Bgl, Decision Number 442/Pid.Sus/2023/PN.Smn, and Decision Number 230/Pid.Sus/2022/PN.Tar. The purpose of this study is to
determine the causes of criminal disparity in Decision Number 260/Pid.Sus/2023/PN.Bgl, Decision Number 442/Pid.Sus/2023/PN.Smn, and Decision Number 230/Pid.Sus/2022/PN.Tar related to the dissemination of
pornographic content on electronic media. This research uses normative legal research methods. The inconsistency in the application of the meaning of decency in judges' decisions related to the distribution of pornographic content on
electronic media is due to the fact that the meaning of decency is not clearly regulated in Article 45 paragraph (1) jo. Article 27 paragraph (1) of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning
Electronic Information and Transactions. Decency, which has a broad and different meaning, makes judges also experience differences in giving considerations. The government has through the Minister of Communication and Information Technology, the Attorney General and the Chief of Police made a Joint Decree Number 229, 154, KB/2/VI/2021 concerning Implementation Guidelines for certain Articles in the ITE Law, one of which is Article 27 paragraph (1), but this Joint Decree is only used as a guideline by Investigators
and Judges.