Buchtar's attorneys described the case as an attempt to stifle free speech in Papua, asking, "If outside Papua, people can freely raise their opinions, why is free speech still restrained in Papua, and treated as treason?"
Pengacara Buchtar menyebut kasus ini upaya untuk meredam kebebasan berbicara di Papua dan menyatakan, "Jika di luar Papua orang-orang bisa bebas berpendapat, mengapa kebebasan berpendapat masih dikekang di Papua dan dianggap pengkhianatan?"