Press Freedom in Turkey in great danger
Press Freedom in Turkey in great danger
Ataturk, the Army, the issue of minorities (Kurds, Armenians, etc.) and the Nation’s dignity are all taboo subjects in Turkey, writes the worldwide journalists association, Reporters Sans Frontières. Several thousand websites are blocked, including the well-known YouTube, raising protests within the country. Bloggers and surfers who express their views freely on such topics are running the risk of reprisals.
Thousands of blocked websites
According to figures revealed by the association, currently, some 3,700 sites are allegedly blocked in Turkey, some for “arbitrary and political reasons,” according to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) (www.osce.org). Among them are many foreign websites, news sites about the Kurd minority, and EU gay websites, thereby muzzling any opportunity for debate.
The most widely publicized example of online censorship is undoubtedly the blocking of YouTube, which has once again been rendered inaccessible since May 2008 because of the dissemination of videos considered disrespectful toward the Founder of the Republic and the Turkish nation, despite the fact that YouTube had withdrawn some of these videos. From March 2007 to June 2008, several courts had issued seventeen orders to block the website. A related lawsuit on this matter was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by the Society for Internet Technology (INETD), based in Ankara, for violating freedom of expression. In September 2008, MySpace.com was also blocked for “violating intellectual property rights,” then unblocked in October 2009.
A legislation-backed censorship?
Law 5651 on the Internet permits this mass blocking. The OSCE thus urged Turkey to implement reforms to demonstrate its commitment to freedom of expression. Article 8 of this Law authorizes blocking the access to certain websites if there is even a “adequate suspicion” that any of the following eight offenses are being committed: encouraging suicide; sexual exploitation or abuse of children, facilitating the use of narcotics; supply of unhealthy substances; obscenity; online betting, or anti-Ataturk crimes. It is this latter provision that creates problems. Websites hosted in Turkey are often shut down, and those hosted abroad are filtered and blocked by Internet service providers. Denunciations are encouraged: there is a hotline for reporting prohibited online content and illegal activities. Over 80,000 calls were recorded in May 2009, as opposed to 25,000 in October 2008.
Site-blocking is carried out by court order or by administrative order of the Supreme Council for Telecommunications and IT. Such administrative decision is arbitrary and precludes the possibility of a fair trial. This entity, which was created in 2005 in the aim of centralizing surveillance and the interception of communications (including on the Internet), has not issued its blacklist of blocked websites since May 2009 – indicating a troubling lack of transparency.
According to the OSCE, over 80% of the blockings tallied in May 2009 were the result of administrative orders. The majority of them were made on the grounds of “obscenity” and the “sexual exploitation of children.” However, in addition to these site blockings, 158 examples of “illegal” Ataturk-related content have allegedly been removed at the request of the Telecommunications Presidency. By virtue of Article 9 of this text, individuals who feel that their rights have been violated may request that the site or its host remove the incriminated content.
Most importantly, states Reportes Sans Frontières, nearly 200 court decisions were recorded in 2009 ordering website blockings related to matters beyond the scope of Law 5651, therefore making the blockings unjustified. For example, the independent news site www.istanbul.indymedia.org was suspended for “insulting Turkish identity” – a crime that falls within the jurisdiction of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) and not Law 5651. Other counts of indictment used were “dissemination of terrorist propaganda” (by virtue of the Anti-Terrorist Law), and “incitement to hatred” by virtue of Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code. Some websites were also rendered inaccessible as the result of libel suits.
Moreover, Turkish law does not oblige the authorities to inform those charged of the rulings rendered, and the sites often find out for themselves that they are blocked. Rather than to legally contest the blocking decisions, which has rarely occurred, some sites change their domain names to circumvent the censorship. For example, the website of the daily Gündem has been blocked since March 2008, but their new site, www.gundem-online.net, remains accessible.
Most importantly, censorship can be circumvented via proxy servers or VPNs, and blocked websites are often accessible on Blackberrys and iPhones.
Netizens “harassed” for expressing their opinions
Prison terms were pronounced in absentia on March 2, 2010 against three online journalists from Adiyaman Province (in southeastern Turkey). Journalist Haci Bogatekin, chief editor of the www.gergerfirat.net news site, was sentenced to five years in prison, and denied his civil rights for insulting and defaming Sadullah Ovacikli, a local prosecutor. His son, Özgür Bogatekin, owner of the online news site, www.gergerfirat.net, received a one year and two-month prison term on the grounds that he intervened when two policemen were assaulting someone in the street. Cumali Badur, an editor of the same news site, www.gergerim.com, was fined EUR 1500 (about USD 2,050). A column posted on the latter website in January 2008 had mentioned that Prosecutor Ovacikli had ties with Fethullah Gülen, a religious community leader. The three journalists have appealed their cases and are not currently behind bars.
Baris Yarkadas, an online journalist working for the newspaper Gercek Gündem (“Real Agenda”) may be facing a prison term of 5 years and 4 months by virtue of Article 299, paragraph 2, of the Turkish Penal Code. His trial, which began on March 3, 2010, will reconvene on June 9. The Presidential administration has charged him with “insulting the President of the Republic,” and with not withdrawing from his newspaper’s website a critical article posted by an Internet user. The journalist is facing multiple lawsuits. On June 21, 2010, he must also appear before the same court, this time on charges brought by Dr. Nur Birgen, Chair of the Institute for Forensic Medicine’s Third Specialization Board, who accused him of “personally insulting” her by reporting in an article allegations that human rights NGOs had made against her.
After ten months of detention pending trial, Aylin Duruoglu, Editor of the Vatan website (www.gazetevatan.com) and Mehmet Yesiltepe, an employee working for the magazine Devrimci Hareket ("revolutionary movement") were granted a conditional release. They remain charged with being members of the armed military group "Revolutionary Headquarters” ("Devrimci Karargah"), an accusation that Aylin Duruoglu firmly denies.
Another form of online harassment involves the Internet website Agos – the weekly founded by Hrant Dink, the Turkish-Armenian journalist fatally shot in 2007 – which was hacked in February 2010 by individuals who admired the killer, even as setbacks and legal complications pile up during the trial of the alleged perpetrators of this crime.
Internet censorship is truly raising concern in Turkish society. The blogosphere has been protesting against the blocking of YouTube, and the mobilization campaign was relayed by the traditional media after an article on the subject was published in The Wall Street Journal. Virulent editorials have appeared in Turkish newspapers. One of them, printed in the Milliyet daily of February 17, 2010, was headlined: “Let’s take away Istanbul’s status as the European Capital of Culture” – a status granted by the European Union in 2010 in order to recognize Turkey’s cultural development. The censorship strategy adopted by Turkey, as publicized by the YouTube case, seems to conflict with its European ambitions and the contemporary image it wishes to project.
Thousands of blocked websites
According to figures revealed by the association, currently, some 3,700 sites are allegedly blocked in Turkey, some for “arbitrary and political reasons,” according to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) (www.osce.org). Among them are many foreign websites, news sites about the Kurd minority, and EU gay websites, thereby muzzling any opportunity for debate.
The most widely publicized example of online censorship is undoubtedly the blocking of YouTube, which has once again been rendered inaccessible since May 2008 because of the dissemination of videos considered disrespectful toward the Founder of the Republic and the Turkish nation, despite the fact that YouTube had withdrawn some of these videos. From March 2007 to June 2008, several courts had issued seventeen orders to block the website. A related lawsuit on this matter was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by the Society for Internet Technology (INETD), based in Ankara, for violating freedom of expression. In September 2008, MySpace.com was also blocked for “violating intellectual property rights,” then unblocked in October 2009.
A legislation-backed censorship?
Law 5651 on the Internet permits this mass blocking. The OSCE thus urged Turkey to implement reforms to demonstrate its commitment to freedom of expression. Article 8 of this Law authorizes blocking the access to certain websites if there is even a “adequate suspicion” that any of the following eight offenses are being committed: encouraging suicide; sexual exploitation or abuse of children, facilitating the use of narcotics; supply of unhealthy substances; obscenity; online betting, or anti-Ataturk crimes. It is this latter provision that creates problems. Websites hosted in Turkey are often shut down, and those hosted abroad are filtered and blocked by Internet service providers. Denunciations are encouraged: there is a hotline for reporting prohibited online content and illegal activities. Over 80,000 calls were recorded in May 2009, as opposed to 25,000 in October 2008.
Site-blocking is carried out by court order or by administrative order of the Supreme Council for Telecommunications and IT. Such administrative decision is arbitrary and precludes the possibility of a fair trial. This entity, which was created in 2005 in the aim of centralizing surveillance and the interception of communications (including on the Internet), has not issued its blacklist of blocked websites since May 2009 – indicating a troubling lack of transparency.
According to the OSCE, over 80% of the blockings tallied in May 2009 were the result of administrative orders. The majority of them were made on the grounds of “obscenity” and the “sexual exploitation of children.” However, in addition to these site blockings, 158 examples of “illegal” Ataturk-related content have allegedly been removed at the request of the Telecommunications Presidency. By virtue of Article 9 of this text, individuals who feel that their rights have been violated may request that the site or its host remove the incriminated content.
Most importantly, states Reportes Sans Frontières, nearly 200 court decisions were recorded in 2009 ordering website blockings related to matters beyond the scope of Law 5651, therefore making the blockings unjustified. For example, the independent news site www.istanbul.indymedia.org was suspended for “insulting Turkish identity” – a crime that falls within the jurisdiction of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) and not Law 5651. Other counts of indictment used were “dissemination of terrorist propaganda” (by virtue of the Anti-Terrorist Law), and “incitement to hatred” by virtue of Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code. Some websites were also rendered inaccessible as the result of libel suits.
Moreover, Turkish law does not oblige the authorities to inform those charged of the rulings rendered, and the sites often find out for themselves that they are blocked. Rather than to legally contest the blocking decisions, which has rarely occurred, some sites change their domain names to circumvent the censorship. For example, the website of the daily Gündem has been blocked since March 2008, but their new site, www.gundem-online.net, remains accessible.
Most importantly, censorship can be circumvented via proxy servers or VPNs, and blocked websites are often accessible on Blackberrys and iPhones.
Netizens “harassed” for expressing their opinions
Prison terms were pronounced in absentia on March 2, 2010 against three online journalists from Adiyaman Province (in southeastern Turkey). Journalist Haci Bogatekin, chief editor of the www.gergerfirat.net news site, was sentenced to five years in prison, and denied his civil rights for insulting and defaming Sadullah Ovacikli, a local prosecutor. His son, Özgür Bogatekin, owner of the online news site, www.gergerfirat.net, received a one year and two-month prison term on the grounds that he intervened when two policemen were assaulting someone in the street. Cumali Badur, an editor of the same news site, www.gergerim.com, was fined EUR 1500 (about USD 2,050). A column posted on the latter website in January 2008 had mentioned that Prosecutor Ovacikli had ties with Fethullah Gülen, a religious community leader. The three journalists have appealed their cases and are not currently behind bars.
Baris Yarkadas, an online journalist working for the newspaper Gercek Gündem (“Real Agenda”) may be facing a prison term of 5 years and 4 months by virtue of Article 299, paragraph 2, of the Turkish Penal Code. His trial, which began on March 3, 2010, will reconvene on June 9. The Presidential administration has charged him with “insulting the President of the Republic,” and with not withdrawing from his newspaper’s website a critical article posted by an Internet user. The journalist is facing multiple lawsuits. On June 21, 2010, he must also appear before the same court, this time on charges brought by Dr. Nur Birgen, Chair of the Institute for Forensic Medicine’s Third Specialization Board, who accused him of “personally insulting” her by reporting in an article allegations that human rights NGOs had made against her.
After ten months of detention pending trial, Aylin Duruoglu, Editor of the Vatan website (www.gazetevatan.com) and Mehmet Yesiltepe, an employee working for the magazine Devrimci Hareket ("revolutionary movement") were granted a conditional release. They remain charged with being members of the armed military group "Revolutionary Headquarters” ("Devrimci Karargah"), an accusation that Aylin Duruoglu firmly denies.
Another form of online harassment involves the Internet website Agos – the weekly founded by Hrant Dink, the Turkish-Armenian journalist fatally shot in 2007 – which was hacked in February 2010 by individuals who admired the killer, even as setbacks and legal complications pile up during the trial of the alleged perpetrators of this crime.
Internet censorship is truly raising concern in Turkish society. The blogosphere has been protesting against the blocking of YouTube, and the mobilization campaign was relayed by the traditional media after an article on the subject was published in The Wall Street Journal. Virulent editorials have appeared in Turkish newspapers. One of them, printed in the Milliyet daily of February 17, 2010, was headlined: “Let’s take away Istanbul’s status as the European Capital of Culture” – a status granted by the European Union in 2010 in order to recognize Turkey’s cultural development. The censorship strategy adopted by Turkey, as publicized by the YouTube case, seems to conflict with its European ambitions and the contemporary image it wishes to project.
