The Constitutional Court signed a very important decision as a result of the applications made regarding the broadcast ban on some news on the internet. In the decision published in the Official Gazette, the Constitutional Court ruled that the publication ban violated the freedom of expression and press, as well as the right to an effective application. In addition, with the pilot decision, it decided to postpone the examination of similar applications for 1 year.
The Constitutional Court combined 9 individual applications regarding the access ban on news due to legal contact. In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that there was an interference with freedom of expression and press by blocking access to news. Some of the reasons for the decision were as follows:
There are no concrete fixes:
“In Article 9 of the Law (Law No. 5651 on Regulation of Broadcasts on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed Through These Broadcasts), there is no statement indicating that the scope of the way of blocking access is limited to internet broadcasting that constitutes a crime. Moreover, a criterion/threshold value has not been determined for the size of the weight that the tort of personal rights must reach in order to use this method. In addition, there is the impression that all of the procedures for blocking access introduced by the said law are in the nature of a precautionary measure. ”
In the decision, it was stated that there were no concrete findings that the peace judgeships did not comply with the duties and responsibilities of the press in their decisions, and that the truth was distorted maliciously. In addition, it was stated in the following statements that the intervention was not proportionate:
“Moreover, it has not been determined that a criminal investigation and prosecution has been initiated in relation to any of these news reports after the decision to block access. Therefore, the news that are the subject of concrete applications seem to have been blocked for an indefinite period. It was considered that the interference with the freedom of expression and press was not proportionate.
It was emphasized that the current system should be reconsidered:
The following statements were also used in the decision, which pointed out that the existing system, which was already functioning, should be reconsidered in order to prevent similar violations:
“Undoubtedly, it is at the discretion of the legislature to make the legal regulations, which is an important part of the state policy to be adopted in the organization of the internet environment. Of course, the parliament may also prefer to make new legal arrangements while remaining within the existing system. In this case, it was concluded that it would be beneficial to take into account the minimum standards in the new legal arrangements to be made so that the interventions to the online environment comply with the requirements of the democratic social order in accordance with Article 13 of the Constitution and do not cause a violation of Article 26 of the Constitution. ”
To examine the decision and to get information about the news and the applicants, you can go to the decision published in the Official Gazette by clicking this link.
32538
