Tweet
TURKISH AUTHORITIES STEP UP CENSORSHIP OF INTERNET WEBSITES
By Gareth Jenkins
Eurasia Daily Monitor
Friday, October 3, 2008
DC
In the early hours of October 4, 2005, Turkey officially began
accession negotiations with the EU. Over the previous four years,
in order to secure a date for the opening of negotiations, successive
Turkish governments had eased many of the restrictions on freedom of
expression in the country. Since October 2005, however, the process
has ground to a halt. Indeed, in some areas, it appears to have
gone into reverse, particularly in the increasing attempts to censor
the Internet.
The Turkish authorities have long sought to block Internet users in
Turkey from accessing websites associated with militant groups that
espouse violence, such as the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Over
the last 18 months, however, there has been a rapid rise in the
censorship of websites, purely because they contain material that
expresses values or opinions deemed unsuitable for the Turkish public.
Until May 2007, there was no legal framework in Turkey specifically
designed to regulate the content of Internet websites. In practice,
the judicial system tended to apply the same laws that were used to
regulate traditional media outlets such as newspapers and television
channels. On May 4, 2007, however, the Turkish parliament passed Law
No. 5651, which was specifically designed to regulate Internet content
and prevent websites from being used for crimes such as "encouraging
suicide," "the sexual exploitation of children," "facilitating the
use of narcotics," "obscenity," "prostitution," and "gambling" (Law
No. 5651 of May 4, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 26530
of May 23, 2007). The law also provided for the prevention of access
to websites that violated other Turkish laws, such as anti-terrorism
legislation or the law that forbids insulting the memory of the
Turkish Republic's founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (Law No. 5816 of
July 25, 1951, published in the Official Gazette No. 7872 of July
31, 1951). In addition, under Article 24 of the Turkish Civil Code
(Turkish Ministry of Justice website, www.adalet.gov.tr), individuals
can apply for access to be blocked to a website that they feel is
"infringing on their personal rights."
In the case of content that is deemed to be obscene or to
exploit children sexually, Law No. 5651 empowers the state-run
Telecommunications Board to prevent access to the website without
recourse to a court decision. For most other offences, a court ruling
is required. Since November 2007, members of the public have been
able to notify the Telecommunications Board of what they believe is
inappropriate content via a designated telephone number and website.
Under Turkish law, the decision to block access to a website is made by
the court or by the Telecommunications Board on its own. According to
figures released by Tayfun Acarer, the head of the Telecommunications
Board, access has been prevented to a total of 1,112 websites since
November 23, 2007, with 251 of them blocked by a court ruling and 861
by a decision of the Telecommunications Board itself. The owners of
the websites in question do not need to be informed and invariably only
learn that their website has even come under suspicion once access to
it from inside Turkey has been blocked (Radikal, October 2, Milliyet,
October 3).
Since early May, Internet users in Turkey have been prevented from
accessing the popular video-sharing website YouTube, after Greek
nationalist youths used the site to post some amateurish videos mocking
Ataturk (Ankara First Petty Crimes Court, Decision No 2008/402 of
May 5). Websites banned for "obscenity" range from genuine hardcore
pornographic sites to the photographs link on www.moonamtrak.org,
a website set up by a U.S. group that annually bares their buttocks
at passing Amtrak trains (Ankara Ninth Petty Crimes Court, Decision
No 2008/140 of February 4).
In practice, it is relatively easy to circumvent the Telecommunication
Board's filters by using proxy servers; although thus does require
a modicum of computer literacy and it is unclear how many Internet
users in Turkey are even aware that it is possible. Perhaps more
disturbing than the measures taken by the Turkish authorities, which
are little more than an irritant to someone with enough determination,
is the mentality that lies behind it.
"The duty of the state is to protect its citizens and warn them
against harmful Internet content," declared Tayfun Acarer (Today's
Zaman, October 3).
In reality, of course, neither citizens nor website owners receive any
warning. Access is simply blocked and attempting to lift it requires
the website owner to embark on a long legal process, the outcome of
which is uncertain. There are also increasing signs that Internet
censorship is not being used to "protect" Turkish citizens but to
try to enforce a particular worldview or political opinion.
On September 19 the Turkish courts blocked access to the website of the
biologist and militant atheist Richard Dawkins (www.richarddawkins.net)
following an application brought by lawyers acting for Adnan Oktar, a
52 year-old Islamist author and sect leader who lives in seclusion in
an Istanbul suburb. Oktar is most famous for his "Atlas of Creation,"
a glossy, large-format, 800-page defense of creationism. After
an article posted on Dawkins' website mocked Oktar's scientific
credentials, he applied to a court in Istanbul for access to the
site to be blocked on the grounds that its contents were defamatory,
blasphemous, insulting to religion, and a violation of his personal
rights. The court concurred (Radikal, Milliyet, September 20).
The Turkish authorities have displayed considerably less determination,
however, to suppress the expression of what might be regarded
as more dangerous views. For example, there are numerous Turkish
ultranationalist websites and blogs in Turkey which eulogize Ogun
Samast, who murdered Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink on January
19, 2007. Most recently, a court in the city of Duzce ruled that
no action should be taken against Isin Ersen, a columnist on the
Bolu Express local newspaper who, in October 2007, had called for
the murder of members of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party
(DTP). The court decided that Ersen's call fell within the scope
of freedom of speech (see EDM, October 2). Ersen's article is still
easily accessible via the Bolu Express website (www.boluexpress.com).
By Gareth Jenkins
Eurasia Daily Monitor
Friday, October 3, 2008
DC
In the early hours of October 4, 2005, Turkey officially began
accession negotiations with the EU. Over the previous four years,
in order to secure a date for the opening of negotiations, successive
Turkish governments had eased many of the restrictions on freedom of
expression in the country. Since October 2005, however, the process
has ground to a halt. Indeed, in some areas, it appears to have
gone into reverse, particularly in the increasing attempts to censor
the Internet.
The Turkish authorities have long sought to block Internet users in
Turkey from accessing websites associated with militant groups that
espouse violence, such as the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Over
the last 18 months, however, there has been a rapid rise in the
censorship of websites, purely because they contain material that
expresses values or opinions deemed unsuitable for the Turkish public.
Until May 2007, there was no legal framework in Turkey specifically
designed to regulate the content of Internet websites. In practice,
the judicial system tended to apply the same laws that were used to
regulate traditional media outlets such as newspapers and television
channels. On May 4, 2007, however, the Turkish parliament passed Law
No. 5651, which was specifically designed to regulate Internet content
and prevent websites from being used for crimes such as "encouraging
suicide," "the sexual exploitation of children," "facilitating the
use of narcotics," "obscenity," "prostitution," and "gambling" (Law
No. 5651 of May 4, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 26530
of May 23, 2007). The law also provided for the prevention of access
to websites that violated other Turkish laws, such as anti-terrorism
legislation or the law that forbids insulting the memory of the
Turkish Republic's founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (Law No. 5816 of
July 25, 1951, published in the Official Gazette No. 7872 of July
31, 1951). In addition, under Article 24 of the Turkish Civil Code
(Turkish Ministry of Justice website, www.adalet.gov.tr), individuals
can apply for access to be blocked to a website that they feel is
"infringing on their personal rights."
In the case of content that is deemed to be obscene or to
exploit children sexually, Law No. 5651 empowers the state-run
Telecommunications Board to prevent access to the website without
recourse to a court decision. For most other offences, a court ruling
is required. Since November 2007, members of the public have been
able to notify the Telecommunications Board of what they believe is
inappropriate content via a designated telephone number and website.
Under Turkish law, the decision to block access to a website is made by
the court or by the Telecommunications Board on its own. According to
figures released by Tayfun Acarer, the head of the Telecommunications
Board, access has been prevented to a total of 1,112 websites since
November 23, 2007, with 251 of them blocked by a court ruling and 861
by a decision of the Telecommunications Board itself. The owners of
the websites in question do not need to be informed and invariably only
learn that their website has even come under suspicion once access to
it from inside Turkey has been blocked (Radikal, October 2, Milliyet,
October 3).
Since early May, Internet users in Turkey have been prevented from
accessing the popular video-sharing website YouTube, after Greek
nationalist youths used the site to post some amateurish videos mocking
Ataturk (Ankara First Petty Crimes Court, Decision No 2008/402 of
May 5). Websites banned for "obscenity" range from genuine hardcore
pornographic sites to the photographs link on www.moonamtrak.org,
a website set up by a U.S. group that annually bares their buttocks
at passing Amtrak trains (Ankara Ninth Petty Crimes Court, Decision
No 2008/140 of February 4).
In practice, it is relatively easy to circumvent the Telecommunication
Board's filters by using proxy servers; although thus does require
a modicum of computer literacy and it is unclear how many Internet
users in Turkey are even aware that it is possible. Perhaps more
disturbing than the measures taken by the Turkish authorities, which
are little more than an irritant to someone with enough determination,
is the mentality that lies behind it.
"The duty of the state is to protect its citizens and warn them
against harmful Internet content," declared Tayfun Acarer (Today's
Zaman, October 3).
In reality, of course, neither citizens nor website owners receive any
warning. Access is simply blocked and attempting to lift it requires
the website owner to embark on a long legal process, the outcome of
which is uncertain. There are also increasing signs that Internet
censorship is not being used to "protect" Turkish citizens but to
try to enforce a particular worldview or political opinion.
On September 19 the Turkish courts blocked access to the website of the
biologist and militant atheist Richard Dawkins (www.richarddawkins.net)
following an application brought by lawyers acting for Adnan Oktar, a
52 year-old Islamist author and sect leader who lives in seclusion in
an Istanbul suburb. Oktar is most famous for his "Atlas of Creation,"
a glossy, large-format, 800-page defense of creationism. After
an article posted on Dawkins' website mocked Oktar's scientific
credentials, he applied to a court in Istanbul for access to the
site to be blocked on the grounds that its contents were defamatory,
blasphemous, insulting to religion, and a violation of his personal
rights. The court concurred (Radikal, Milliyet, September 20).
The Turkish authorities have displayed considerably less determination,
however, to suppress the expression of what might be regarded
as more dangerous views. For example, there are numerous Turkish
ultranationalist websites and blogs in Turkey which eulogize Ogun
Samast, who murdered Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink on January
19, 2007. Most recently, a court in the city of Duzce ruled that
no action should be taken against Isin Ersen, a columnist on the
Bolu Express local newspaper who, in October 2007, had called for
the murder of members of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party
(DTP). The court decided that Ersen's call fell within the scope
of freedom of speech (see EDM, October 2). Ersen's article is still
easily accessible via the Bolu Express website (www.boluexpress.com).