Access restriction decisions target not only news stories, but also social media content sharing those stories. Information reaching the public can be quickly deleted from digital platforms on the day it is published

AYÇA SÖYLEMEZ

The fastest way for journalists and journalism to face judicial pressure is through “access restrictions.” News and social media posts related to the news can be removed from publication with a single decision, almost on the same day the news is published. Sometimes, even news about access restrictions imposed on the news itself is subject to access restrictions.

In his statement to Expression Interrupted, lawyer Prof. Dr. Yaman Akdeniz provided information about the Freedom of Expression Association's objections and the legal process regarding this issue, and also discussed the impact of access restrictions imposed on news stories that serve the public interest on society; he pointed out that access restriction decisions are taken arbitrarily in an environment where the judiciary does not function.

İsmail Arı from the newspaper BirGün also stated in his statement to Expression Interrupted that dozens of his news articles had been destroyed by the access restriction decision: "Sometimes a news article published in the morning is restricted and removed within 5-6 hours, that is, by noon. Access restriction decisions should not be made so easily and unlawfully. With these decisions, some people are wiping the slate clean of society's memory and their own records, while eliminating freedom of expression and the press.”

Blocked news reports

The recent justification for the rapid imposition of access blocking decisions on news items concerning public figures, about whom it is in the public interest to report, or directly concerning public institutions, is: “Protection of national security and public order."

Access restrictions, Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications Made in the Internet Environment and the Fight Against Crimes Committed Through These Publications (Internet Law) “Protection of the right to life and the safety of persons and property, protection of national security and public order, prevention of crime, or protection of public health.”

Decisions taken by courts of first instance pursuant to this article are swiftly implemented, with both news reports and social media posts containing such news being blocked from access, mostly on the same day. Even news reports about the access block face the same fate.

For example, news reports about the appearance of İhlas Holding CEO Ahmet Mücahid Ören's correspondence in the Epstein documents were blocked by a decision of the Istanbul 8th Criminal Court of Peace on 9 February 2026.

Access to Bahadır Özgür's report on Halk TV about Duhan Yıldız, whose name was mentioned in the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality indictment, being involved in a shooting incident was blocked.

Access to Timur Soykan's report in BirGün daily about allegations that the nephew of the Deputy Minister of Family and Social Services received preferential treatment and the imprisonment of the person mentioned on charges of sexual abuse was blocked.

Also from BirGün, access to İsmail Arı's report about AKP member Mehmet Özhaseki blackmailing him with a video was blocked on the same day. This was the second report by İsmail Arı to be blocked in February.

Access to the news reports about the blocking of access to news stories about former Minister Mehmet Özhaseki was also blocked.

Following the blocking of access to the news stories, posts related to the news on X (formerly Twitter) were also removed.

“They work like notaries”

Journalist İsmail Arı believes that judges of criminal courts of peace issue access restriction decisions without reviewing the news items: "Most of them work like notaries. Because sometimes we see hundreds of news items being blocked on the day the application is made. For example, an access restriction decision was issued for a news item by journalist Timur Soykan about the Deputy Minister of Family. We obtained the criminal court of peace’s decision. The Deputy Minister of Family Affairs applied to the court to block access to approximately 250 news articles and social media posts, and the court accepted the list as is and issued an access restriction decision on the same day. That judge cannot have left all their work and reviewed approximately 250 posts to make a decision."

Arı also gave examples of copy-paste decisions, saying, “There is a member of parliament who accidentally blocked his own tweet by copying the wrong link for the access restriction decision, and there is another who copied the wrong link and added it to the restriction request list, blocking access to a post related to a pro-Palestine action in the US.”

Journalist Arı stated that news items with supporting documents were also removed: “A former minister files a complaint saying, ‘I am being blackmailed,’ the woman he complained about is imprisoned pending trial, but this news report is blocked and deleted within six hours. This incident is news everywhere in the world, but it is forbidden to write about it in our country.”

“The article on ‘protecting national security and public order’ is being applied outside its intended purpose”

Legal expert Prof. Dr. Yaman Akdeniz stated that following the Constitutional Court's annulment of Article 9 of the Internet Law No. 5651, which deals with “violations of personal rights,” Article 8A, which deals with “protecting national security and public order,” has now begun to be applied outside its scope and purpose: "Before the annulment decision, news items blocked via Article 9 are now being blocked under Article 8/A. Moreover, in September 2023, the Constitutional Court found Article 8/A to be unconstitutional in the Artı Media Gmbh decision, but no court has yet applied to the Constitutional Court for the annulment of the unconstitutional norm in accordance with Article 152 of the Constitution. Our requests in this regard have also not been considered by the courts.”

Akdeniz also assessed the consequences of blocking news related to public officials, which is in the public interest, based on Article 8A of the law, in terms of freedom of expression: “We are currently in an environment where the law is not functioning. Therefore, the judiciary is not functioning, and the decisions of the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are not being implemented. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor is appointed as Minister of Justice... Therefore, this article of the law is also being applied arbitrarily. This is the only article left in their hands to use for access restrictions, and they are using it. Moreover, in Turkey, public interest, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press are never taken into consideration."

According to data from the Freedom of Expression Association, as of the end of 2024, 1,264,506 websites, 270,000 URL addresses, 17,000 Twitter/X accounts, 75,000 tweets, 25,500 YouTube videos, 16,700 Facebook posts, and 16,000 Instagram posts were blocked under Law No. 5651 and other provisions.

“Public interest” assessment

Yaman Akdeniz also explained how the system was established and how it works:

"After 17 -25 December coup attempt, Article 9, ‘violation of personal rights,’ was added to Law No. 5651. A year later, in March 2015, just before the June 2015 elections, Article 8A was added. In February 2014, criminal courts of peace were established and given authority.

“We write about this repeatedly every year in EngelliWeb reports. The Constitutional Court has also stated this in many of its decisions: The public interest assessment must be made by the criminal courts of peace that issue the decisions, but they are not doing so. As the Freedom of Expression Association, we have appealed many of the courts' decisions. We have filed numerous appeals regarding news articles blocked on news sites such as Diken, bianet, Gazete Duvar (until it closed), and sendika.org, and even regarding our announcements blocked on EngelliWeb due to these restrictions. The vast majority of these appeals are rejected. We appeal to the Constitutional Court, and on average, a violation decision is issued after five years, but by then, the news has lost its value.

“Recently, news items published in the morning is being taken down before evening. On the other hand, social media posts related to the news items—mainly on X—are also being removed. In the Freedom of Expression Association's report, ‘Digital Compliance Regime: Social Network Providers and the Illusion of Transparency in Turkey,’ we defined the platforms as ‘useful tools.’ For example, the days when content removal requests were ignored before Elon Musk acquired Twitter, or even when legal action was taken more aggressively, are now behind us. Now, immediately after a news item is blocked, even before the decision is seen, or even before it is notified to the addressee, news items and social media posts are being removed."

Emphasizing that the censorship mechanism is working and that the free space is shrinking, Akdeniz added that this is intended to create a climate of fear and a “chilling effect”: "They say, 'If you criticize the government or officials, we will take action. And they do...Thousands of people are being prosecuted for ‘insulting the president’ or ‘insulting a public official.’ Therefore, there is an extremely oppressive environment."

Obstacles on social media

Yaman Akdeniz also provided the following information regarding the legal procedure for social media censorship: "Decisions are notified to internet service providers or content providers, as well as to platforms. This process, which was not very effective for platforms before 19 March 2025, began to have a visible effect after Ekrem İmamoğlu's imprisonment. As we stated in our Digital Compliance Regime report, platforms publish transparency reports. We examined these reports and found that they did not provide accurate information, provided incomplete information, and that there were significant differences between their global reports and their reports on Turkey. Following significant fines, we see that social media platforms have bowed to the system in Turkey and are not acting transparently. For example, when Instagram was blocked for 10 days in August 2024, Meta made no statement, thus choosing to remain silent. However, human rights criteria also apply to the private sector, which must respect fundamental rights and freedoms. If they continue bowing to censorship out of commercial concerns, blocking decisions will continue to increase. Otherwise, it is technically impossible for service providers in Turkey to block an X account or post. Only X can do this, TikTok can do this, YouTube can do this—in other words, only the platform itself can do this.

In Prof. Dr. Akdeniz's article in the Crime and Punishment journal, titled “Censorship in the Name of Security: The Conflict Between Freedom of Expression on the Internet and National Security,” he evaluates Article 8A as follows:

"Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications Made on the Internet and the Fight Against Crimes Committed Through These Publications, which came into force in 2007, initially aimed to protect children from harmful content, but its scope has been expanded over time. With the amendments in February 2014, the protection of personal rights and privacy became fundamental tools of the law, followed by the March 2015 regulations, which introduced access blocking and content removal sanctions on grounds of national security and public order.

Almost none of the 8/A decisions include a concrete justification disclosed to the public; while platforms are completely blocked and applications are removed from Turkish app stores, the reasons for blocking are not substantiated in a concrete manner, and no content-based assessment is made. Upon examination of the decisions, it is unclear which content on news sites such as Independent Türkçe and JinNews, and platforms such as Wattpad and Roblox, led to the criminal judgeships of peace’s decisions to block access entirely.

The problems with the application of Article 8/A are not limited to the total blocking of access to platforms such as Wattpad and Roblox based on decisions with unclear justifications. After the Constitutional Court's decision to repeal Article 9 of Law No. 5651 came into effect on 10 October 2024, Article 8/A began to be used in censorship practices targeting critical news and content of public interest.

Constitutional Court revokes “unlimited” authority

In its decision dated 11 October 2023, the Constitutional Court repealed Article 9 of Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications Made on the Internet and the Fight Against Crimes Committed Through These Publications, which relates to “violations of personal rights.” The annulment decision came into effect one year later, on 10 October 2024.

In its annulment decision, the Constitutional Court stated that the regulation allowing for the removal of content or blocking access to such publications in response to claims that personality rights have been violated due to the content of publications on the internet restricts freedom of expression and the press.

The decision stated that Article 9 did not impose restrictions or gradations on access barriers, and therefore such authority gave the administration too broad a scope for intervention, finding the provision unconstitutional.