Article 217/A of the Turkish Criminal Code, which entered into force in 2022 with assurances that it would not be used against journalists, has become one of the most frequently used tools in investigations, arrests, and imprisonments targeting journalists

AYÇA SÖYLEMEZ

 

Article 217/A of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK), introduced in 2022 and commonly known as the “disinformation law,” has increasingly been used in investigations and prosecutions targeting journalists, despite earlier assurances that it would not be applied against them. Most recently, BirGün reporter İsmail Arı, known for his reporting on corruption, was imprisoned pending trial under the provision, while journalists Alican Uludağ and Furkan Karabay were also arrested under the same accusation in the first months of the year.

 

Article 217/A criminalizes the “public dissemination of misleading information.” In recent cases targeting journalists, however, authorities have often failed to clearly identify which part of a report or statement is allegedly “misleading,” yet arrest, pre-trial detention, or judicial control measures have still been imposed. The way the provision is being applied points to a growing form of pressure in which journalists are directly exposed to criminal proceedings because of their reporting.

 

İsmail Arı: Arrested during holiday visit

 

BirGün reporter İsmail Arı was arrested at 10:10 p.m. on 21 March in the Turhal district of Tokat, where he had traveled for a holiday visit. He was then taken approximately 450 kilometers to Ankara in the early hours of the morning. Authorities said he was being investigated for “publicly disseminating misleading information.”

 

The investigation initially began over a single video but was later expanded with additional material. Arı was ultimately questioned over four separate pieces of content.

 

The first accusation concerned remarks he made during a broadcast in January, in which he referred to the allocation of public resources to foundations linked to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s family. In his statement to the police, Arı said the video had been recorded around three months earlier and contained no misleading information. He argued that most of what he had said could be verified through open-source research and noted that information about the executives and board members of the foundations in question was publicly available on their websites.

 

The second accusation concerned a report on a planned new dormitory project for the religious imam hatip school from which President Erdoğan graduated. Arı stated in his report that new dormitory construction was planned on land where buildings registered as “protected cultural assets” were located, and that those structures were to be relocated elsewhere. Arı said in his statement to the police that the buildings were officially registered as cultural assets, that he had consulted experts while preparing the report, and that those experts had told him that even if such registered structures were derelict, they should be reconstructed on site. He maintained that there was nothing false or misleading in the report.

 

The third accusation related to a video containing his comments on the interview system and appointments within the judiciary, which Arı claimed were exposed to political interference. Arı said he did not manage the BirGün TV account from which the video was shared and that the headline, “The network of patronage at the Palace,” did not belong to him. He nevertheless said that the remarks on the way judges and prosecutors are selected did belong to him and argued that those statements were protected under press freedom and freedom of expression.

 

The fourth accusation concerned Arı’s post about allegations of TL 630 million in irregularities involving the Yunus Emre Foundation.

 

“The state should have awarded me a medal of appreciation”

 

In his statement, Arı reacted particularly strongly to the accusation concerning this report. Saying he was astonished to be under investigation because of it, Arı remarked: “Rather than opening an investigation into this matter, the state should have awarded me a medal of appreciation for exposing the looting of the Yunus Emre Foundation.”

 

Arı said the public learned through his reporting that the Yunus Emre Foundation, a public foundation, had been plundered through fake invoices. He recalled that following the publication of his report, the Directorate General of Foundations filed a criminal complaint with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, and that the Ankara Police Department’s Financial Crimes Unit later launched an operation. He also noted that two separate indictments had since been prepared and cases filed over the matter.

 

At the end of his statement, Arı said none of the four posts shown to him were of a nature that could justify being held in custody for hours, adding: “I am a journalist and I have done nothing outside my profession.”

 

After giving his statement, Arı was referred to the courthouse. The prosecutor’s office then referred him to the criminal judgeship of peace with a request for pre-trial detention, without taking his statement. He was subsequently placed in pre-trial detention by the judgeship.

 

Kerem Altıparmak: “We witness the prosecution of journalism itself”

 

According to legal scholar Kerem Altıparmak, who was present during İsmail Arı’s questioning before the judgeship, the recent application of Article 217/A shows that journalists are being subjected to criminal proceedings directly because of their reporting.

 

Altıparmak says the most fundamental problem in these investigations is that journalists are often not clearly told which part of their reporting is supposedly “misleading.” In his view, the most basic requirement of criminal procedure is thus missing from the outset: a concrete accusation.

 

If a journalist’s report is alleged to be false, Altıparmak argues, the authorities must first establish exactly which part is false and why. He says this is not being done in the current cases. As a result, even discussing whether the other legal elements of the offense — such as whether the content was “capable of disturbing public peace” or disseminated with the intent of creating “fear or panic” among the public — often becomes meaningless.

 

According to Altıparmak, prosecutors and judges frequently proceed without even concretely defining the allegedly “false information.” In practice, this leaves journalists having to defend their reporting and journalistic activity itself. This, in his words, amounts to “the prosecution of journalism.”

 

“The DMM is not a judicial authority”

 

Another issue highlighted by Altıparmak is the way statements issued by the Presidency’s Center for Countering Disinformation (DMM) are effectively treated as evidence or authoritative references in some investigations.

 

However, according to Altıparmak, a statement or “denial” issued by a public body about a news report cannot, on its own, constitute a basis for criminal accusation. In a proper criminal investigation, the journalist must be clearly told which specific part of their report is considered false and on what grounds and then asked to respond. Otherwise, the accusation remains undefined.

 

Emphasizing that “the Center for Countering Disinformation is not a judicial authority,” Altıparmak underlines that only judicial bodies have the authority to determine whether an offense has been committed. In his view, the automatic inclusion of DMM statements in criminal proceedings raises serious concerns in terms of both the right to defense and the fundamental principles of criminal procedure.

 

Altıparmak also recalled that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, prosecutors are obliged to collect both incriminating and exculpatory evidence. However, he said that in these cases, even the supposed evidence against journalists was often not properly established.

 

“What does it mean to collect incriminating evidence? You identify which part of the report is false and ask the journalist to explain it. But there is no such information in the file. The same applies to Alican Uludağ’s investigation. He, too, was simply asked about his reports,” Altıparmak said.

 

According to Altıparmak, investigations conducted in this way effectively function as a means of punishing journalistic activity itself: “Saying ‘journalism is on trial’ has become a cliché, but when you fail to place anything concrete before a journalist to show that their conduct constitutes a crime, what remains is nothing other than putting journalism on trial. In that case, journalism is literally being prosecuted. Journalists are left having to explain their reporting during interrogations.”

 

What does Article 217/A say, and how is it being applied?

 

Article 217/A of the Turkish Penal Code, which entered into force after being published in the Official Gazette on 18 October 2022, reads as follows:

 

“Any person who publicly disseminates false information about the country’s internal and external security, public order, or general health, purely with the intent of creating anxiety, fear, or panic among the public, in a manner likely to disturb public peace, shall be sentenced to imprisonment from one to three years.”

 

The provision sets out multiple cumulative conditions for the offense to be constituted. In other words, an allegation of “false information” alone is not sufficient; the dissemination must also relate to the country’s internal and external security, public order, or public health; be carried out solely with the intent of creating anxiety, fear, or panic among the public; and be capable of disturbing public peace.

 

However, in recent investigations and prosecutions targeting journalists, these conditions are often not meaningfully examined. Despite this, Article 217/A has increasingly been used as a legal basis for arrest and pre-trial detention measures.

 

A law that was not supposed to target journalists

 

When the law was debated in Parliament, government allies explicitly assured that the provision would not be used against journalists. During the parliamentary discussions, MHP Deputy Chairman Feti Yıldız repeatedly stated that the regulation would not target journalists, and these assurances were recorded in the official minutes.

 

Today, however, a very different picture has emerged — one in which Article 217/A is visibly being used against journalists. The gap between the stated rationale behind the law and the way it has been enforced in practice has long been criticized by legal experts and press freedom organizations.

 

From Sinan Aygül to Alican Uludağ and Furkan Karabay

 

The first journalist to be placed in pre-trial detention under Article 217/A was Sinan Aygül, chair of the Bitlis Journalists’ Association. Aygül was detained in 2022 over a report he had published and was later imprisoned pending trial, making his case one of the earliest and most striking examples of the so-called “disinformation law” being used against journalists.

 

Since then, dozens of journalists have been investigated under the provision; some have been arrested, some imprisoned pending trial, and others subjected to judicial control measures.

 

By the first months of 2026, in addition to the imprisonment of İsmail Arı, journalists Alican Uludağ and Furkan Karabay have also been arrested on accusations that included Article 217/A.

 

Uludağ, a court reporter for Deutsche Welle Turkish service, was questioned over 13 separate posts on his X account containing both news reporting and commentary on those reports. Over these posts, he was accused under Articles 301, 217/A, and 299/1-2 of the TCK of “denigrating the Turkish nation, the Republic of Türkiye, the institutions and organs of the state,” “publicly disseminating misleading information,” and “insulting the President.” The posts deemed to constitute criminal conduct in the file had been published between 28 January 2025 and 11 October 2025. Uludağ was placed in pre-trial detention as part of the investigation, with the formal basis for his imprisonment being the charge of “insulting the President.”

 

One of the latest accusations brought against Medyascope reporter Furkan Karabay, who had previously been imprisoned three times over his reporting, was also “publicly disseminating misleading information.” Karabay, who was arrested on January 23, was questioned over a report and an X post related to a document in the İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality investigation file. The document allegedly showed that the prosecutor handling the case had requested the release of TL 120 million from the seized account of a defendant-turned-informant under the heading of “alimony payment.” In his statement, Karabay said: “There is documentary evidence for the reports I have published. My previous reporting is also on record. My journalistic activity is clear. All of it is based on concrete facts. Therefore, there is no question of disseminating misleading information.”

 

A judicial control measure in the form of a travel ban was imposed on Karabay under this provision. That restriction was lifted on March 26.

 

Photo credit: tgs.org.tr