The Bakırköy 7th Criminal Judgeship of Peace adopted a different approach for four journalists in its ruling to block access to approximately 200 accounts. It also included account identification numbers in the ruling to prevent users from changing their usernames

ALİ SAFA KORKUT

Since September, access has been blocked to hundreds of social media accounts, the majority of which are on X. Whilst the journalists’ accounts were also among those blocked during this process, the Bakırköy 7th Criminal Judgeship of Peace issued one of these orders.

In its ruling dated 30 September, the court ordered the blocking of access to approximately 200 accounts. However, it adopted a different approach for five X accounts belonging to four different journalists.

Whilst the ruling stipulated that the majority of accounts should be blocked solely via their usernames, a different approach was taken for the five accounts belonging to the four journalists. The accounts of Esra Tokat (two separate accounts), İrfan Değirmenci, Sarya Toprak and Şirin Payzın were blocked not only via their usernames but also via the unique identification numbers assigned to each account by X.

This distinction leads to a different outcome in terms of how the ruling is implemented.

This is because, in cases where the block is applied solely to the username, the access restriction can be circumvented by changing the username before the ruling is implemented. However, as the user identification number is the account’s unchanging identifier, when the block is applied via this number, changing the username is not sufficient to circumvent the access restriction.

Toprak: “Why do they consider my account dangerous?”

Sarya Toprak, a reporter for the BirGün newspaper whose account was blocked in this way, stated that they are facing increasingly severe censorship in the digital sphere.

Toprak, who argued that the blocking of their accounts also constitutes an intervention in the public’s right to information, continued as follows:

“Frankly, I am trying to understand why the government considers my social media account to be so ‘dangerous.’ It is probably because, whilst a large part of the media (unfortunately including some of the opposition press) not only fails to report on human rights violations but will not even use the term ‘LGBT+,’ I am still reporting on these issues.”

Stating that they would not give up journalism, Toprak said, “They cannot generate consent within society and believe they can maintain their power by silencing the journalists the public follows.”

Değirmenci: “They do not want us to speak out”

Another journalist for whom an access block—requiring an identity number—has been requested for their X account is İrfan Değirmenci.

Interpreting this as “special treatment,” Değirmenci said, “They are telling us outright, ‘We want to pour concrete over you; we do not want your voice to be heard in any way.’ The authorities are saying this directly.”

Değirmenci, who said that journalists were being made to pay a price in this way, added: “They are showing society the price they have made us pay and saying, ‘Look, this could happen to you too!’ But what if they stop me from posting on X? How are they going to stop me from opening my window and shouting to my neighbors in the street?”

Stating that it is a journalist’s duty to pursue the truth, Değirmenci also drew attention to X’s role in this matter. Noting that X stands behind the government and collaborates with it, Değirmenci said, “The current government has been in power for 25 years, and I suppose everyone in Turkey knows it is anti-democratic. What it has done is plain for all to see. But here we have the X platform, which is collaborating with the government, and its owner, Elon Musk. If Musk’s company, X, were to refuse to allow this, saying, ‘No, I defend freedom of expression everywhere in the world and you cannot interfere’… but it is not doing so.”

Prof. Dr Akdeniz: “They are taking their own precautions”

IT law expert Prof. Dr Yaman Akdeniz said that the inclusion of national identity numbers in X’s access-blocking decisions is a new practice and that such numbers were not previously included. Akdeniz, who described this additional measure as a new practice to counter the changing of usernames, said, “We have no evidence as to whether X is implementing ID number-based blocking.”

Another account for which an access block was requested alongside an identity number in the ruling is the X account of the EngelliWeb project run by the Freedom of Expression Association (İFÖD), of which Akdeniz is a founder.

Commenting on this situation, Akdeniz said, “We have never changed our username. They must have treated EngelliWeb as a ‘usual suspect’ and taken pre-emptive action.” Otherwise, he noted, all the accounts listed in the ruling would have included X identification numbers, but identification details are present in only six out of the 166 addresses. 

Finally, Akdeniz added that the appeals against the ruling had been rejected and that they would be appealing to the Constitutional Court.