Upon Constitutional Court’s Decision, All Access-Blocks Unlawful

Click here to read the article in Turkish / Haberin Türkçesi için buraya tıklayın.

Constitutional Court (AYM) has ruled that the decision of 4th Üsküdar Criminal Court of Peace on blocking the access to a report on the web page of  Borsagundem.com was against freedom of press and expression. Commentating on the decision for bianet, Asst. Prof. Dr. Kerem Altıparmak from Ankara University Faculty of Law stated that in the light of this decision, all decisions for blocking access with an URL list are considered a violation of freedom of press and expression.

“The Constitutional Court, which considered internet journalism under the protection of freedom of press as long as it fulfills the duty of the press meaning ‘surveillance’ as its main function, has emphasized that the report which was subject of the application has fulfilled this function and therefore blocking the access to the report published by the applicant was an invasion of freedom of expression and ruled that the expression ‘the drop of the price of the corporation’s shares was suspicious’ could not be considered a gross insult justifying an arbitrary personal assault.”

The Constitutional Court has stated that eliminating the possibility to disseminate positions and views which deeply concern the public opinion means “censorship” and has ruled that the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 26, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution and the freedom of press guaranteed under Article 28, Paragraph 1 have been violated.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Kerem Altıparmak quoted the significance of the decision as follows:

“According to this ruling, the inferior court which reaches the verdict to block access is obliged to explain on what grounds one’s personal rights have been violated. In addition to the explanation, the court is also obliged to reason and justify the decision against the freedom of expression.

“According to this, every decision which does not provide justification for the above mentioned, is a violation of freedom of expression. This also means that all previous decisions of blocking access to hundreds of URL-Addresses violate the freedom of expression.” (EA/DG)