Evrim Kepenek, bianet’s women and LGBTI+ news editor, is standing trial due to a social media post following the February 2023 earthquakes, which claimed over 50,000 lives in Turkey’s 10 provinces.
The post reported that all aid distribution in the affected areas would be conducted through the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD). “The gendarmerie seized aid tents in Pazarcık, Maraş, saying ‘all aid must be distributed through AFAD.’ Update: Aid tents in several areas have reportedly been seized,” Kepenek had written.
The trial commenced today at the İstanbul 13th Penal Court of First Instance in the Çağlayan courthouse. Kepenek is charged with “publicly spreading misleading information” under article 217/A of the Turkish Penal Code, publicly known as the “disinformation law.”
Kepenek and her lawyers Deniz Yazgan Şenay, Veysel Ok, and Fatih Aydın from the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) were present in the courtroom.
A plainclothes officer from the Security Bureau also observed the trial. After the hearing ended, he asked Kepenek when the next hearing would be held.
‘Journalism is about accurate reporting’
The hearing began with Kepenek’s defense against the indictment. She said, “For me, journalism isn’t about clicks, sensationalism, or popularity; it’s about delivering accurate information to the public and avoiding any new human rights violations, especially for women and children.”
Kepenek criticized the disinformation law, asserting that her post was not disinformation. "As a journalist, I shared verified videos and statements. In fact, this decision was announced by President Erdoğan on Feb 6, when he said, ‘Those going to the region for aid must coordinate with AFAD. Uncoordinated aid sent to the region causes chaos and makes it difficult to reach its target.’ So what I posted was a result of official decisions, not something I fabricated or distorted."
Kepenek continued, “Second, in the video, the gendarmerie clearly went to the area and seized aid. This is confirmed information, and it’s my duty as a journalist to inform the public.”
She added that the conditions for the crime of disinformation were not met: “The law states that one must spread false information with the intent to cause fear, panic, or unrest, and the information must affect public order or safety. Following my post, no public unrest occurred, and public order wasn’t disturbed. The alleged crime simply didn’t happen. There’s no falsehood or distortion here—just reporting the truth, backed by video evidence.
“I would rather be in a news meeting right now than standing here. This is a waste of my time and yours. I declare that the accusations against me are false and request my acquittal.”
‘The indictment should be dismissed’
Following Kepenek’s statement, her lawyer, Deniz Yazgan Şenay, took the floor. “We are dealing with an indictment that should have been dismissed,” she said, explaining that the investigation was conducted by law enforcement using open-source reports, which exceeded their authority. “The prosecutor should initiate the investigation, not law enforcement. Without a prosecutor’s order, law enforcement cannot act on its own.”
She further noted that law enforcement had included all of Kepenek’s travel records, photos from her reporting trips, addresses, and family information from February 2021 to January 2023 in the investigation file, calling this an invasion of privacy. She argued that such information shouldn’t be included in the case file given the charge and the investigation aimed to "create evidence" rather than gather facts.
In the context of the article under which Kepenek is charged, she said, “Kepenek’s post didn’t pose any threat. It’s still publicly accessible and has received only 200 retweets. It’s clear that such a small number of shares could not disrupt public order.”
She also referred to Presidential Decree No. 4, published on July 15, 2018, which grants AFAD the authority to seize, distribute, and manage aid. "My client’s post has journalistic value and significance," she said, concluding her defense.
National media coverage presented as evidence
Lawyer Fatih Aydın submitted news articles and eyewitness accounts from national media that reported on AFAD’s seizure of aid in Pazarcık on the same day, offering similar examples of legal rulings in comparable cases.
“The prosecutor claims that this event never happened and that the tweet was meant to incite unrest, but the news coverage tells a different story,” Aydın said.
Veysel Ok also spoke in defense, accusing law enforcement of overstepping its authority. "The police exceeded their authority in two ways: first, according to a Constitutional Court ruling, police cannot investigate someone's social media accounts and present them to the prosecutor just because there’s a suspicion of a crime. The police can’t determine whether a journalist’s post is criminal. That decision should be made by the journalist and professional organizations," Ok argued.
The court next scheduled the next hearing for Feb 24. (HA/VK)
