Turkey Restricting Internet Freedom

October 31st, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

The Turkish government, led by the Justice and Development Party (or AK Parti), continues to restrict Internet freedom. In the last year alone, the Turkish government and courts have blocked some 850 websites, among whom blogger.com and YouTube.

Erkan Saka spoke to the Christian Science Monitor about the restrictions, saying: “I feel very helpless and frustrated. I am not allowed to use something very natural now. A basic means of communication is being prevented.”

Saka runs erkansaka.net, which can be reached by Turks. But many other websites Saka used in the past cannot.

YouTube, for instance, was banned after some Turks complained about videos that mocked Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Instead of contacting YouTube itself, trying to convince the company to take the videos down or to simply ignore them, a court decided to block YouTube altogether.

Dr. Richard Dawkins’ site was also banned by a court, as was the website of one of Turkey’s major newspapers. These sites were blocked after Islamists complained about them, and took the issue to court.

What needs to happen in Turkey is a change in the law: it is way too easy for courts to block entire websites, only because a few people see some content on it they find ‘insulting.’ This law limits the freedom of speech to such a degree, that Turkey is in the very real danger of giving itself the reputation of being less open than Syria.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Selin
    October 31st, 2008 at 15:36
    Reply | Quote | #1

    The reason why Turks don’t take it as seriously as they should is because they can reach those forbidden sites via other means on their home computer. There are special websites that directly allow for entrance to those forbidden sites. Such idiotic rules and laws yet no enforcement dilute the meaning of having laws in the first place.

    Thus people think lawmakers are idiots and laws are for idiots to abide by. And when there are ridiculous laws that are not even properly enforced, no one believes in leadership or law anymore. This is true for other things besides internet banning as well. We have bans on smoking that are not practiced either. Same with guns. You may also drive at 200 km/hr and not get caught by radar but at some other place you get a speeding ticket without speeding.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.