Two prominent Turkish law professors and cyber-rights activists, Yaman Akdeniz and Kerem Altiparmak, have initiated legal action challenging the government’s recent ban on Instagram. Through their İstanbul-based Freedom of Expression Association, they have presented a lawsuit seeking to overturn the ban, arguing that it violates constitutionally protected rights. Their motion asserts that the Turkish Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) failed to provide adequate justification for the restriction.
The BTK’s decision to block access to Instagram occurred on August 2, 2024, as noted in a statement made later that day. This action is part of a broader pattern of increasing governmental control over social media since the enactment of a 2020 law which has faced severe criticism for curtailing online freedoms.
The professors filed their case with the Ankara 13th Administrative Court, contending the ban lacks transparency, due process, and infringes on freedoms enshrined in the Turkish Constitution, particularly Article 40, which safeguards the right to judicial review. They argue the measure is overly broad, arbitrary, and unjustified given Instagram’s compliance with Turkish demands and its lawful activities.
Despite these allegations, the Turkish government maintains that the ban is justified. Fahrettin Altun, the Head of Communications, defended the action on his social media, accusing Instagram of engaging in “censorship” by blocking condolence messages for deceased former Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. Altun’s stance is that the government is protecting freedom of speech from being stifled by such platforms.
Negotiations between Meta and the Turkish government are ongoing, with local media reporting some progress, though significant disagreements remain, primarily concerning content related to terrorism. Minister of Transport and Infrastructure Abdulkadir Uraloğlu indicated that while the talks have not yet met the government’s requirements, the ban could be lifted if conditions are satisfied.
For additional details on the lawsuit and its implications, visit the original article on JURIST.