• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
    Copyright Reform
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Internet Filtering In Turkey: Censorship Gone Too Far?

June 1, 2011 by Taylor Vanderhelm (IPilogue Editor)

Taylor Vanderhelm is a JD candidate at the University of Alberta.

New internet filtering rules set to commence in Turkey as of August 2011 have gathered international attention and raised the ire of many Turkish citizens recently. Turkey is set to introduce four new internet content filtering options: family, children, domestic, or standard as part of their “Safe Internet Service.” Choosing a filtering option will be mandatory under the currently proposed rules.

Turkish opponents of the new rules have created a Facebook page called “Internetime Dokunma!”, or “Don’t Touch My Internet!”, to organize country-wide protests against the web filters. The social networking page currently has over 600,000 supporters. The protests, which took place in various locations from Ankara to Istanbul on May 15, 2011, saw thousands of protestors and received international coverage.

Turkey’s regulatory authority, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) has also provided a list of 138 words to be banned from Turkish domain names. The list includes both English and Turkish words, many of which have double meanings. Any websites that do include words from the list will be shut down. Examples include: “gay” and its Turkish pronunciation “gey,” “beat,” “escort,” “homemade,” “hot,” “nubile,” “free,” “teen,” “itiraf” (confession), “liseli” (high school student), “nefes” (breath) and “yasak” (forbidden). “Pic,” short for picture, is also banned as it means “bastard” in Turkish. This poses significant problems for businesses and website operators as domains only need to include part of these words to be shut down by the government. To illustrate, a website using the domain “donanimalemi.com” (hardwareworld.com) would be illegal under the new rules as it includes the word “animal.”

Not surprisingly, the move has met criticism from the international community. Dunja Mijatović, Representative on Freedom of the Media for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the European Commission’s vice chairwoman Neelie Kroes are among those who have spoken against the new rules. Turkish President Abdullah Gül, however, dismissed the reports through his twitter account posting that “according to information provided to me, nobody will be forced [to use a new filter application],” and that “nobody’s freedoms will be restrained. The private sector will keep providing its services in the same way. Meanwhile, the public [sector] will provide an alternative product [with the filter], as required by its responsibilities.” It should be noted that the statements have been translated from Turkish to English.

Turkey already has a history of blocking web sites through the Law on the Internet No. 5651, which was enacted in 2007. The law allows a variety of actors to appeal to the court or the Telecommunications Authority in order to have certain online content filtered. Often, entire web sites are blocked despite the fact that only a small portion of the content is deemed offensive under Turkish law. YouTube, for example, was blocked in its entirety because of videos insulting founding president of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. WordPress.com was also banned after Adnan Oktar, a Muslim creationist writer, claimed that a critic was using the WordPress site to post offensive content about him. Some other major sites to feel the sting of censorship include Last.fm and Myspace.

India has also made headlines regarding the freedom of information on the internet. The country recently instituted new rules requiring internet companies to remove objectionable content, which includes anything “grossly harmful” or “harassing” from their sites within 36 hours. The requirements, which took effect in April 2011, have been met with disapproval from Google in particular, claiming it unfairly exposes them to liability for content posted by third parties. However, Indian authorities have recently expressed a willingness to reconsider some of the rules to make them more appealing.

Unlike India, Turkey has not expressed any openness to redress the concerns of their citizens or international community when it comes to the freedom of information on the internet. Only time will tell if “Arab Spring” fever will spread to Turkey over the struggle for online freedoms in an already established democracy.

Posted in Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Human Rights Issues, Internet, Internet Sharing, IP, Moral Rights, Privacy

One Response to “Internet Filtering In Turkey: Censorship Gone Too Far?”

  1. Danny Titolo (IPilogue Editor), on June 2, 2011 at 11:37 am Said:

    Turkey does have a history of censorship; the country has blocked access to YouTube, MySpace and Google for quite some time now. The Turkish government has also threatened ISPs with punishment if they don’t comply. This means the government expects ISPs to play an active role in this censorship directive. Although it isn’t exactly clear what their directive actually is.

    It’s not really clear what the motives of the Turkish government really are or how far they’ll take mandatory filtering. Limiting negative publicity from the media is one possibility, stifling independent thought is another, but it’s unfortunate that tens of thousands of Turkish websites will potentially be forced to shut down.

    Since Turkey is no longer “secular”, filtering directives such as these are not uncommon. It’s also not suprising that bans on tobacco and alcohol have already been discussed.

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« A Masterful Treatise – Professor David Vaver’s Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-Marks, 2nd Ed. | Toyota Soon To Enter The Social Network World »

Career Opportunities
Intellectual Property Society of Osgoode (IPSO)
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPOsgoode

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Gerard Sinanan on Picture This: Consent and Control over Your Image
  • William Foster on Build-Up, Scale Up: Fostering Innovation in Canada
  • Andrea Uetrecht on Broken Promises: Utility Standards and Patent Applications in Canada
  • Nazli Jelveh on Is Google “Feeling Lucky” at the Supreme Court?
  • Denver Bandstra on Legal Battle Over Monkey’s Selfie Leads to Settlement
  • William Chalmers on Legal Battle Over Monkey’s Selfie Leads to Settlement
  • Isabella Martinez on Intellectual Property Strategy For Artificial Intelligence
  • Andrew M on “Shoe-in” for Converse? Iconic Sneaker Company puts Foot Down and Sues for Trademark Infringement
  • Sebastian Beck-watt on Just Laugh It Off: Trademark Parody and the Expansion of User Rights
  • Lou on Apotex Successfully Invalidates Patent on Nexium
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • #WorldIPDay Spotlight on @MayajMedeiros of @NLawGlobal: @IPOsgoode #InnovationClinic Supervising Lawyer
  • #WorldIPDay Spotlight on Charlene Lindsay: Building Bridges and Indigenous Engagement through @SDNRCG
  • #WorldIPDay Spotlight on Lara Hammoud: Improving Access to Justice with @LawyerlyCanada
  • #WorldIPDay Spotlight on Roya Mahboob: Empowering and Educating Girls and Women in Developing Countries through the @DigitalCitizenF
  • IP Osgoode Celebrates #WorldIPDay with a Q&A Series Featuring Women Entrepreneurs from the Innovation Clinic
  • Breaking Up With Big Tech?
  • Cockatoos, Fireworks, and More: Osgoode Competes at the 16th Annual Oxford International IP Moot
  • Robotic Trolls
  • The Toronto Housing Market Just Got Crazier!
  • DMCA Used to Enforce Moral Rights in Video Games
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (13)
  • Announcements (126)
  • Arbitration (1)
  • Arts (3)
  • Blogs (214)
  • Book Review (8)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (15)
  • Canadian Telecom Summit 2017 (5)
  • Cloud Services (17)
  • Commercialization (108)
  • Competition (34)
  • Competition Law (26)
  • Contracts (78)
  • copyright reform (201)
  • Crowdfunding (1)
  • Cybersecurity (13)
  • defamation (20)
  • Design (24)
  • Development (13)
  • European Union (82)
  • events (112)
  • Fashion Industry (34)
  • Feature Post (287)
  • Financial (7)
  • Freedom of Speech (34)
  • Freedom of the Press (20)
  • Gaming (25)
  • General (162)
  • Human Rights (17)
  • Image (11)
  • Innovation (221)
  • Internet (348)
  • IP (1,645)
    • Copyright (815)
      • CD Levy (11)
      • Digital Downloads (87)
      • Digital Libraries (10)
      • Digital Locks (42)
      • Fair Dealing (117)
        • Parody (3)
        • Satire (2)
      • Infringement (224)
      • Internet Sharing (116)
      • Literary Works (77)
      • Moral Rights (23)
      • Movies (68)
      • Music Industry (133)
      • Originality (51)
      • Ownership (150)
        • Licensees (55)
      • Plagiarism (1)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (28)
      • Subsidiary Rights (7)
    • IP Reform (97)
    • Patents (476)
      • Access to Medicines (29)
      • Cross Border Issues (55)
      • Electronic Processes (26)
      • Infringement (94)
      • Patent Practice (36)
      • Patent Trolls (28)
      • Patentability (132)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (101)
    • Trademarks (314)
      • Domain Names (50)
      • Famous Marks (26)
      • Official Marks (13)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (16)
  • IP Course Topic (18)
  • IP Innovation Clinic (3)
  • IP Intensive (121)
  • IP Litigation Practice (20)
  • IP Osgoode Speaks Series (17)
  • Jurisdiction (352)
    • Canada (177)
    • China (4)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (5)
    • UK (66)
    • US (169)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (23)
  • Links (3)
  • Literature (2)
  • MediaLaws (44)
  • Music Industry (106)
  • Open-Source (21)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (15)
  • Patents Course Topic (30)
  • Privacy (238)
    • Electronic Databases (50)
    • Human Rights Issues (39)
    • Identity Theft (18)
  • Regulatory Policy (112)
  • Reputation Management (8)
  • Satire (1)
  • Smartphones (28)
  • Social Justice (6)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (50)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (55)
  • Taxation (1)
  • Tech Transfer (36)
  • Technology (345)
  • Telecommunications (115)
  • Trade Secrets (11)
  • UK (30)
  • Uncategorized (140)
  • US-Canada Relations (13)
  • WIPO (30)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736