YouTube Censorship in Turkey - Essay Example

YouTube Censorship in Turkey Name Institution Date YouTube Censorship in Turkey. 1.0 Background. The constant rise of the Social media has created a quandary for countries that are firm on limiting access of internet content. Current technology in particular poses a great challenge to internet filtering namely; blocks and blacklists which are proving to be not as effective as they are expected to be in recognizing and minimizing content that is hosted through Web 2.0 Applications and this has constantly reduced the impact of actions that could be taken in terms of regulation within the power of country states like Turkey (Parameswara & Whinston 2007) In respect to this, worldwide cooperation and compulsion both communal and personal have been making efforts to close the existing gaps in effecting state authorized online content limitations. The grey zones of technological, legal, political, economic and social procedural arenas have been occupied by these and various other forms of crossbreed forms of filters and have often been distraught with tensions and restrictions (Faris et al 2008). One of the major results of worldwide filtering is the growing demand for worldwide answers which call for wide spread transparent solutions in places where filtering is necessary or might occur. The growth of social media however magnifies the number of difficulties in encountering the issues of balance of interests that are contained in the technical online filtering of content. Often times this disparity occurs between the efficiency and legality of regulations and transparency of enacting such regulations (Koylu 2006). This paper discusses the approaches that Turkey has taken in the regulation of filtering internet content with a specific case of the YouTube censorship of 2009 in mind, in an emergent social media environment in the backdrop of an outcry of political intentions. It will deal with questions evolving from this case and also with issues relating to policy in the background of efforts to regulate online content. 2.0 Discussion Turkey has constantly become integrated with westernization since the time of its secularization and has gained membership into such organizations as NATO, the Council of Europe, Organization for security and cooperation in Europe, etc. and is also a part of the G-20 major economies. Under article 10 of the European Convention of Human rights, and fundamental freedoms, there is a guaranteed free expression opinion in Turkey which was approved by the Turkey government in 1954 and which is also guaranteed by several provisions under International agreements on matters civil and political in as far as Human Right are concerned also signed by Turkey in the year 2000 (Deibert 2010). The laws of Turkey in a broad sense however greatly restrict the above mentioned freedoms and have often time branded as criminal any speech that is perceived as insulting to the Turkish Government. This despite its commitment to freedom of expression and free expression under the above mentioned agreements (Deibert 2010). Turkey has a number of legal acts that surround and restrict the information that is available on the Internet and it allows filtering and blocking in order to prevent any information that is “illegal”. This is as far as controlling internet content is concerned and Illegal here could mean any information that does not auger well with the government of the day for instance the march 7 2007 YouTube blockage by means of a court order which cited numerous postings of a video deemed offensive towards Turkey’s founding father Kemal Ataturk. The filtering and blocking system of Turkey just like any other all over the world is put in place to prevent the citizens of any state from accessing any information that is categorized as sensitive by the Government for one reason or another. This information ranges from politics, culture, and matters pertaining to sexuality and even religion and the more the content of user bred internet content increases and the more the access to new methods of distributing it, the more the steps that governments have taken to increase blockages of such content in order to stop their citizens from putting them out. These systems whose main purpose is to control information can also be arranged in a manner that enables third parties in this case “Governments” to monitor the patterns of web browsing and even to eavesdrop on the browser’s conversations regardless of whether they are legal or illegal (Deibert, Access Denied: the practice and policy of global internet filtering 2008). Edward Alan Bulut in his report on Internet Censorship in Turkey has referred to the act of Banning or eliminating websites as an act of “sheer cyber murder of data and has compared it with the case of Galileo whose Ideas caused his imprisonment for life since they were against the views of the government. Bulut has also termed these acts of filtering to as an infringement of human right in the sense that it interferes with the rights of the masses to think and to communicate and in doing so do not recognize that people have different ideas and inclinations. He goes on to say that there is a necessity to take action against such acts as interference to matters of sexual preferences, basic human rights, thoughts and legalized “cyber murder” (Bulut 2008). The growth of the internet began in the 1980’s but it was not until recently that the emergence of problems with its contents began. Our daily lives are dependent on it in neither one way nor another and it is no wonder that it has had an impact on our culture, and our day today practices. The practice of taking control and suppressing the access of YouTube in 2007 by the Turkish Government within its own borders was an irregular one. The reason that was put out by the authorities in question was even questionable. Censorship reasons vary from one state to another. They could be Social, Political or Religious depending on the kind of values that the state holds. Censorship exists in both in developing and developed state but the reasons behind these acts of censorship are what vary. The legal censorship of sites is the Turkish article 8 of Law number 5651 on regulation of internet content and fighting cyber crime, adopted in may 2007 crimes against Ataturk per law number 5816. However, as far as this case is concerned, there is an irregularity both in theory and in practice (Bulut 2008). The Government of Turkey is highly sensitive on any content that touches on the personality of Ataturk, founder father of the modern republic of Turkey and does not condone any criticism directed at his person which was the basis of the 2007 March 7 ban on YouTube and courts have the right to ban any websites that are targeted towards him or those that carry content that is considered offensive to him (Bulut 2008). The videos that were released on March 7 2007 caused a tension between the website and the Turkish government and an Istanbul court order to ban YouTube followed which was put into effect by the Turkish Telecommunications Authority (TTA). The information that YouTube carried was considered to be insulting to the memory of Turkish founder. The ban did not auger well with the international community and Turkey has ever since been considered a Restrictor of Freedom of Speech. There is no denying that the decision to completely ban on YouTube was in excess and though the ban has since been lifted, the question of the rights of persons to communicate freely in the Turkish political sphere hangs on a balance. This paper equally condemns the adamant act of a complete ban of the Google owned video sharing site as opposed to seeking alternatives such as blocking only those videos that were deemed as derogatory to the person of the Turkish Government founder father. This kind of cyber crisis could have been controlled through alternative means such as Google authorities blocking such contents within the Turkish borders. Turkey however chose a total ban of the site which according to the political mind of the powers that be was the best solution and termed it “protection” as opposed to banning. The issue that emerges is that this action was aimed at outlawing instead of coming up with an answer to a dilemma. The consideration here is that Google owned YouTube is a foreign company to Turkey which operates on the statutes of another country whose position is that it can block certain content from its site within certain territory provided that a complaint on the issue is conveyed to their authority, but Turkey’s expectations are that a foreign web based company should be able to operate within its own jurisdiction and be able to conform to Turkey’s laws and there is where the ban came from. One is left to read a political motive behind the ban because there was no point in banning a whole site because of a few videos, an issue that could have been solved easily by means of diplomatic correspondence (Bulut 2008). One is also bound to think that this ban was politically motivated due to the long list of politically driven bans in the Turkey Nation such as the ban of the online component of best selling newspaper - the newspaper of Vatan which is closely related to the YouTube ban. The ban, which was politically motivated was done after a complaint was made by an Islamist creationist with regard to questions that were posed by the newspaper on the issue of distribution of anti–evolutionist book of the religious leader that is published on highly qualified material- because it was distributed to teachers of biology and philosophy and students free of charge and it was upon his questioning of the governmental connection to the distributorship at the ministerial level that led to a court ban to access of the online component of the newspaper .This is one of the many cases of politically motivated bans that has served to demonstrate that the freedom of expression is not functioning properly within the borders of the Republic of Turkey (Bulut, 2008). Other well known incidents in the history of website bans by the Turkish government include the ban of websites that are pro-Kurdish e.g. the internet site of the Firam New Agency’s (firatnews.com)Yeni Ozgur Poliktica newspaper (yeniozgurpolitika.org) and Ozgur Gundem’s (ozgurgundem.org), among others. There is also the case of the ban of Egitim-Sen, the internet site of the union of Education and Scientific Workers (egitimsen.org.tr), which was banned on the claims that its by-laws were in violation of the constitution since they advocated the right of individuals to receive education in their mother-tongue. But this was just a surface explanation of the reasons behind the ban of the site since the banning order was put in action after the site released online the claims of a religious leader handing out his books for free against evolution theory, questioning the sources of his funding (Bulut 2008) These are some of the few good examples that stand in the history of Turkish infringement of the basic rights of individuals to express themselves. It is also an infringement of media democracy and the right of media practices. It is a stain in the Turkish history of the press and is enough prove that the ban of You Tube on claims of derogatory remarks against Turkish founding father was a political move. Article 8 of law number 5651 states that objections to the blocking decision issued by a court of law should as a precautionary measure should be brought to the court that orders the blocking pursuant to the Criminal procedure Act (Law no. 5271) by the interested parties, in this case Google owned YouTube, but the process of identifying an interested party is not clearly stipulated in this law. Therefore Law no. 5651 does not give an opportunity to the content providers to have the knowledge about the charges or the blocking order and the law does even require the authorities to inform the accused on article 8(2) procedure and no procedural guarantee is to counterbalance this deficiency is envisioned therein. Although the court order communicated to the TIB immediately for them to carry out the blocking orders, the content hosting provider, in this case YouTube is not necessarily notified as to the reasons behind the blockages. TIB which is responsible for the execution of the blockages is also given the mandatory to bring objections against the same blockages issued by the courts, but there are no figures pertaining to the president’s decision to bring objections against a court of law. Therefore the criteria behind the decision to bring or not to bring such an objection is not outlined (Akdeniz 2009). Again this is a political error beside the content that led to the blockage of YouTube in 2007 was not related to does not involve sexual exploitation and abuse of children or obscenity which is the main reason as to why the presidency can obtain an administrative blocking conclusion which is approved by a judge. This banning of sites that are useful to the society such as YouTube and others has very strong political signals since they provide a channel that is in use widely across the world for optional and nonconformist views. Turkey is an authoritarian state and the traditional media are state controlled and the media offers a very special space where discussions and information sharing takes place and it has also become an important platform for protest and mobilization. The internet is a place where repressed societies can revive and develop and this is one of the major fears that authoritarian states harbor (Reporters without borders 2010). In the internet, economic and political issues have become intertwined and the need to protect information has become very important. The leaders of some countries like Turkey are not pleased by the propagation of new technologies and even more by the emergence of new types of debates that are public. Turkey is among those countries that are willing to use any means to prevent the access of interment among its citizens and laws such as 5651 have become their scapegoats in targeting internet sites and blocking them. Taboo topics in Turkey are Ataturk, the army issues, issues concerning minorities (Kurds and Armenians) and the dignity of the Nation. These have served as justification for blocking thousands of sites including YouTube and this has triggered a great deal of protest and citizens that express themselves freely in those sites are faced with judicial action (Akdeniz, 2009) In 2009, 3700 sites were allegedly blocked for arbitrary and political reasons according to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), among them many foreign websites like YouTube, new sites about Kurd minorities and EU gay websites (Akdeniz 2009). According to OSCE, more that 80% of these blockages are as a result of administrative orders but are disguised on the grounds of crimes under article 8 of law number 5651 of Turkish laws. However, in addition to these, in 2009 there were 158 of illegal Ataturk related blockages of internet content (Reporters without borders 2010). This only serves to reveal that there are other political motives other than cyber crime that led to the blocking of YouTube in 2007 and these can only be political. There are also cases where court decisions ordering blockages were ordered on matters that were not related to the scope of law no. 5651and this therefore made such blockages unjustified. For instance, www.itanbul.indymedia.org was blocked for insulting Turkish Identity or what has often being referred to as Turkishness, a crime which falls under Turkish penal code and not under the jurisdiction of law number 5651. Other excuses that have been used are distributing terrorist misinformation and provocation to hatred (Reporters without borders 2010). Besides blockages of internet sites there are also cases of harassment of individual following the postings of content in the net and especially those pertaining to the presidency Conclusion The internet revolution- political commentary, videos, etc, that are hosted in social media sites have continued to be source of challenge for many governments around the world and it is time governments considered either opening the way for the social media or blocking it entirely in their specific territories (Albion 2011) The other option would be to try and register specific companies to try and block content in a selective way. Many have already done so even against the millions of users that use these sites (Faris et al 2008). The social and political arena on the internet are hard to differentiate and as the costs of blocking these sites continues to grow, the the social and cultural need to allow unfiltered access to the web also grows and therefore, for the countries that treasure democracy and freedom of access to information unrestricted approach might be the way to go (The UK Political Studies Association Media and Politics Specialist Group 2010) References Akdeniz, Y, 2009, Report of the OSCE Represenattive on Freedom of he Media on Turkey and Internet Censorshi,. Istanbul, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Albion, A, 2011, Countries at the Crossroads 201, Turke Istanbul, Freedom House. Bulut, E, 2008, Internet Censorship in Turkey, Stop Legalized Cyber Murde,. Berlin, Berlin and Middle East Technical University. Deibert, R, 2010, Access Controlled, The shaping of power, rights and rule in cyberspace, Cambridge, MIT Press. Deibert, R, 2008, Access Denied, the practice and policy of global internet filtering, Cambridge, MIT Press. Faris, R, Wang, S, & Palfrey, J, 2008, Censorship 2.0, Innovations, Technology/Governance/globalization, MIT Press. Koylu, H, 2006, PRESS ETHICS AND PRACTICE OF JOURNALISM IN TURKEY, “A CASE STUDY ON TURKISH JOURNALISTS’ SELF EVALUATION OF THEIR CODES OF PRACTICE, Middle East Technical University. Parameswara, M., & Whinston, A, 2007, Social Computing, An Overview. Texas, Communications of the Association for Informatio Systems. Reporters without borders, 2010, Enemies of the Internet: Countries under surveillance, Paris, New Media Desk. The UK Political Studies Association Media and Politics Specialist Group, 2010, Joint International Conference on Political Communication. Leicester, International Political Science Association. Read More

Under article 10 of the European Convention of Human rights, and fundamental freedoms, there is a guaranteed free expression opinion in Turkey which was approved by the Turkey government in 1954 and which is also guaranteed by several provisions under International agreements on matters civil and political in as far as Human Right are concerned also signed by Turkey in the year 2000 (Deibert 2010). The laws of Turkey in a broad sense however greatly restrict the above mentioned freedoms and have often time branded as criminal any speech that is perceived as insulting to the Turkish Government.

This despite its commitment to freedom of expression and free expression under the above mentioned agreements (Deibert 2010). Turkey has a number of legal acts that surround and restrict the information that is available on the Internet and it allows filtering and blocking in order to prevent any information that is “illegal”. This is as far as controlling internet content is concerned and Illegal here could mean any information that does not auger well with the government of the day for instance the march 7 2007 YouTube blockage by means of a court order which cited numerous postings of a video deemed offensive towards Turkey’s founding father Kemal Ataturk.

The filtering and blocking system of Turkey just like any other all over the world is put in place to prevent the citizens of any state from accessing any information that is categorized as sensitive by the Government for one reason or another. This information ranges from politics, culture, and matters pertaining to sexuality and even religion and the more the content of user bred internet content increases and the more the access to new methods of distributing it, the more the steps that governments have taken to increase blockages of such content in order to stop their citizens from putting them out.

These systems whose main purpose is to control information can also be arranged in a manner that enables third parties in this case “Governments” to monitor the patterns of web browsing and even to eavesdrop on the browser’s conversations regardless of whether they are legal or illegal (Deibert, Access Denied: the practice and policy of global internet filtering 2008). Edward Alan Bulut in his report on Internet Censorship in Turkey has referred to the act of Banning or eliminating websites as an act of “sheer cyber murder of data and has compared it with the case of Galileo whose Ideas caused his imprisonment for life since they were against the views of the government.

Bulut has also termed these acts of filtering to as an infringement of human right in the sense that it interferes with the rights of the masses to think and to communicate and in doing so do not recognize that people have different ideas and inclinations. He goes on to say that there is a necessity to take action against such acts as interference to matters of sexual preferences, basic human rights, thoughts and legalized “cyber murder” (Bulut 2008). The growth of the internet began in the 1980’s but it was not until recently that the emergence of problems with its contents began.

Our daily lives are dependent on it in neither one way nor another and it is no wonder that it has had an impact on our culture, and our day today practices. The practice of taking control and suppressing the access of YouTube in 2007 by the Turkish Government within its own borders was an irregular one. The reason that was put out by the authorities in question was even questionable. Censorship reasons vary from one state to another. They could be Social, Political or Religious depending on the kind of values that the state holds.

Censorship exists in both in developing and developed state but the reasons behind these acts of censorship are what vary. The legal censorship of sites is the Turkish article 8 of Law number 5651 on regulation of internet content and fighting cyber crime, adopted in may 2007 crimes against Ataturk per law number 5816.

Read More