Social media and the internet are modern tools for exercising freedom of expression in contemporary societies. What would happen if a government completely blocked access to certain pages or platforms? Well, Turkey’s Constitutional Court faced such a question in 2014. Find out what the Court ruled.
Facts – Applications against blocking access to Twitter
The Turkish Telecommunications and Communications Authority blocked full access to the Twitter -now X- website in Turkey. This decision was based on several court rulings. Some people appealed to the Turkish Constitutional Court against the blocking of access to Twitter. The applicants argued that the total blocking of access to the Twitter website had no legal basis and was unconstitutional because it violated their right to freedom of expression.
Likewise, the applicants justified their application to the Constitutional Court, without the need to exhaust the administrative jurisdiction, as it was not an effective remedy. Alternatively, some cases were brought before the Administrative Courts. For example, the Ankara Administrative Court issued an interim injunction to lift the blocking of Twitter. However, the authority did not promptly comply with the court order.
Assessment of the Court – Unconstitutionality of the blockade
Admissibility
The Turkish Constitutional Court found the application admissible as it agreed that a remedy to the administrative courts was ineffective. This is because the authority did not promptly comply with the interim measure issued by the administrative court to lift the block on Twitter. The Constitutional Court clarified that although the limit for complying with a court order has been set at 30 days, in a State governed by the rule of law, administrative bodies must promptly comply with court orders. Hence, the Constitutional Court found the application admissible.
Merits of the case
The Constitutional Court stressed that freedom of expression encompasses the internet and social media, as they are essential tools for this right in modern democracies. The Court held that the authorities must be particularly cautious when interfering with them. Under that parameter, the Court noted that the judicial decisions justifying the authority to block Twitter only authorised the blocking of certain URL addresses. Thus, such judicial determinations did not empower the authority to block Twitter completely. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court specified that the law did not allow the authority to carry out a total blocking either. On the contrary, the Law establishes that the Courts are the only ones empowered to determine the total blocking of a page.
Order of the Court
Based on these arguments, the Constitutional Court concluded that the blocking of Twitter was illegal and constituted a serious transgression of the freedom of expression of all users of the platform. Therefore, the Court ordered the relevant authorities to reverse the consequences of the blocking of the Twitter page.
Find out more about the law around the World
References
Case
Yaman Akdeniz and others, B. No: 2014/3986. Judgement of 2 April 2014. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey.
Summary of the case
CODICES. TUR-2014-2-002. https://codices.coe.int/codices/documents/precis/A213EF5D-9DAC-4234-2F27-08DC225DC81B
