Category Archives: Censorship

Turkey on Saturday blocked access to all content of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, the latest squeeze on information access in the country.

Turkey Blocks, an organization that monitors internet censorship, said an administrative order blocked all language versions of the online encyclopedia.

Several major internet operators had complied with the order.

"The loss of availability is consistent with internet filters used to censor content in the country," Turkey Blocks said.The organization added that an administrative order was usually followed by a full court order.

Turkey's Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) said the administrative measure was taken after "technical analysis and legal consideration on Law Nr. 5651."

The 18-page Law Nr. 5651 deals broadly with "fighting crimes" published on the internet.

More sophisticated and prepared internet users were still able to access Wikipedia using virtual private networks (VPN).

Wikipedia seeks "outside counsel" with Turkey mum over block

No reason was given for blocking the world's fifth most popular website, but critics on social media speculated it may have to do with this month's controversial constitutional referendum or an entry about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Turkey's private NTV television network, which itself has come under criticism for censoring anti-government content, said access to Wikipedia was blocked for content supporting terrorism. It also said the block was implemented due to entries "placing Turkey on the same level as the 'Islamic State'" despite requests to remove the content.

NTV said the block would be lifted after the US-based Wikipedia implemented four demands: opening a representative office in Turkey; complying with court orders; acting in line with international law; and refraining from taking part in "operations to denigrate" Turkey.

In response to a Deutsche Welle inquiry, the Wikipedia Foundation saidthat it is "committed to ensuring that Wikipedia remains available to the millions of people who rely on it in Turkey. To that end, we are actively working with outside counsel to seek judicial review of the decision affecting access to Wikipedia. We hope the issue can be resolved promptly."

Surveillance softwareused?

A volunteer at Turkey Blocks told DW he suspected Turkish authorities used "Deep Packet Inspection" (DPI) software used by some countries for surveillance and censorship to block Wikipedia. "Normally http websites are easily blocked, but https websites such as Wikipedia are not as easy. As a result, when blocking a more advanced technique is used," she said.

"My guess is that a DPI was used to block Wikipedia. We know the Turkish state boughtDPI software before, so there is a high likelihood they use this software for censorship and intelligence," she added.

Following the block, Wikipedia was the top trending hashtag worldwide and in Turkey.

Turkish authority's move to block the hugely popularwebsite is likely to add to concerns over the deterioration in the rule of law, democracy and basic freedoms in the country.

Turkey has in recent years temporarily blocked access to numerous websites, most notably Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Blocking or throttling internet access has become commonduring terror attacks, mass protests or in response to the internet companies' failure to remove content.

Authorities often ask social media and internet companies to cooperate in removing content for defamation or broadly defined terrorism, particularly related to Kurdish militants.

Hundreds of websites critical of the government are blocked in Turkey.

Excerpt from:
Turkey blocks Wikipedia, expanding censorship - Deutsche Welle

With the controversies over campus lectures coming to a head this spring, academic liberals are finally beginning to vocalize their substantive defenses of censorship.

In the New Republic, a Colby College professor argued that keeping conservative speakers off campus is necessary to the process of curating knowledge of value for impressionable students. On Monday, New York University Vice Provost Ulrich Baer defended so-called "snowflakes" in the pages of the New York Times, dramatically thanking them for "keeping watch over the soul of our republic."

"The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks," Baer wrote. "It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community."

Baer uses the example of transgender rights to claim "the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing."

In fact, the opposite is true.

When I was in school, progressive students attempted to shut down my Young Americans for Freedom chapter because we opposed mandatory sensitivity training on transgender pronouns. We objected primarily to the idea of mandating political training, not the use of pronouns. But because we exercised our right to speak out, our campus engaged in a productive conversation about the merits of "mandatory sensitivity training," which is a reasonable discussion on the proper roles of university authorities. All participants emerged from the experience enriched by its lessons.

Baer would have that conversation stifled for preventing transgender people from being "recognized as fully human," despite both sides' emphatic efforts to speak with the utmost respect and compassion for members of that community.

But no matter how many times conservatives make those efforts, progressives obsess over every syllable we utter to argue that we are denying the humanity of any given marginalized community. There is nothing we can do short of agreeing with the Left to satisfy their standards. Even if our group on campus had objected to the use of transgender pronouns, is it not possible to argue that point, or, say, argue against Black Lives Matter, without denying people their humanity? If any new idea is automatically immune from rigorous debate simply because the opposition is deemed harmful to people, where does that standard lead us?

Consequently, serious discussion has become impossible on campuses. When mainstream conservative thought is equated with white supremacy or hate speech, only one side is afforded the right to express itself.

Like the Colby professor, Baer also argues that students no longer need to hear from campus speakers to be exposed to dissenting opinions because they enjoy access to the internet. It's true that any student on a campus where Charles Murray or Ann Coulter has been banned is able to watch another lecture on YouTube or pick up their books. But that's not what happens. At campus lectures, interested students who both agree and disagree often bring less interested friends to the event who would never otherwise seek out the information.

The lectures broach new ideas that would never otherwise find an audience in the classrooms of most liberal professors. And they give students the opportunity to engage directly with those speakers, allowing them to ask questions about issues specific to their campus or their personal lives. It is not something that can be replicated.

When I hosted a lecture by a prominent conservative on my campus, a liberal student stepped up to the microphone during a question and answer session to challenge the speaker on religious liberty. The speaker's answer, measured and calm, left the student speechless. She eventually retreated from the microphone after tilting her head and saying, "I guess I never thought of it in that way before."

That is the value of a campus lecture.

Professors do not give voice to alternative viewpoints, often presenting their perspectives as unimpeachable fact, thereby discouraging young people from even thinking to investigate the issues further. As a consequence, students graduate with worldviews that have never been subject to constructive criticism.

"It has been regrettably easy for commentators to create a simple dichotomy between a younger generation's oversensitivity and free speech as an absolute good that leads to the truth," Baer contended.

To some extent, I have to agree. For instance, I'm glad Baer published this op-ed because conservatives (understandably) have developed a reflex to issue outrage and mockery over the actions of "snowflakes" without understanding how the material professors like Baer teach in the classroom informs their behavior.

The crux of Baer's argument, however, is that these "snowflakes" are not oversensitive they are reasonably sensitive. He argues that if a speaker denies a marginalized community their humanity per the judgment of those privileged enough to hold power on college campuses (liberals) they are rightfully silenced. But it is doubtful that if a conservative student objected to a liberal speaker on the basis that their message is psychologically harmful to the humanity of, for instance, people of faith, they would be taken seriously.

This strikes me as similar to feminists' complaints about relinquishing power over women's rights to the "patriarchy." How can institutions dominated by one group who cannot understand another be trusted to protect it?

The problem with imposing qualifications on free speech, especially in higher education, is that they inevitably require the liberal academic bureaucracy to make judgments on what constitutes reasonable insight.

That will never ensure academia provides students with the balanced and challenging educations they are paying tens of thousands of dollars to receive.

The best answer to these questions is always to facilitate more speech, not less.

Emily Jashinskyis a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Read more from the original source:
NYU professor defends censorship and 'snowflakes' amid lecture ... - Washington Examiner

Russia will host the Confederations Cup this summer as they prepare for the 2018 World Cup.

German Football Association (DFB) president Reinhard Grindel has backed the Bild newspaper over claims of Russian censorship ahead of this summer's Confederations Cup.

Bild, Germany's most popular paper, has said it will boycott this summer's Confederations Cup in Russia if journalists are not given freedom to report as they please.

Print journalists attending the event -- which serves as a warm-up for the 2018 World Cup in Russia -- have been informed that they will be restricted in their travelling and reporting.

The guidelines issued to journalists working in print media with approved accreditation for the tournament stipulate that they "will solely cover the FIFA Confederations Cup 2017 and related events," with their reporting limited to the "territory of the host cities and cultural sites located nearby."

If media want to report from other territories, or cover events unrelated to the Confederations Cup, a separate visa issued by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is required. That stipulation is not included in the guidelines for broadcasters with approved accreditation.

On Tuesday, Bild made those stipulations public and announced a boycott of the Confederations Cup as long as "censorship" remained in place.

The paper claimed that FIFA is aware of the restrictions and views them as "a relief."

Bild was backed by DFB president Grindel, who promised to address the issue at the next FIFA Council meeting in May.

Grindel told the paper: "At the next FIFA Council meeting on May 9, I will advocate for free coverage for accredited journalists at the Confederations Cup. It would be an important signal for the 2018 World Cup if the Russian Organising Committee, right from the dress rehearsal, made it clear there are no restrictions of the freedom of press."

Ralf Stegner -- a vice president of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the smaller partner in Germany's grand coalition -- told Bild: "Just as we don't think it's right that U.S. President [Donald] Trump attacks the 'fake media,' we can't accept it when [Russian President Vladimir] Putin or FIFA restrict freedom of press."

Stephan Uersfeld is the Germany correspondent for ESPN FC. Follow him on Twitter @uersfeld.

See the original post here:
DFB backs Bild's Russian censorship claims - ESPN FC

Several countries have interfered with or banned access to the social networking website Facebook, including[1]China,[2]Iran,[3] and North Korea.[4] Use of the website has also been restricted in other ways in other countries. As of May 2016, the only countries to ban access around the clock to the social networking site are China, Iran, and North Korea. However, since the vast majority of North Korean residents do not have access to the internet, in reality China and Iran are the only Countries where access to Facebook is actively restricted in a wholesale manner.

Bangladesh (like Iran, China and North Korea) has banned Facebook - the Bangladeshi ban operated for a short period of time[when?]. The Awami League-led government of Bangladesh announced a countrywide ban on Facebook and other social-network websites. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina (in office from 2009) proposed the establishment of an Internet monitoring committee with the help of Bangladesh's intelligence services. Previously the government had blocked websites. Right-wing political parties and groups in Bangladesh protested against bloggers and others they consider "blasphemous"; at the time of the proposal. Extremists in the country had murdered eight secularists , including atheist blogger Ahmed Rajib Haider, who was fatally stabbed in February 2013. National riots over the country's war-crimes trials resulted in the deaths of 56 people between 19 January 2013 and 2 March 2013.

On 18 November 2015 the same Awami League government banned Facebook again on the eve of the final judgement of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami leader Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid and Bangladesh Nationalist Party leader Salauddin Kader Chowdhury. Both the politicians and previous minister have been issued a death sentence by the War Criminals Tribunal and the review board of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has finally given their judgement in favour of the previously given one.

The Bangladesh government lifted the ban on 20 December 2015 after about 22 days.

In 2017 the Bangladeshi government proposed blocking Facebook for 6 hours nightly.

In China, Facebook was blocked following the July 2009 rmqi riots because Xinjiang independence activists were using Facebook as part of their communications network.[5] Some Chinese users also believed that Facebook would not succeed in China after Google China's problems.[6] The popular Renren social network (formerly Xiaonei) has many features similar to Facebook, and complies with PRC Government regulations regarding content filtering.

As of 20 August 2013, there have been reports of Facebook being partially unblocked in China.[7] But according to the "Blocked in China" website, Facebook is still blocked.[8] However, it is not blocked in Hong Kong, Macao.

Facebook was blocked for a few days in Egypt during the 2011 Egyptian protests.[9]

In July 2011, authorities in Germany began to discuss the prohibition of events organized on Facebook. The decision is based on numerous cases of overcrowding by people who were not originally invited.[10][11] In one instance, 1,600 "guests" attended the 16th birthday party for a Hamburg girl who accidentally posted the invitation for the event as public. After reports of overcrowding, more than a hundred police were deployed for crowd control. A police officer was injured and eleven participants were arrested for assault, property damage and resistance to authorities.[12] In another unexpectedly overcrowded event, 41 young people were arrested and at least 16 injured.[13][14]

In 2015, during the refugee crisis with large numbers of immigrants entering the country unregulated, a broad discussion about the problems of mass immigration and politics of the actual government took place in social media. In this situation a campaign was started to force Facebook to erase right wing hate speech. Early in 2016, a Bertelsmann company called "Arvato" was mandated to erase comments and contents from Facebook.[15] Rules and procedure for that censorship, as well as the juridical base is not clear at the moment (January 2016).

After the 2009 election in Iran, the website was banned because of fears that opposition movements were being organized on the website.[3] However, after four years of the blocking of Facebook website, as of September 2013, the blocking of both Twitter and Facebook was thought to have been lifted without notice.[16] Iranians lost unrestricted access to Facebook and Twitter the next day, leaving many people wondering whether the opening was deliberate or the result of some technical glitch.[17]

Facebook was blocked for a few days in Malaysia during the 2011 Egyptian protests.[9]

The and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA) of Mauritius, ordered Internet Service Providers(ISPs) of the country to ban Facebook on immediate effect, on the 8 November 2007 because of a fake profile page of the Prime Minister. Access to Facebook was restored on the next day.[18][19][20]

On February 5, 2008, Fouad Mourtada, a citizen of Morocco, was arrested for the alleged creation of a faked Facebook profile of Prince Moulay Rachid of Morocco.[21][22]

From April 2016, North Korea starts to block Facebook, for "move underscoring its concern with the spread of online information". Anyone who tries to access it, even with authorization, will be subject to punishment.[4]

The Syrian government explained their ban by claiming the website promoted attacks on authorities.[23][24] The government also feared Israeli infiltration of Syrian social networks on Facebook.[23] Facebook was also used by Syrian citizens to criticize the government of Syria, as public criticism of the Syrian government used to be punishable by imprisonment.[23] In February 2011, Facebook was un-blocked from all ISP's and the website remains to be accessible.

In November 2012, Tajikistan blocked access to Facebook in response to comments posted online, spreading mud and slander about President Emomalii Rahmon and various other officials.[25]

In the United Kingdom on April 28, 2011, the day before the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, a number of politically motivated Facebook groups and pages were removed or suspended from the website as part of a nationwide crackdown on political activity. The groups and pages were mostly concerned with opposition to government spending cuts, and many were used to organize demonstrations in a continuation of the 2010 UK student protests.[26][27][28] The censorship of the pages coincided with a series of pre-emptive arrests of known activists.[29] Amongst the arrestees were a street theater group planning an effigy beheading performance in opposition to the monarchy.[30]

A Facebook spokesman said the pages were disabled as part of a routine sweep because they were created with fake personal profiles, a violation of the companys term of service. In this case a number of the Facebook personal profile pages represented causes, rather than real people. Facebook "offered to help convert the profiles to pages that are designed to represent companies, groups or causes."[28] The spokesman went on to say that "the Met Police did not ask Facebook to take down this content."[27]

Facebook was blocked in Vietnam for 2 weekends in May 2016 due to protest of dissidents.[31]

More:
Censorship of Facebook - Wikipedia

Media freedom in Turkey is regulated by domestic and international legislation, the latter taking precedence over domestic law, according to Article 90 of the Constitution (so amended in 2004).[1]

Despite legal provisions, media freedom in Turkey has steadily deteriorated from 2010 onwards, with a precipitous decline following the attempted coup in July 2016.[2][3] President Tayyip Erdogan has arrested hundreds of journalists, closed or taken over dozens of media outlets, and prevented journalists and their families from traveling. By some accounts, Turkeycurrently accountsfor one-third of all journalists imprisoned around the world.[4]

Since 2013, Freedom House ranks Turkey as "Not Free".[2]Reporters Without Borders ranked Turkey at the 149th place out of over 180 countries, between Mexico and DR Congo, with a score of 44.16[5] In the third quarter of 2015, the independent Turkish press agency Bianet recorded a strengthening of attacks on the opposition media during AKP interim government.[6]Bianet's final 2015 monitoring report confirmed this trend and underlined that once regained majority after the AKP interim government period, the Turkish government further intensified its pressure on the country's media.[7]

According to Freedom House,

The government enacted new laws that expanded both the states power to block websites and the surveillance capability of the National Intelligence Organization (MT). Journalists faced unprecedented legal obstacles as the courts restricted reporting on corruption and national security issues. The authorities also continued to aggressively use the penal code, criminal defamation laws, and the antiterrorism law to crack down on journalists and media outlets. Verbal attacks on journalists by senior politiciansincluding Recep Tayyip Erdoan, the incumbent prime minister who was elected president in Augustwere often followed by harassment and even death threats against the targeted journalists on social media. Meanwhile, the government continued to use the financial and other leverage it holds over media owners to influence coverage of politically sensitive issues. Several dozen journalists, including prominent columnists, lost their jobs as a result of such pressure during the year, and those who remained had to operate in a climate of increasing self-censorship and media polarization.[2]

In 2012 and 2013 the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) ranked Turkey as the worst journalist jailer in the world (ahead of Iran and China), with 49 journalists sitting in jail in 2012 and 40 in 2013.[8][9] Twitter's 2014 Transparency Report showed that Turkey filed over five times more content removal requests to Twitter than any other country in the second half of 2014, with requests rising another 150% in 2015.[10][11]

During its 12-year rule, the ruling AKP has gradually expanded its control over media.[12] Today, numerous newspapers, TV channels and internet portals also dubbed as Yanda Medya ("Partisan Media") or Havuz Medyas ("Pool Media") continue their heavy pro-government propaganda.[13] Several media groups receive preferential treatment in exchange for AKP-friendly editorial policies.[14] Some of these media organizations were acquired by AKP-friendly businesses through questionable funds and processes.[15] Media not friendly to AKP, on the other hand, are threatened with intimidation, inspections and fines.[16] These media group owners face similar threats to their other businesses.[17] An increasing number of columnists have been fired for criticizing the AKP leadership.[18][19][20][21]

Regional censorship predates the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. On 15 February 1857, the Ottoman Empire issued law governing printing houses ("Basmahane Nizamnamesi"); books first had to be shown to the governor, who forwarded them to commission for education ("Maarif Meclisi") and the police. If no objection was made, the Sultanate would then inspect them. Without censure from the Sultan books could not be legally issued.[22] On 24 July 1908, at the beginning of the Second Constitutional Era, censorship was lifted; however, newspapers publishing stories that were deemed a danger to interior or exterior State security were closed.[22] Between 1909 and 1913 four journalists were killedHasan Fehmi, Ahmet Samim, Zeki Bey, and Hasan Tahsin (Silah).[23]

Following the Turkish War of Independence, the Sheikh Said rebellion was used as pretext for implementing martial law ("Takrir-i Skun Yasas") on March 4, 1925; newspapers, including Tevhid-i Efkar, Sebl Reat, Aydnlk, Resimli Ay, and Vatan, were closed and several journalists arrested and tried at the Independence Courts.[22]

During World War II (19391945) many newspapers were ordered shut, including the dailies Cumhuriyet (5 times, for 5 months and 9 days), Tan (7 times, for 2 months and 13 days), and Vatan (9 times, for 7 months and 24 days).[22]

When the Democratic Party under Adnan Menderes came to power in 1950, censorship entered a new phase. The Press Law changed, sentences and fines were increased. Several newspapers were ordered shut, including the dailies Ulus (unlimited ban), Hrriyet, Tercman, and Hergn (two weeks each). In April 1960, a so-called investigation commission ("Tahkikat Komisyonu") was established by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. It was given the power to confiscate publications, close papers and printing houses. Anyone not following the decisions of the commission were subject to imprisonment, between one and three years.[22]

Freedom of speech was heavily restricted after the 1980 military coup headed by General Kenan Evren. During the 1980s and 1990s, broaching the topics of secularism, minority rights (in particular the Kurdish issue), and the role of the military in politics risked reprisal.[24][24]

Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law (Law 3713), slightly amended in 1995 and later repealed,[25] imposed three-year prison sentences for "separatist propaganda." Despite its name, the Anti-Terror Law punished many non-violent offences.[24]Pacifists have been imprisoned under Article 8. For example, publisher Fatih Tas was prosecuted in 2002 under Article 8 at Istanbul State Security Court for translating and publishing writings by Noam Chomsky, summarizing the history of human rights violations in southeast Turkey; he was acquitted, however, in February 2002.[24] Prominent female publisher Ayse Nur Zarakolu, who was described by the New York Times as "[o]ne of the most relentless challengers to Turkey's press laws", was imprisoned under Article 8 four times.[26][27]

Since 2011, the AKP government has increased restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and internet use,[28] and television content,[29] as well as the right to free assembly.[30] It has also developed links with media groups, and used administrative and legal measures (including, in one case, a $2.5 billion tax fine) against critical media groups and critical journalists: "over the last decade the AKP has built an informal, powerful, coalition of party-affiliated businessmen and media outlets whose livelihoods depend on the political order that Erdogan is constructing. Those who resist do so at their own risk."[31] Since his time as prime minister through to his presidency Erdogan has sought to control the press, forbidding coverage, restricting internet use and stepping up repression on journalists and media outlets.[2]

Foreign media noted that, particularly in the early days (31 May 2 June 2013) of the Gezi Park protests, the events attracted relatively little mainstream media coverage in Turkey, due to either government pressure on media groups' business interests or simply ideological sympathy by media outlets.[32][33] The BBC noted that while some outlets are aligned with the AKP or are personally close to Erdoan, "most mainstream media outlets such as TV news channels HaberTurk and NTV, and the major centrist daily Milliyet are loath to irritate the government because their owners' business interests at times rely on government support. All of these have tended to steer clear of covering the demonstrations."[33]Ulusal Kanal and Halk TV provided extensive live coverage from Gezi park.[34]

Turkeys Journalists Union estimated that at least "72 journalists had been fired or forced to take leave or had resigned in the past six weeks since the start of the unrest" in late May 2013 due to pressure from the AKP government. Kemal Kilicdaroglu, head of the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (CHP) party, said 64 journalists have been imprisoned and We are now facing a new period where the media is controlled by the government and the police and where most media bosses take orders from political authorities. The government says most of the imprisoned journalists have been detained for serious crimes, like membership in an armed terrorist group, that are not related to journalism.[35][36]

Bianet's periodical reports on freedom of the press in Turkey published in October 2015 recorded a strengthening of attacks on the opposition media during the AKP interim government in the third quarter of 2015. Bianet recorded the censorship of 101 websites, 40 Twitter accounts, 178 news; attacks against 21 journalists, three media organs, and one printing house; civil pursuits against 28 journalists; and the six-fold increase of arrests of media representatives, with 24 journalists and 9 distributors imprisoned.[37] The increased criminalisation of the media follows the freezing of the Kurdish peace process and the failure of AKP to obtain an outright majority at the June 2015 election and to achieve the presidentialisation of the political system. Several journalists and editors are tried for being allegedly members of unlawful organisations, linked to either Kurds or the Glen movement, others for alleged insults to religion and to the President. In 2015 Cumhuriyet daily and Doan Holding were investigated for "terror", "espionage" and "insult". On the date of Bianet's publication, 61 people, of whom 37 journalists, were convict, defendant or suspect for having insulted or personally attacked the then-PM, now-President Recep Tayyip Erdoan. The European Court of Human Rights condemned Turkey for violation of the freedom of expression in the Abdurrahman Dilipak case (Sledgehammer investigation),[38][39] and the Turkish Constitutional Court upheld the violation of the freedom of expression of five persons, including a journalist. RTK could not yet choose its President; it still warned companies five times and fined them six times. The Supreme Electoral Council ordered 65 channels twice to stop broadcasting the results of the June 2015 election before the end of the publishing ban.

Attack to media freedom went far beyond the AKP interim government period. The January 2016 updated Bianet's report confirmed this alarming trend, underlining that the whole 2014 figure of arrested journalists increased in 2015, reaching the number of 31 journalists arrested (22 in 2014) [40] Once regained the majority on November 1, 2015 elections, the Turkish government intensified the pressure on the country's media, for example by banning some TV channels, in particular those linked to the Fethullah Glen movement, from digital platforms and by seizing control of their broadcasting. In November 2015, Can Dndar, Cumhuriyet's editor in chief and its Ankara representative Erdem Gl were arrested on charges of belonging to a terror organisation, espionage and for having allegedly disclosed confidential information. Investigation against the two journalists were launched after the newspaper documented the transfer of weapons from Turkey to Syria in trucks of the National Intelligence Organization previously involved in the MT trucks scandal. Dndar and Gl were released in February 2016 when the Supreme Court decided that their detention was undue.[41] In July 2016, in the occasion of the launch of the campaign "I'm a journalist", Mehmet Koksal, project officer of the European Federation of Journalists declared that "Turkey has the largest number of journalists in jail out of all the countries in the Council of Europe.[42]

The situation further deteriorated as consequence of the 2016 Turkish coup d'tat attempt of 15 July 2016 and the subsequent government reaction, leading to an increase of attacks targeting the media in Turkey. Mustafa Cambaz, a photojournalist working for the daily Yeni Safak was killed during the coup. Turkish soldiers attempting to overthrow the government took control of several newsrooms, including the Ankara-based headquarter of the state broadcaster TRT. They also forced a TV channel's anchor to read a statement at gunpoint while the member of the editorial board were held hostage and threatened. Also, soldiers seized the offices in Istanbul of Doan Media Center which hosted several media outles, including Hurriyet daily newspaper and the private TV station CNN Trk, holding journalists and other professionals hostage for many hours during the night. During the coup's night, in the streets of Istanbul, a photojournalist working for Hurriyet and the Associated Press was assaulted by civilians that were demonstrating against the coup.[43] In the following days, after the government regained power, the state regulatory authority named Information Technologies and Communications Authority shut down 20 independent online news portals. On July 19, the Turkish Radio and Television Supreme Council decided to revoke the licence of 24 TV channels and radio stations for being allegedly connected to the Glen community, without providing much details on this decision. Also, following the decision of declaring the state of emergency for three months taken on 21 July,[44] a series of limitation to freedom of expression and freedom of the media have been imposed. The measures within the regime of emergency include the possibility to ban printing, copying, publishing and distributing newspapers, magazines, books and leaflets.[45]

An editorial criticizing press censorship published May 22, 2015[46] and inclusion of Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as one of a rising class of "soft" dictators in an op-ed published in May 2015 in The New York Times[47] resulted in a strong reaction by Erdogan.[48] In an interview Dndar gave in July 2016, before the coup attempt and the government reaction, the journalist stated that "Turkey is going through its darkest period, journalism-wise. In has never been an easy country for journalists, but I think today it has reached its lowest point and is experiencing unprecedented repression".[49]

The Constitution of Turkey, at art. 28, states that the press is free and shall not be censored. Expressions of non-violent opinion are safeguarded by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified by Turkey in 1954, and various provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed by Turkey in 2000.[24] Many Turkish citizens convicted under the laws mentioned below have applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and won their cases.[24]

Yet, Constitutional and international guarantees are undermined by restrictive provisions in the Criminal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, and anti-terrorism laws, effectively leaving prosecutors and judges with ample discretion to repress ordinary journalistic activities.[2] The 2017 Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights' report on freedom of expression and media freedom in Turkey reiterated that censorship problems stem mainly from the Turkish Criminal Code and the Turkish Anti- Terrorism Law No. 3713.[50][51][52] Prosecutors continued to bring a number of cases for terrorism or membership of an armed organization mainly based on certain statements of the accused, as coinciding with the aims of such organization.[51]

Beside the Article 301, amended in 2008, and Article 312, more than 300 provisions constrained freedom of expression, religion, and association, according to the Turkish Human Rights Association (2002).[24] Article No. 299 of the Turkish Criminal Code provides for criminal defamation of the Head of the State. which is being increasingly enforced. 18 persons were in prison for this offence as of June 2016.[51][52] Article No. 295 of the Criminal Code is increasingly being enforced as well, imposing a press silence (Yayn Yasa) on topics of relevant public interest such as terrorist attacks and bloody blasts.[53] The silence can be imposed on TVs, print media, radios as well as to Internet content, hosting and service providers. Violating this norm can lead up to three years of detention.[54]

Many of the repressive provisions found in the Press Law, the Political Parties Law, the Trade Union Law, the Law on Associations, and other legislation were imposed by the military junta after its coup in 1980. As to the Internet, the relevant Law is Law No. 5651 of 2007.[55]

According to the Council of Europe Commissioner and to the Venice Commission for Democracy through Law, the decrees issued under the state of emergency since July 2016, confered an almost limitless discretionay power to the Turkish executive to apply sweeping misure against NGOs, the media and the public sector.[51][56][57] Specifically, many NGOs were closed, the media organizations seized or shut down and public sector employees as well as journalists and media workers arrested or intimidated.[51]

Article 301 is a provision in the Turkish penal code that, since 2005 made it a punishable offense to insult Turkishness or various official Turkish institutions. Charges were brought in more than 60 cases, some of which were high-profile.[32]

The article was amended in 2008, including changing "Turkishness" into "the Turkish nation", reducing maximum prison terms to 2 years, and making it obligatory to get the approval of the Minister of Justice before filing a case.[58][59] Changes were deemed "largely cosmetic" by Freedom House,[2] although the number of prosecutions dropped. Although only few persons were convicted, trials under Art. 301 are seen by human rights watchdogs as a punitive measure in themselves, as time-consuming and expensive, thus exerting a chilling effect on free speech.[2]

Article 312 of the criminal code imposes three-year prison sentences for incitement to commit an offence and incitement to religious or racial hatred. In 1999 the mayor of Istanbul and current president Recep Tayyip Erdogan was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment under Article 312 for reading a few lines from a poem that had been authorized by the Ministry of Education for use in schools, and consequently had to resign.[24] In 2000 the chairman of the Human Rights Association, Akin Birdal, was imprisoned under Article 312 for a speech in which he called for "peace and understanding" between Kurds and Turks,[24] and thereafter forced to resign, as the Law on Associations forbids persons who breach this and several other laws from serving as association officials.[24] On February 6, 2002, a "mini-democracy package" was voted by Parliament, altering wording of Art. 312. Under the revised text, incitement can only be punished if it presents "a possible threat to public order."[24] The package also reduced the prison sentences for Article 159 of the criminal code from a maximum of six years to three years. None of the other laws had been amended or repealed as of 2002.[24]

Defamation and libel remain criminal charges in Turkey (Article 125 of the Penal Code). They often result in fines and jail terms. Bianet counted 10 journalists convicted of defamation, blasphemy or incitement to hatred in 2014.[2]

Article 216 of the Penal Code, banning incitement of hatred and violence on grounds of ethnicity, class or religion (with penalties of up to 3 years), is also used against journalists and media workers.[2]

Article 314 of the Penal Code is often invoked against journalists, particularly Kurds and leftists, due to its broad definition of terrorism and of membership in an armed organisation. It carries a minimum sentence of 7,5 years. According to the OSCE, most of 22 jailed journalsts as of June 2014 had been charged or condemned based on Art. 314.

Article 81 of the Political Parties Law (imposed by the military junta in 1982) forbids parties from using any language other than Turkish in their written material or at any formal or public meetings. This law is strictly enforced.[24][bettersourceneeded] Kurdish deputy Leyla Zana was jailed in 1994, ostensibly for membership to the PKK.

In 1991, laws outlawing communist (Articles 141 and 142 of the criminal code) and Islamic fundamentalist ideas (Article 163 of the criminal code) were repealed.[24] This package of legal changes substantially freed up expression of leftist thought, but simultaneously created a new offence of "separatist propaganda" under Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law.[24] Prosecutors also began to use Article 312 of the criminal code (on religious or racial hatred) in place of Article 163.[24]

The 1991 antiterrorism law (the Law on the Fight against Terrorism) has been invoked to charge and imprison journalists for activities that Human Rights Watch define as nonviolent political association and speech. The European Court of Human Rights has in multiple occasions found the law to amount to censorship and breach of freedom of expression.[2]

Constitutional amendments adopted in October 2001 removed mention of "language forbidden by law" from legal provisions concerning free expression. Thereafter, university students began a campaign for optional courses in Kurdish to be put on the university curriculum, triggering more than 1,000 detentions throughout Turkey during December and January 2002.[24] Actions have also been taken against the Laz minority.[24] According to the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey only recognizes the language rights of the Jewish, Greek and Armenian minorities.[24] The government ignores Article 39(4) of the Treaty of Lausanne, which states that: "[n]o restrictions shall be imposed on the free use by any Turkish national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press or in publications of any kind or at public meetings."[24][bettersourceneeded] Pressured by the EU, Turkey has promised to review the Broadcasting Law.[24]

Other legal changes in August 2002 allowed for the teaching of languages, including Kurdish.[66] However, limitations on Kurdish broadcasting continue to be strong: according to the EU Commission (2006), "time restrictions apply, with the exception of films and music programmes.[bettersourceneeded] All broadcasts, except songs, must be subtitled or translated in Turkish, which makes live broadcasts technically cumbersome. Educational programmes teaching the Kurdish language are not allowed. The Turkish Public Television (TRT) has continued broadcasting in five languages including Kurdish. However, the duration and scope of TRT's national broadcasts in five languages is very limited. No private broadcaster at national level has applied for broadcasting in languages other than Turkish since the enactment of the 2004 legislation."[67][bettersourceneeded] TRT broadcasts in Kurdish (as well as in Arab and Circassian dialect) are symbolic,[68][bettersourceneeded] compared to satellite broadcasts by channels such as controversial Roj TV, based in Denmark.

In 2003 Turkey adopted a freedom of information law. Yet, state secrets that may harm national security, economic interests, state investigations, or intelligence activity, or that violate the private life of the individual, are exempt from requests. This has made accessing official information particularly difficult.[2]

Amendments in 2013 (the Fourth Judicial Reform package), spurred by the EU accession process and a renewed Kurdish peace process, amended several laws. Antiterrorism regulations were tweaked so that publication of statements of illegal groups would only be a crime if the statement included coercion, violence, or genuine threats. Yet, the reform was deemed as not reaching international human rights standards, since it did not touch upon problematic norms such as the Articles 125, 301 and 314 of the Penal Code.[2] In 2014 a Fifth Judicial Reform package was passed, which among others reduced the maximum period pretrial detention from 10 to 5 years. Consequently, several journalists were released from jail, pending trial.[2]

New laws in 2014 were nevertheless detrimental to freedom of speech.[2]

Turkey is one of the Council of Europe member states with the greatest number of ECHR-recognised violations of rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. Of these, several concern Article 10 of the Convention, on freedom of expression.

The physical safety of journalists in Turkey is at risk.

Several journalists died in the 1990s at the height of the Turkey-PKK conflict. Soon after the pro-Kurdish press had started to publish the first daily newspaper by the name of "zgr Gndem" (Free Agenda) killings of Kurdish journalists started. Hardly any of them has been clarified or resulted in sanctions for the assailants. "Murder by unknown assailants" (tr: faili mehul) is the term used in Turkish to indicate that the perpetrators were not identified because of them being protected by the State and cases of disappearance. The list of names of distributors of zgr Gndem and its successors that were killed (while the perpetrators mostly remained unknown) includes 18 names.[78] Among the 33 journalists that were killed between 1990 and 1995 most were working for the so-called Kurdish Free Press.

The killings of journalists in Turkey since 1995 are more or less individual cases. Most prominent among the victims is Hrant Dink, killed in 2007, but the death of Metin Gktepe also raised great concern, since police officers beat him to death. The death of Metin Alata in 2010 is also a source of disagreement - while the autopsy claimed it was suicide, his family and colleagues demanded an investigation. He had formerly received death threats and had been violently assaulted.[79] Since 2014, several Syrian journalists who were working from Turkey and reporting on the rise of Daesh have been assassinated.

In 2014, journalists suffered obstruction, tear gas injuries, and physical assault by the police in several instances: while covering the February protests against internet censorship, the May Day demonstrations, as well as the Gezi Park protests anniversaries (when CNN correspondent Ivan Watson was shortly detained and roughed up). Turkish security forces fired tear gas at journalists reporting from the border close to the Syrian town of Kobane in October.[2]

Despite the 2004 Press Law foresees only fines, other restrictive laws have led to several journalists and writers being put behind bars. According to a report published by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), at least seven journalists remained in prison by the end of 2014. The independent Turkish press agency Bianet counted 22 journalists and 10 publishers in jail - most of them Kurds, charged with association with an illegal organisation.[2]

In 2016, Turkey became the biggest jail for journalists. As to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) rank, Turkey was the first country ever to jail 81 journalists, editors and media practitioners in one year.[80]

According to a CPJ report, Turkish authorities are engaging in widespread criminal prosecution and jailing of journalists, and are applying other forms of severe pressure to promote self-censorship in the press. The CPJ has found highly repressive laws, particularly in the penal code and anti-terror law; a criminal procedure code that greatly favors the state; and a harsh anti-press tone set at the highest levels of government. Turkeys press freedom situation has reached a crisis point.[81] This reports mentions 3 types of journalists targeted:

Kemalist and / or nationalist journalists were arrested on charges referring to the Ergenekon case and several left-wing and Kurdish journalists were arrested on charges of engaging in propaganda for the PKK listed as a terrorist organization. In short, writing an article or making a speech can still lead to a court case and a long prison sentence for membership or leadership of a terrorist organisation. Together with possible pressure on the press by state officials and possible firing of critical journalists, this situation can lead to a widespread self-censorship.[82]

In November 2013, three journalists were sentenced to life in prison as senior members of the illegal MarxistLeninist Communist Party - among them the founder of zgr Radio, Fsun Erdoan. They had been arrested in 2006 and held until 2014, when they were released following legal reforms on pre-trial detention terms. An appeal is still pending.[2]

In February 2017, German-Turkish journalist Deniz Ycel was jailed in Istanbul.[83][84][85]

On April 10, 2017, the Italian journalist Gabriele Del Grande was arrested in Hatay and jailed in Mugla.[86] He was in Turkey in order to write a book on the war in Syria. He went on hunger strike on April 18, 2017.[86]

Defamation and libel remain criminal charges in Turkey. They often result in fines and jail terms. Bianet counted 10 journalists convicted of defamation, blasphemy or incitement to hatred in 2014.[2]

Courts' activities on media-related cases, particularly those concerning the corruption scandals surrounding Erdoan and his close circle, have cast doubts on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in Turkey. The Turkish Journalists' Association and the Turkish Journalists' Union counted 60 new journalists under prosecution for this single issue in 2013, for a total number of over 100 lawsuits.[2]

Particularly since 2013, the President Erdoan and other governmental officials have resorted to hostile public rhetoric against independent journalists and media outlets, which is then echoed in the pro-governmental press and TV, accusing foreign media and interest groups of conspiring to bring down his government.[2]

Tukish authorities have been reported as denying access to events and information to journalists for political reasons.[2]

Since 2011, the AKP government has increased restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and internet use,[28] and television content,[29] as well as the right to free assembly.[30] It has also developed links with media groups, and used administrative and legal measures (including, in one case, a billion tax fine) against critical media groups and critical journalists: "over the last decade the AKP has built an informal, powerful, coalition of party-affiliated businessmen and media outlets whose livelihoods depend on the political order that Erdogan is constructing. Those who resist do so at their own risk."[31]

These behaviours became particularly prominent in 2013 in the context of the Turkish media coverage of the 2013 protests in Turkey. The BBC noted that while some outlets are aligned with the AKP or are personally close to Erdogan, "most mainstream media outlets - such as TV news channels HaberTurk and NTV, and the major centrist daily Milliyet - are loth to irritate the government because their owners' business interests at times rely on government support. All of these have tended to steer clear of covering the demonstrations."[33] Few channels provided live coverage one that did was Halk TV.[34] Several private media outlets were reported as engaging in self-censorship due to political pressures. The 2014 local and presidential elections exposed the extent of biased coverage by progovernment media.[2]

The state-run Anadolu Agency and the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT) have also been criticized by media outlets and opposition parties, for acting more and more like a mouthpiece for the ruling AKP, a stance in stark violation of their requirement as public institutions to report and serve the public in an objective way.[92]

In 2014 the TRT, the state broadcaster, as well as the state-owned Anadolu Agency, were subject to stricter controls. Even RTK warned TRT for disproportionate coverage of the AKP; the Supreme Board of Elections fined the public broadcaster for not reporting at all on presidential candidates other than Erdoan, between August 6 and 8. The Council of Europe observers reported concern about the unfair media advantage for the incumbent ruling party.[2]

During its 12-year rule, the ruling AKP has gradually expanded its control over media.[12] Today, numerous newspapers, TV channels and internet portals also dubbed as Yanda Medya ("Partisan Media") or Havuz Medyas ("Pool Media") continue their heavy pro-government propaganda.[13] Several media groups receive preferential treatment in exchange for AKP-friendly editorial policies.[14] Some of these media organizations were acquired by AKP-friendly businesses through questionable funds and processes.[15]

Leaked telephone calls between high ranking AKP officials and businessmen indicate that government officials collected money from businessmen in order to create a "pool media" that will support AKP government at any cost.[93][94] Arbitrary tax penalties are assessed to force newspapers into bankruptcyafter which they emerge, owned by friends of the president. According to a recent investigation by Bloomberg,[95] Erdogan forced a sale of the once independent daily Sabah to a consortium of businessmen led by his son-in-law.[96]

Leading pro-AKP newspapers are Yeni afak, Akit, Sabah, Star, Takvim, Akam, Trkiye, Milli Gazete, Gne, and Milat, among others. Leading pro-AKP TV channels are Kanal 7, 24, lke TV, TRT, ATV, TGRT, Sky Turk 360, TV Net, NTV, TV8, Beyaz TV, Kanaltrk, and Kanal A. Leading pro-government internet portals are Haber 7, Habervaktim and En Son Haber. Leading pro-AKP news agencies are state owned Anadolu Agency and hlas News Agency.

Major media outlets in Turkey belong to certain group of influential businessman or holdings. In nearly all cases, these holding companies earn only a small fraction of their revenue from their media outlets, with the bulk of profits coming from other interests, such as construction, mining, finance, or energy.[97] Therefore, media groups usually practice self-censorship to protect their wider business interests.

Media not friendly to the AKP are threatened with intimidation, inspections and fines.[16] These media group owners face similar threats to their other businesses.[17] An increasing number of columnists have been fired for criticizing the AKP leadership.[18][19][20][21]

In addition to the censorship practiced by pro-government media such as Sabah, Yeni afak, and Star, the majority of other newspapers, such as Szc, Zaman, Milliyet, and Radikal have been reported as practicing self-censorship to protect their business interests and using the market share (65% of the total newspapers sold daily in Turkey as opposed to pro-government media[98]) to avoid retaliatory action by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government of Recep Tayyip Erdoan.[99]

During the period before the Turkish local elections of 2014, a number of phone calls between prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoan and media executives were leaked to the internet.[100] Most of the recordings were between Edoan and Habertrk newspaper & TV channel executive Fatih Sara. In those recordings, it can be heard that Erdoan was calling Fatih Sara when he was unhappy about a news item published in the newspaper or broadcast on TV. He was demanding Fatih Sara to be careful next time or censor any particular topics he is not happy about.[101] At another leaked call, Erdoan gets very upset and angry over a news published at Milliyet newspaper and reacts harshly to Erdoan Demirren, owner of the newspaper. Later, it can be heard that Demirren is reduced to tears.[102] During a call between Erdoan and editor-in-chief of Star daily Mustafa Karaaliolu, Erdoan lashes out at Karaaliolu for allowing Mehmet Altan to continue writing such critical opinions about a speech the prime minister had delivered recently. In the second conversation, Erdoan is heard grilling Karaaliolu over his insistence on keeping Hidayet efkatli Tuksal, a female columnist in the paper despite her critical expressions about him.[103] Later, both Altan and Tuksal got fired from Star newspaper. Erdoan acknowledged that he called media executives.[104]

In 2014, direct pressures from the executive and the Presidency have led to the dismissal of media workers for their critical articles. Bianet records over 339 journalists and media workers being laid off or forced to quit in the year - several of them due to political pressures.[2]

Trksat is the sole communications satellite operator in Turkey. There have been allegations that TV channels critical of the AKP party and President Erdoan have been removed from Trksat's infrastructure, and that Trksat's executive board is dominated by pro-Erdoan figures.

In October 2015 a video recording emerged of a 2 February 2015 conversation between Mustafa Varank, advisor to President Erdoan and board member of Trksat, and some journalists in which Varank states that he had urged Trksat to drop certain TV channels because "they are airing reports that harm the government's prestige". Later that year the TV channels Irmak TV, Bugn TV, and Kanaltrk, known for their critical stance against the government, were notified by Trksat that their contracts would not be renewed as of November 2015, and were told to remove their platforms from Trksat's infrastructure.[131]

Trksat dropped TV channels critical of the government from its platform in November 2015. The broadcasting of TV stationsincluding Samanyolu TV, Mehtap TV, S Haber and Radio Cihanthat are critical of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government were halted by Trksat because of a legal obligation to the order of a prosecutor's office, based on the suspicion that the channels support a terrorist organization. Among the TV and radio stations removed were Samanyolu Europe, Ebru TV, Mehtap TV, Samanyolu Haber, Irmak TV, Yumurcak TV, Dnya TV, MC TV, Samanyolu Africa, Tuna Shopping TV, Bur FM, Samanyolu Haber Radio, Mehtap Radio and Radio Cihan .[132]

The critical Bugn and Kanaltrk TV channels, which were seized by a government-initiated move in October 2015, were also dropped from Trksat in November 2015. Later on 1 March 2016 these two seized channels closed due to financial reasons by government trustees.[133]

In March 2016 the two TV channels from other wings of the politics is also removed from Turksat, namely, Turkish Nationalist Benguturk and Kurdish Nationalist IMC TV.[134]

Censorship of sensitive topics in Turkey happens both online and offline. Kurdish issues, the Armenian genocide, as well as subjects controversial for Islam or the Turkish state are often censored. Enforcement remains arbitrary and unpredictable.[2] Also, defamation of the Head of the State is a crime provision increasingly used for censoring critical voices in Turkey.[52]

In the 2016 Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index, Turkey is ranked in the 151st place out of 178 countries.[135] The situation for free expression has always been troubled in Turkey.[136][137] The situation dramatically deteriorated after the 2013 Gezi protests,[138] reaching its peak after the July 15, 2016 coup attempt. From that moment on, a state of emergency is in force,[139] tens of thousand of journalists, academics, public officials and intellectuals have been arrested or charged, mainly with terrorist charges, sometimes following some statement or writing of them.[135]

The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights' report on freedom of expression and media freedom in Turkey, after his 2016 visits to Turkey, noted that the violations to freedom of expression in Turkey have created a distinct chilling effect, manifesting in self- censorship both among the remaining media and among ordinary citizens.[51] In addition, the Commissioner wrote that the main obstacle to an improvement of the situation of freedom of expression and media freedom in Turkey is the lack of political will both to acknowledge and to address such problems.[51]

In 2017, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights' , noted that with regard to judicial harassment restricting freedom of expression the main issues consist in:[51]

As to January 18, 2017, more than 150 media outlets were closed and their assets liquidated by governmental decrees.[56][57][127] Underemergencydecree No. 687 of February 9, 2017, TurkeysSaving Deposit Insurance Fund(TMSF) will be authorized to sell companies seized by the state through the appointment oftrustees.[128][129] Also, through the use of emergency decrees- such as Nos. 668 (July 27, 2016), 675 (October 29, 2016) and 677 (November 22, 2016), 178 media organizations were closed down being charged of having terrorist affiliations. As to November 2016, Twenty-four of these shut-down media organizations were radio stations, twenty- eight televisions, eighty newspapers.[130]

In 2014, Turkish regulators issued several reporting bans on public interest issues.[2]

In 2012, as part of the Third Reform Package, all previous bans on publications were cancelled unless renewed by court - which happened for most leftist and Kurdish publications.[2]

Academics are also affected by governments censorship. In this regard, the case of the Academics for Peace is particularly relevant:[63] on January 14, 2016, 27 academics were detained for interrogations after having signed a petition with more than other 1.000 people asking for Peace in the South- East of the country, where there are ongoing violent clashes between the Turkish Army and the PKK.[64] The academics accused the government of breaching international law. An investigation started upon those academics under charges of terrorism propaganda, incitement to hatred and enmity and for insulting the State under Article No. 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code.[65]

In television broadcasts, scenes displaying nudity, consumption of alcohol, smoking, drug usage and violence are commonly censored by blurring out respective areas.[140] TV channels also practice self-censorship of subtitles in order to avoid heavy fines from the Radio and Television Supreme Council (Radyo ve Televizyon st Kurulu,RTK). For example, CNBC-e channel usually translates the word gay as marginal.[141]

State agency RTK continues to impose a large number of closure orders on TV and radio stations on the grounds that they have made separatist broadcasts.[24]

Turkey's Internet censorship regime shifted from "moderate" to "severe" in late 2016 following a series of social media shutdowns, regional Internet blackouts and restrictions on VPN and Tor circumvention tools documented by independent digital rights watchdog Turkey Blocks.[153][154] Months earlier, human rights research group Freedom House had already downgraded its outlook of internet freedom in the country to "Not Free," noting in its report that the assessment was made before further restrictions following the abortive military coup in July.[155]

With regard to Internet censorship, in the 2017 Report on media freedom and freedom of expression in Turkey, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe found out:[51]

In earlier years, the Turkish government implemented legal and institutional reforms driven by the countrys ambitions to become a European Union member state. At the same time Turkey demonstrated its high sensitivity to defamation and other "inappropriate" online content, resulting in the closure of a number of local and international Web sites. All Internet traffic passes through Turk Telecoms infrastructure, allowing centralized control over online content and facilitating the implementation of shutdown decisions.[156][157]

In December 2010 the OpenNet Initiative, a non-partisan organization based in Canada and the United States that investigates, analyzes, and exposes Internet filtering and surveillance practices, classified Internet censorship in Turkey as selective (third lowest of four classifications) in the political, social, and Internet tools areas and found no evidence of censorship in the conflict/security area.[158] However, also in 2010, Reporters Without Borders added Turkey to its list of 16 countries "under surveillance" (the less serious of two Internet censorship lists that it maintains), saying:

The year 2010 was marked by the widely covered deblocking of the video-sharing website YouTube which, unfortunately, did not equate to a lifting of online censorship in Turkey. In a country where taboo topics abound, several thousand websites are still inaccessible and legal proceedings against online journalists persist.[159]

In July 2010 the Alternative Informatics Association organized one of the first and largest street protests against Internet censorship in Istanbul. A second protest took place in May 2011 with demonstrations in 30 cities in Turkey.[160]

In its Freedom on the Net 2016 report, Freedom House gave Turkey a "freedom on the net status" of "not free" saying that:[161]

The Freedom on the Net 2015 report, tracked that over 60,000 websites remain blocked in Turkey, and that TIB blocked 22,645 websites without prior court order only in 2014. Twitter was blocked for two weeks and YouTube for two months in 2014.[2][162]

Internet Law No. 5651 was enacted in 2007 Turkey with the declared objective of protecting families and minors.[55][163] The way for its enactment was paved after the ban imposed on Youtube.com in 2007, because of a video insulting the Turkish Republics funder Kemal Atatrk.[163] Since then, such law was enforced in a restrictive manner, often causing episodes of censorship against common citizens, journalists and media outlets.[164] For this reason, experts consider Law No. 5651 particularly controversial.[165]

On 5 February 2014 the Turkish Parliament adopted a controversial bill amending the Internet regulation in Turkey. It allows the telecommunications authority (TIB) to block any website within 4 hours without first seeking a court ruling, and requires Internet providers to store all data on web users' activities for two years and make it available to the authorities upon request.[166] After the July 15, 2016 coup attempt, TIBS power were transferred to the Technology and Communications Authority (Bilgi Teknolojileri ve Iletisim Kurumu BTK), which previously oversaw the TIBs operations.[167]

Internet Law No. 5651 prohibits:

Web sites are also blocked for the following reasons:

Since the 2015 amendments, national security is also a basis for broad access bans.[168]

Decisions to block a website can be appealed, but usually only after a site has been blocked. Nevertheless, due to the public profile of the major websites banned and the lack of juridical, technical, or ethical arguments to justify the censorship, the blocked sites are often available using proxies or by changing DNS servers.

Web sites are blocked for intellectual property infringement, particularly file-sharing and streaming sites; for providing access to material that shows or promotes the sexual exploitation and abuse of children, obscenity, prostitution, or gambling; for insults to Mustafa Kemal Atatrk, the founding father of modern Turkey; for reporting news on southeastern Turkey and Kurdish issues; or which defame individuals. In addition to widespread filtering, state authorities are proactive in requesting the deletion or removal of content online.[169]

A leading case regarding Internet censorship is Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey (2013), before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR):[77] it concerns the Internet Law No. 5651 and the blocking of Google Sites, defamation, the usage of disproportionate measures and the need for restrictions to be prescribed by law.

Some other cases of blocking of Internet sites are the following:

Initiative for Freedom of Expression is an Istanbul- based association and movement of civil disobedience, working on the right to freedom of expression. It is a member of the global network IFEX.[221][222] Since 2000, it publishes annual reports on the situation of freedom of expression in Turkey and distributes them among the main Non-Governmental Organizations, as well as to the media institutions. Every week, the Initiative publishes a Weekly Bulletin[223] in Turkish and in English. Since 1997, it organizes biennial "Gatherings for Freedom of Expression" in Istanbul. Together with other stakeholders, it created the TL database (Current Trial Library),[224] recording thought crime cases. It opened a virtual and interactive Museum of the Crimes of Thought.[225]

Read this article:
Media freedom in Turkey - Wikipedia

Times journalists: Give Us the Fake News President

Two high-profile New York Times reporters say dont be so quick to criticize President Trumps attitude toward the news media especially when compared with that of his predecessor. In a recent appearance at Duke University, the school paper Chronicle reports, Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman said Trumps fake news attacks are nothing like the chilling effect of President Barack Obamas crackdown on journalists and leakers. Apuzzo who, like Goldman, had his phone records seized called the Obama administration the most oppressive for journalists since Richard Nixon. At least Trump, unlike Team Obama, is not calling us criminals, noted Apuzzo, adding: Ill take the guy saying were fake news.

From the right: How To Crush Campus Censorship

The courts have failed and the culture is failing when it comes to free speech on campus, says David French at National Review. Inadequate legal remedies mean there is a far greater financial incentive for a university to keep its sidewalks shoveled in the winter than to protect one of our nations founding liberties. So its time for Congress to speak up and make it costlier to censor. Pass a law mandating that if a public university is found to have violated the constitutional rights of a student or faculty member, it must pay liquidated damages to the plaintiff of no less than $5 million and forfeit a large chunk of its federal funding. Do this and universities will respond with all the energy and fury of a person experiencing an electric shock.

From the left: Judge Hands Trump a Yuge Political Gift

A California federal judges ruling invalidating President Trumps ability to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities may be a policy setback, but it is also a huge political gift, says Chris Cillizza at CNN. Thats because there is nothing the Republican base and the bulk of Republican elected officials hate more than what they view as liberal judges run amok. Trump, sensing political opportunity, quickly pounced with a series of tweets. And, unlike some of his positions, Trump will likely get considerable backing from Hill Republicans. In fact, its no coincidence that Trumps best days both as a candidate and as president are tied directly to news (positive or negative) on the courts. So count this as another good one for the president.

Policy wonk: Why Dems Encourage Govt Shutdowns

Dont believe the dominant media and political narrative that civic-minded Democrats work to keep vital government services open, while shutdown-loving Republican zealots sabotage the government, urges the Manhattan Institutes Brian Riedl. Writing at The Daily Caller, he suggests the opposite is true: Democratic politicians like government shutdowns. In fact, he notes, Congressional Republicans have repeatedly authored legislation to ensure that government shutdowns never happen again, yet Democrats have blocked them. Why? As former Gov. Howard Dean admitted, Democrats should root for government shutdowns because opinion-makers will reflexively blame the GOP. And hes right. So rather than fight shutdowns, they bait Republicans into them.

Reporter: Trump Enables Dems To Ignore Party Problems

President Trumps first 100 days in office appear to have resuscitated the Democrats, if for no reason other than that the rank and file loathe him so deeply and furiously, suggests Gabriel Debenedetti at Politico. Thats the good news for Democrats, anyway. The bad news: This vibrant culture of resistance on the left is obscuring the depth of the hole in which the Democratic Party still finds itself. Indeed, a new Wall Street Journal-NBC poll shows more Americans view the party negatively than positively. As Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan puts it: We have a new energy, but we dont have a new brand. Or the established power structures to channel and amplify it.

Compiled by Eric Fettmann

Read more:
Obama's crackdown on the media, crushing campus censorship & other comments - New York Post

Over the past two months, the photo-sharing app Instagram, and its parent company, Facebook, have trained their controversial censorship policies on, of all places, the Museum of Fine Arts.

Instagram has removed three images the museum posted to promote its ongoing photography exhibition, Imogen Cunningham: In Focus.

Advertisement

The company saysthe offending pictures a pair of near-abstract black-and-white nudes by Cunningham, an important 20th-century photographer, as well as Judy Daters whimsical image of a nonagenarian Cunningham alongside a youthful nude model violate its community standards, which prohibit nudity including some photos of female nipples.

I was stunned, said MFA curator of photographs Karen Haas, who organized the exhibition. These images are so subtle and beautiful and so abstract. Theyre all about shapes about turning the body into something thats really confounding and difficult even to read as a body.

Get The Weekender in your inbox:

The Globe's top picks for what to see and do each weekend, in Boston and beyond.

In other words, theyre art showcased by a major US museum and created by a photographer critics have praised for her keen focus and eye for pattern and composition.

The photographer never settled for one way of looking at the world.

The incident marks the latest twist in a struggle that has often pitted artists against the social media services they increasingly rely on to reach their audiences. Besides the MFA, that battle has come to includearts institutions such as the Philadelphia Museum of Art and Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, both of which have found themselves on the receiving end of social media censorship.

The Lane Collection/The Imogen Cunningham Trust / Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Triangles by Imogen Cunningham was removed from the MFAs Instagram feed.

And like other puzzled artists and institutions whose content has beenflagged, museumstaffers contacted both Facebook and Instagram to plead their case.

Advertisement

We said were a verified fine arts museum, and we wanted to have a discussion with Facebook and Instagram about their community standards, said MFA public relations director Karen Frascona. We didnt really get a response.

A spokesperson for Facebook and Instagram declined to comment specifically on the MFAs case, saying in a statement: It is not always easy to find the right balance between enabling people to express themselves while maintaining a comfortable experience for our global and culturally diverse community of many different ages, but we try our best.

Karen North, a social media professor at the University of Southern Californias Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, said that Instagram and Facebook are not in the business of making qualitative judgments about whether nude photos are works of art or pornography. Rather, they aim to be inoffensive by hewing to broad standards they can apply across all images.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Sunbath (Alta on the Beach) by Imogen Cunningham is another of the images that was removed from the MFAs Instagram feed.

From a business perspective, they need to err in the direction that will be most acceptable to the largest group of their core users, North said. They cannot create standards that involve the quality of the art. The only thing they can do is talk about specific requirements, so it almost doesnt matter if its by [a famous artist] or its your own work: They have a standard that says you cannot show this thing.

As in so many other professions, social media have become essential tools in the art world. For artists, Facebook and the highly visual photo-sharing app Instagram have enabled them to increasingly bypass the traditional gallery system, connecting directly with collectors and potential buyers. For museums, the services have become a vital means for extending an institutions brand, cultivating new and younger audiences while also generating excitement about a specific artwork or exhibition.

Museum communications officers plot out their social media strategies weeks or even months in advance, meeting with curators to identify shareable images, coming up withbrandedhashtags for Instagram and Twitter, and other promotional messaging. Recently, theMFA and the Peabody Essex Museum have even created selfie-friendly installations based on artworks on display, where visitors are encouraged to share photos of themselves.

Its really about providing relevance for our audiences in relationto the art theyre seeing on our channels, said Kimberly Drew, social media manager for New Yorks Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has roughly 6.4 million followers across Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.

Still, its an uneasy relationship, as Facebook and Instagram seek to enforce broad restrictions to avoid offending a global user base that can vary dramatically by culture and age.

The result is a sometimes confusing policy. Instagram restricts some photos of female nipples, but photos of post-mastectomy scarring and women actively breastfeeding are allowed. Nude photographs are largely verboten, but both Facebook and Instagram allow images of paintings and sculptures that depict nudes.

Except when they dont.

Last year, Instagram deleted the account of an Australian street artist after he posted a mural of Hillary Clinton wearing a revealing American flag bathing suit.Stephanie Sarley, a video artist who specializes in sexually suggestive fruit videos, has had repeated run-ins with Instagram. Other users have been censored for sharingimages of menstrual bloodandpubic hair, some of whichare collected in the new book Pics or It Didnt Happen: Images Banned From Instagram, set for release Thursday.

And thats to say nothing of Facebook, which once suspended art critic Jerry Saltz after heposted provocative images from the Middle Ages and classical antiquity and banned Los Angeles artist Illma Gore for posting her unflattering portrait of then-candidate Donald Trump with a diminutive penis.

Institutions are far from exempt. Drew said Facebook unceremoniously removed an image of Amedeo Modiglianis painting Reclining Nude from the Mets account in 2015. Similarly, an Australian auction house cried foul earlier this year after the service blocked an ad featuring Charles Blackmans painting Women Lovers. And the Philadelphia Museum of Art was surprised after the social-media juggernaut removed an image of Belgian artist Evelyne Axells Ice Cream, a suggestive painting of a woman licking, you guessed it, an ice cream cone.

The idea that Facebook could not only censor nude images ... but could also take down images that imply sexuality really hit home for a lot of people, said Erica Battle, an associate curator of contemporary art at the Philadelphia museum.

Battle added that the museum has since reposted the image to its Facebook page, asking followers to weigh in on the services decision to remove the image.

We sometimes take for granted that the material is not filtered when in fact its highly filtered, said Battle, who noted that the second post has not been removed.

For the MFA, the removal of the Cunningham photographs points to another issue as well: That at least on Facebook and Instagram, photography isnt being recognized as a fine art, the way painting and sculpture are.

That were still fighting the fight for photography to be a work of art is [incredible], said curator Haas. Its a fight that was taking place at the time these [Cunningham] photographs were initially made and was long ago won.

So, how do Facebook and Instagram decide what gets pulled? The services rely mainly on a global Community Operations team that reviews content users report asoffensive. A single report can prompt a review, after which the services will remove a post if its found in violation of community guidelines.

What that often means, of course, is that artworks that are in some way challenging, controversial, or boundary-pushing are often the first to be banned.

Eva Respini, chief curator at the Institute of Contemporary Art,said that while museums often try to educate the public, starting conversations about thorny issues raised by art, those effortscan beeasily missedor misinterpreted amid the constant churnof Facebook or Instagram.

Social media sort of lends itself to a more surface treatment, she said. It gets ingested and seen in such a short moment with so little opportunity for providing context thats the challenge for us as museums.

The MFA has reached out to several other museums to discuss shared concerns.

Said Frascona: Were hoping to gather a consensus and then approach Facebook and Instagram about incorporating photography into their exceptions.

View post:
MFA among museums hit by Instagram censorship - The Boston Globe

Published time: 26 Apr, 2017 15:00

There is a desperate effort to block the truth which pervades all Western media, near total censorship of events occurring in Syria, claims Virginia State Senator Richard Black.

The president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Pedro Agramunt, has landed himself in trouble for visiting Syria and meeting President Assad. Agramunt appeared before a hearing after some members demanded a vote of no confidence.

Pedro Agramunt apologized for the trip during the first day of PACE's spring session in Strasbourg on Monday.

RT:You've been to Damascus several times and have just returned from Syria. What prompted you to go? Do you think Mr. Agramunt had similar motives?

Read more

Richard Black: I am very anxious to achieve peace in the Middle East. The US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have promoted war in Syria for six years now. Because of those nations actions we have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people and disturbed one of the most peaceful countries in the Middle East. I thought that was very interesting, I looked at the Charter for the Council of Europe. And part of it includes freedom of expression in the media. And here we have Mr. Agramunt going over there and communicating and doing exactly what the Council prescribes - which is to express things freely, to have journalistic interaction. And here he is being threatened with being fired. There is globally nearly total censorship of events occurring in Syria. And there is a tremendous desire to bar people from hearing the truth of what is going on in Syria. It doesnt take long for anyone who visits the country to recognize that you have two sides: the popularly elected government of Syria fighting against the terrorists. The terrorists are supplied with US anti-tank missiles with money from Saudi Arabia, with trade from TurkeyThere is this bizarre situation of censorship, and I think President Agramunt made a mistake he should have been totally unapologetic. His view was to help find a solution to the war and to avoid further refugee crisis. That is it. There is nothing to apologize for. Everybody is so afraid of this global force, and I simply refuse to be a part of it. And people dont quite know how to deal with me because of that.

RT:After returning from Syria, you and fellow politician Tulsi Gabbard criticized American policy on Syria. Do you think Western officials worry that more people would understand the Syrian government's position if they go there?

RB: I think there is a very deep concern. And if you look at the recent gas event in Khan Sheikhoun, I have defied anyone on the planet to answer this question: if President Assad felt so desperate that he had to use sarin gas, why didnt he use it on enemy soldiers, why would he go out and simply decide Lets just grab a group of people walking down the street with babies, lets attack them. We dont have time to attack the immense fortifications, the tens of thousands of terrorists who are holding trench positions. The notion is so absurd that a three-year-old child should be able to see through the whole thing What you see is a desperate effort to block the truth, and it has pervaded all Western media

Kamal Alam, military analyst, told RT that "there is an established narrative in the West which means there is no dialogue with Damascus or the Syrian government."

"Anyone who goes to find out what is happening is dimmed as a rebel or persona non grata. This has been the case from the beginning of this war. That is what led to these problems. Ever since the embassies shut down, there have been no eyes or ears on the ground that can verify all that is happening. Anyone who tries to is ostracized as soon as they go there," he added.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

More:
'There is global censorship over Syria' RT Op-Edge - RT.com - RT

Bostons Museum of Fine Arts is stuck in a stalemate withInstagram after photos from its latest exhibitiona survey of decorous abstracted nudes by Imogen Cunninghamwere censored by the image-sharing app, and the museums pleas to have its artwork allowed on social media have gone unheard.

We [contacted both Facebook and Instagram] and said were a verified fine arts museum, and we wanted to have a discussion with Facebook and Instagram about their community standards, MFA public relations director Karen Frascona told the Boston Globe. We didnt really get a response.

The posts in question are pictures of artworks from Imogen Cunningham: In Focus. Some of herphotographs feature modernist takes on thenude body, while a photograph by Judy Dater features Cunninghamwith a nakedfemale model.

Imogen Cunningham, Sunbath (Alta on the Beach) 1925/2011 The Imogen Cunningham Trust. Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

These images are so subtle and beautiful and so abstract,said MFA photography curator Karen Haas. Theyre all about shapesabout turning the body into something thats really confounding and difficult even to read as a body.

Facebook and Instagram maintain that their nudity restrictions are intended to prevent uncomfortable experiences for all their users.

Instagrams community guidelines read, We know that there are times when people might want to share nude images that are artistic or creative in nature, but for a variety of reasons, we dont allow nudity on Instagram.

While said guidelines statethat nudity in photos of paintings and sculptures is OK, artworks depicting nudity have been banned in the past, and there is no clause about photographic artworks.

Were hoping to gather a consensus and then approach Facebook and Instagram about incorporating photography into their exceptions, Frascona said.

That were still fighting the fight for photography to be a work of art is [incredible],Haas added.

Read this article:
MFA Boston Is Latest Museum Driven Crazy by Instagram ... - artnet News

A journalist from the German broadcaster ARD accredited for the upcoming FIFA Confederations and World Cups in Russia has refuted accusations from the German news outlet Bild that Moscow is set to limit the number foreign reporters covering the events.

I cant confirm [the reported censorship]. I cant see any sign of a potential censorship at the Confederations Cup, Oliver Frick said in an interview with the NRD radio.

They [Russia] are happy we are coming and we are accredited. I got my visa without any trouble up until December 2018.

Read more

The journalist, who is ARD's radio team head for the Confederations Cup and the 2018 World Cup, specifically cited his confirmation of the accreditation which is a standard form from FIFA.

On Tuesday, Bild reported on possible bans for reporters at the Confederations Cup, that have sparked a wave of protest and brought FIFA and the Russian organizers in a state of emergency.

These are the conditions of a dictatorship that is afraid that the media might have critical reports on the political, economic and social situation at the event, head of the German Journalist Union, Franck Uberall, told FIFA President Gianni Infantino, according to Bild.

Yet Frick countered that he is allowed to film cities, team camps or cultural sites unhindered.

If foreign journalists would want to film special locations, like the Kremlin, that would require a separate permission, the journalist said. But he pointed out that its the same when one wants to get inside a Brazilian parliament or our [German] parliament.

So in Russia, its the same as everywhere else. The accreditation and what we know about it still has not a single restriction, Frick pointed out.

Read more

The ARD journalist also noted that its not the first time a sports event in Russia draws a hostile reception, comparing the situation to that at the Sochi Olympics in 2014, which he also covered.

Ahead of the Games back then, the coverage in western media was very critical, Frick pointed out, emphasizing that lots of things turned out to be not true.

This time I spent three weeks, traveling around Russia and didnt have any awkward situation, Frick said.

He added that Russia has certain problems to address, but concluded that as of yet Im not afraid that poor German journalists wont be able to cover the Confederations Cup the way they want to.

On Tuesday, Russias Deputy Prime Minister for Sports, Vitaly Mutko, reassured that reporters accredited for the FIFA Confederations Cup wont be restricted in any way.

Journalists at the Confederations Cup wont be prohibited from covering anything they want. Our accreditation doesnt put any limits on journalists, Mutko said.

Go here to read the rest:
'No sign' of censorship at 2017 Confed-Cup in Russia German journalist accredited for event - RT