Internet regulation in Turkey

Last updated

Internet regulation in Turkey is primarily authorized under the Electronic Communications Law (ECL) and the Internet Act and carried out by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA).

Contents

In 2018, the Turkish parliament passed a law giving the national broadcast media regulator, the High Council for Broadcasting (RTÜK), authority to monitor and regulate internet services. The law requires online video and streaming services to apply for a license to broadcast to Turkish internet users. [1] [2]

Turkey's internet, in 2018 which has 42.3 million active users, holds a 'Not Free' ranking in Freedom House's index. [3] Turkish government has constantly blocked websites like Instagram, Discord, Twitter, YouTube and Wikipedia. [4] [5] [6] Video games such as Roblox were banned. [7] According to Twitter's transparency report, Turkey leads in social media censorship. [8]

Regulatory authorities

Turkey considers itself a democratic country. Its political system is based on the separation of powers.

Aside from the traditional structure, certain public institutions are formed to regulate and execute specific duties. These institutions are classified as “regulatory authorities (RA)” and some of them have a sector-specific focus; "regulatory and supervisory authorities are established in order to regulate and monitor different types of markets in accordance with the requirements of a functioning market economy." [9]

Some relevant regulatory authorities in Turkey are "the Competition Authority, the Energy Market Regulation Authority, the Banking Regulation and Supervision Authority, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority, and the Tobacco, Tobacco Products and Alcoholic Beverages Market Regulation Board." [9]

Background

ICTA is attributed responsibilities about information technologies by the ECL. Among them, regulation of a dispute resolution system for domain names, e-signature, and a registered e-mail system. [10]

The now-defunct Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication (TIB) was affiliated with ICTA which has a particular focus on telecommunications and Internet regulation. PTC was established by Law No. 5397. [11] PTC is organized directly under ICTA and it consists of a Law Department, a Technical Management Department, an Information Systems Department, an Administration Department and an Internet Department. [12]

Law No. 5651, known as the Internet Act (IA), was enacted on 4 May 2007. [13] The purpose of this law has been described by the PTC as follows: "There are 2 reasons for the law to be brought out. The first reason; determining the liability and the responsibility of collective use providers, access providers, location providers and content providers which are the main actors of the Internet. The other reason is to determine the procedures and fundamentals related to the specific crimes committed over the Internet and fighting these through content, location and access providers." [14]

The IA reorganized the duties of the PTC. These included publications that are made on the Internet environment and the law regarding fight against committed crimes by these publications. Accordingly, to implement these tasks the Internet Department has been established. [15] [16]

Internet law

Internet content regulation is implemented by the PTC (ECL Art. 6/g, 13). Content regulation is governed by the Law No. 5651. [17]

In February 2014, the Turkish Parliament passed "an omnibus bill including new regulations on Internet usage which gives more power to the country’s national telecommunications authority". [18] This bill implies modifications of the Internet Act (IA) and, of some of the provisions about Internet content regulation and the authority of the PTC.

There are secondary regulations such as ordinances enacted based on the IA as well. Secondary regulations elaborate upon the provisions, of the IA, about Internet content regulation. These are namely; ordinance on the procedures about granting business certificate for the host provider and access provider, ordinance on the procedures for regulating the content of online publications.

Content regulation

Responsibilities of the content provider and the host provider

Internet content regulation is governed by IA. According to the Act the main responsibility is placed on the content provider. As a rule content provider is not responsible for the linked content provided by another. However, if this content is obviously supported by the content provider he shall be responsible under general provisions (Act No. 5651 Art. 4). [19]

On the other hand, the host provider is not responsible for supervising the legality of the content. Nevertheless, the host provider is responsible for taking out the content when notified according to the IA. The host provider is also required to save the traffic information for the period which will be determined by the ordinance (between 1–2 years). The host provider shall present the information demanded by PTC and take the precautions instructed by the PTC. [20] According to the new version of the IA, the hosting service provider is sanctioned with monetary fines instead of imprisonment, as it was stated in the previous legislation (Act No. 5651 Art. 5).

In January 2021 a new amendment of the Law No.5651 on Regulation of Publications on The Internet and Combating Crimes Committed By Means of Such Publication, was passed that brought the following changes: Social network provider definition, It is now possible to notify administrative fines issued against hosting providers and access providers with e-mail or other communication devices within the framework of the Law No.5651 on Regulation of Publications on The Internet and Combating Crimes Committed By Means of Such Publication (the"Law No. 5651"), Increased fines against hosting providers that doesn't meet their obligations as per the Law, Possibility to decide to extraction of (where possible) the illegal content which constitutes a crime or violation of personal rights, instead of restricting access to the content as a whole, Obligation to appoint a representative in Turkey for social network service providers which track over a million daily access from Turkey and a gradual five-stage administrative sanction, Keeping the data in Turkey, Applications made by users against hosting providers, claiming their rights are violated, Obligation to prepare periodic reports by social network providers which track over a million daily access from Turkey. [21]

Board of access providers

With the modifications to the Internet Act, a board of access providers was established. The board was given legal personality and is headquartered in Ankara. The board consists of the operators (service providers and other operators rendering Internet access services) which are authorized as per the ECL. The Board is designed to be self-sponsored. The Board is required to execute the decisions for prevention of access, excluding decisions that might have to be based on the category of crimes enumerated in Art. 8. These enumerated crimes are; inducement for committing suicide, sexual abuse of children, facilitation of drug abuse, providing detrimental drugs, obscenity, prostitution, providing place and opportunity for gambling, and crimes against Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (defined by the Law No. 5816). Information related to the crimes against Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, may be found in the External Links section of this article.

According to Art 8, in case of sufficient suspicion a decision for prevention to access, may be rendered by the judge, during the investigation phase for these enumerated crimes. If the circumstances require an express decision, the public prosecutor would also be entitled to render a decision to prevent access with a condition to present the decision to the judge in 24 hours for approval. However, the decision would promptly be revoked by the public prosecutor unless it is approved by the judge. If the suspect is found innocent at the conclusion of the judicial hearing, the decision for prevention of access shall be deemed invalid (Act No. 5651 Art. 8/1).

If the Content Provider or the Hosting Provider of the publication is located outside Turkey and involves certain enumerated crimes mentioned above the PTC shall render the decision for prevention on its own initiative. PTC shall also be entitled to render a decision for prevention in case of sexual abuse of the children, obscenity and prostitution disregarding the location of CP or HP (Act No. 5651 Art. 8/2).

Protection for intrusion upon seclusion and infringement of personal rights

Individuals or legal persons claiming infringement of personal rights are entitled to apply to CP or to HP (when access to CP is not possible). In these situations they can legally inform and warn the CP or HP about the infringement. CP or HP must reply to the application within 24 hours. The claimant is also entitled to a direct application to the court without warning the CP or HP. According to the new version of IA, the judge will render its decision only aiming the portion infringing personal rights and not the whole web site. However, if the judge deems necessary for the protection of the personal rights he can render a decision including whole content on the web site. The judge shall render his decision within 24 hours (Act No. 5651 Art. 9).

Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication’s authority and judicial control

In addition to these, the Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication (PTC) will be the competent authority if the content of the publication intrudes upon an individual's private affairs (intrusion upon seclusion). In this circumstance, PTC shall take initiative upon the individual's request. The request for prevention should include satisfactory information about how the individual's private affairs were intruded, and his credentials (Act No. 5651 Art. 9).

The individual seeking for the prevention of the content is required to submit his official demand to the Court in 24 hours. The Court shall render its decision in 48 hours stating its opinion if the content does in fact constitute intrusion upon private affairs/seclusion. Noncompliance to these time limits shall automatically conclude the invalidation of PTC's decision for prevention. According to the IA article 9/A/8 if individual's life is in peril, the President himself is entitled to render a decision for prevention. However, in this case an objection shall be submitted to the Court (Law No. 5651 Art. 9/A/5).

Arguments supporting the Internet Act

Protection of privacy, reputation, and availability of judicial process

As one of the arguments in support of the IA the government addressed the protection of privacy. In a declaration, the Transportation, Maritime and Communication Minister Lutfi Elvan mentioned that “we want to protect individual rights and liberties. We want to protect and guarantee the right to privacy. In that regard, the existing bill did not respond to the needs of the people”. [22] The Minister Elvan has also mentioned that the bill by protecting privacy, protects the violation of personal rights. [23]

In another declaration the Prime Minister himself mentions that the new Internet law does not stipulate any censorship, and it is a measure against blackmailing, immorality, and the threat against people's reputation. [24] In a memorandum the government also mentioned that “In the event of a breach of ‘a person’s privacy,’ such as illegal wiretapping and the sharing of personal data without consent, in order to prevent irreversible damage that could be caused by the “time lag” between the complaint of the individual and the decision of the court, the bill will make it possible to implement a temporary prevention of access. When an individual raises a complaint, the Presidency of Telecommunication and Communications will send the request to the Union of Access Providers, which will block the URL within the next four hours as a preventive measure.“The complainant should also file his request to the penal court of peace within 24 hours and the decision of the court should be given within the next 48 hours. If the decision of the court is not in favor of the complainant, the restriction on access to the URL will be removed by the Union. Unless a decision by the court is delivered to the Union within 48 hours, the restriction will be automatically removed.” [25]

Compared regulation with UK

In response to criticism, Turkey's Communications minister defended Turkey's blocking of content by pointing to regulations in the UK. He specifically pointed to the Internet Watch Foundation's blacklist of websites hosting child pornography and criminal activity to defend the restrictions. [26]

Facilitation of protective interim measures for personal rights

It is also declared by the government that implementation of the prevention of access decisions are facilitated by the requirement of stipulating a legal responsibility to operators for preserving traffic information up to 2 years. [27] Government also mentions that new codification will be helpful for preventing victimization from online defamatory content in an efficient and swift way. And the final decision is to be rendered by the court. However, the initiative of the PTC is designed as a tool for an interim measure to protect the individual's personal rights from defamation till the court renders its decision. Since a defamatory content can spread very swiftly because of the nature of the Internet in the time gap till the court renders its decision. [25]

Availability of partial prevention

According to the new version, only the infringing content will be able to be removed instead of the whole content provided on the web site [28]

Inclusion of private sector in regulatory regime

According to the code The Board consists of the operators (service providers and other operators rendering Internet access services) which are authorized according to ECL.

Replacing imprisonment with monetary fines

Unlike the previous version, the new version of the IA includes monetary fines instead of imprisonment. [29]

Arguments against the Internet Act

Freedom of expression

Opponents to the IA have criticized it heavily. They mention that government is willing to place a censorship on freedom of expression on the Internet. They blame the government for using democratic tools for implementing censorship on Internet. They allege that Internet law does not regulate wiretapping or personal data. It regulates the prevention of access to online content under certain circumstances. However, opponents mention their concern about these issues. [30] [31] Opponents also criticized the TCB's authority for implementing a decision for prevention when the personal rights are involved in the online content. They mention that this regulation places a huge power on TCB. [30] However government explains that TCB's decision will be lifted automatically if the court does not approve [32] The Act also attracted international attention. US and EU communicated their concerns about IA. President Obama also talked to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan about the IA and its influence [33] [34] [35]

Financial burden on operators

Opponents also mention that the establishment of the Board of access providers will place an economic burden since the Board is stipulated to be self-sponsored. [36] Entrepreneurs are of the opinion that implementing the legal responsibilities arising from IA may cause small-scale companies a serious problem. They also express that after IA these firms may prefer to operate outside Turkey. They indicated their concerns about the anticompetitive environment; [28] [37]

Safe Internet

Other than IA another regulation that attracted public attention was Safe Internet (SI). SI is setting up an optional, free and on-demand service for families to protect their children from detrimental content. SI present options. Users have alternatives such as family and children profiles and they can opt in or opt out of the service at any time with their consent. These profiles are also created by a board of academicians from various backgrounds such as pedagogy, psychology, law, sociology. [38]

The main objective of SI is to provide the safe, effective and right use of Internet which is spreading at a fast speed. To this end raising awareness in general of the society, individually of the children, families and educators, together with the most effective and useful methods of safe use of Internet and raise consciousness towards the dangerous aspects that the Internet contains. People in Turkey and around the world are being educated about the general trends of the Internet use and information about similar useful statistics are given [39]

Impact of the 2014 modifications to the 2007 Internet Act

As mentioned above, in February 2014, the Turkish government passed an omnibus law that included provisions that modify the Internet Act of 2007.

This modifications have had impact, considering that they have been described, as a restriction over free speech. Following, there are some commentaries that expose the reaction to the 2014's Internet Act modifications:

See also

Related Research Articles

Telecommunications in Sudan includes fixed and mobile telephones, the Internet, radio, and television. Approximately 12 million out of 45 million people in Sudan use the Internet, mainly on smartphones and mobile computers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telecommunications policy of the United States</span>

The telecommunications policy of the United States is a framework of law directed by government and the regulatory commissions, most notably the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Two landmark acts prevail today, the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The latter was intended to revise the first act and specifically to foster competition in the telecommunications industry.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is an Australian government statutory authority within the Communications portfolio. ACMA was formed on 1 July 2005 with the merger of the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Australian Communications Authority.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship in Pakistan</span>

Internet censorship in Pakistan is government control of information sent and received using the Internet in Pakistan. There have been significant instances of website access restriction in Pakistan, most notably when YouTube was banned/blocked from 2012 to 2016. Pakistan has asked a number of social media organisations to set up local offices within the country, but this is yet to happen.

In the United States, net neutrality—the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should make no distinctions between different kinds of content on the Internet, and to not discriminate based on such distinctions—has been an issue of contention between end-users and ISPs since the 1990s. With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge different rates for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block specific types of content, while charging consumers different rates for that content.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Censorship in Turkey</span>

Censorship in Turkey is regulated by domestic and international legislation, the latter taking precedence over domestic law, according to Article 90 of the Constitution of Turkey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Censorship of YouTube</span> Censorship of the video sharing media site

Censorship of video-sharing platform YouTube occurs to varying degrees in many countries.

The Internet in Zimbabwe has seen rapid expansion in recent years. The Internet country code top-level domain is .zw. In 2009, the Mugabe-Tsvangirai Government of National Unity established a Ministry of Information and Communications Technology to focus on ICT growth and development.

Telecommunications in Angola include telephone, radio, television, and the Internet. The government controls all broadcast media with a nationwide reach.

Telecommunications in Cyprus includes radio, television, fixed and mobile telephones, and the Internet, in the Republic of Cyprus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Information and Communication Technologies Authority (Turkey)</span>

The Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA), is a national telecommunications regulatory and inspection authority of Turkey. It was formerly known as the Telecommunications Authority.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Censorship of Twitter</span> Restrictions to access on Twitter by governments

Censorship of Twitter refers to Internet censorship by governments that block access to Twitter. Twitter censorship also includes governmental notice and take down requests to Twitter, which it enforces in accordance with its Terms of Service when a government or authority submits a valid removal request to Twitter indicating that specific content published on the platform is illegal in their jurisdiction.

<i>Comcast Corp. v. FCC</i> 2010 US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia case

Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642, is a case at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have ancillary jurisdiction over the content delivery choices of Internet service providers, under the language of the Communications Act of 1934. In so holding, the Court vacated a 2008 order issued by the FCC that asserted jurisdiction over network management policies and censured Comcast from interfering with its subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

The Federal Communications Commission Open Internet Order of 2010 is a set of regulations that move towards the establishment of the internet neutrality concept. Some opponents of net neutrality believe such internet regulation would inhibit innovation by preventing providers from capitalizing on their broadband investments and reinvesting that money into higher quality services for consumers. Supporters of net neutrality argue that the presence of content restrictions by network providers represents a threat to individual expression and the rights of the First Amendment. Open Internet strikes a balance between these two camps by creating a compromised set of regulations that treats all internet traffic in "roughly the same way". In Verizon v. FCC, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated portions of the order that the court determined could only be applied to common carriers.

Net bias is the counter-principle to net neutrality, which indicates differentiation or discrimination of price and the quality of content or applications on the Internet by ISPs. Similar terms include data discrimination, digital redlining, and network management.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Countries blocking access to The Pirate Bay</span>

This is a list of countries where at least one internet service provider (ISP) formerly or currently censors the popular file sharing website The Pirate Bay (TPB).

<i>Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC</i> (2014)

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 740 F.3d 623, was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order of 2010, which the court determined could only be applied to common carriers and not to Internet service providers. The case was initiated by Verizon, which would have been subjected to the proposed FCC rules, though they had not yet gone into effect. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

Transparency of media ownership is the public availability of accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about media ownership structures. A legal regime guaranteeing transparency of media ownership makes possible for the public as well as for media authorities to find out who effectively owns, controls and influences the media as well as media influence on political parties or state bodies. The disclosure of media ownership can be prescribed by generic regulation or by media-specific provision. Such measures may mandate the disclosure of information on media ownership structures to specific authorities or to the general public.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Block of Wikipedia in Turkey</span> Turkeys blockage of access to Wikipedia, 2017–2020

From 29 April 2017 to 15 January 2020, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey. On 29 April 2017, Turkish authorities blocked online access to all its language editions throughout the country. The restrictions were imposed by Turkish Law No. 5651, due to the English version's article on state-sponsored terrorism, where Turkey was described as a sponsor country for the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda. The ICTA released a statement on its website that after technical analysis and legal consideration based on the Law Nr. 5651, measures have been taken for the website. Turkish courts viewed the article as a public manipulation of mass media. Requests by the Turkish Information and Communication Technologies Authority to edit several articles to comply with Turkish law were not acted on.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in Asia</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in Asia provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in Asia.

References

  1. ↑ "New law reinforces Turkish government's control of the Internet | Reporters without borders". RSF. 2018-03-27. Archived from the original on 2019-01-03. Retrieved 2019-01-03.
  2. ↑ "Turkey's government takes new powers to censor the internet". The Economist. 2018-05-24. ISSN   0013-0613. Archived from the original on 2019-01-03. Retrieved 2019-01-03.
  3. ↑ "Freedom on the Net 2016". freedomhouse.org. Archived from the original on 5 May 2017. Retrieved 1 May 2017.
  4. ↑ "Turkey blocks instant messaging platform Discord". Reuters .
  5. ↑ "Turkey blocks Instagram amid 'censorship' row". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2024-10-09.
  6. ↑ "Twitter wrong to block tweets during Turkey election - Wikipedia founder". 2023-05-16. Retrieved 2024-10-09.
  7. ↑ "Türkiye's wave of bans: Instagram, Roblox shut down, Facebook, TikTok, X next? - Türkiye Today" . Retrieved 2024-10-09.
  8. ↑ "Turkey leads in social media censorship: new Twitter transparency report". turkeyblocks.org. Archived from the original on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 1 May 2017.
  9. 1 2 Investment Support and Promotion Agency. "Regulatory and Supervisory Authorities". Investment Support and Promotion Agency. Archived from the original on 22 March 2014. Retrieved 21 March 2014.
  10. ↑ Republic of Turkey. "cybersecurity". Turkish cybersecurity web page. ICTA. Archived from the original on 2014-02-17. Retrieved 2014-03-03.
  11. ↑ Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication. "Internet Regulation". Information about PTC. PTC. Archived from the original on 22 March 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  12. ↑ Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication. "The Structure of the Presidency". PTC. Archived from the original on 17 October 2015. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  13. ↑ World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO. "Overview, Law N. 5651, Turkey". WIPO. Archived from the original on 29 June 2017. Retrieved 22 March 2014.
  14. ↑ Presidency of Telecommunication, communication, PTC. "Information about the regulations of the content of the Internet". PTC. Archived from the original on 22 March 2014. Retrieved 22 March 2014.
  15. ↑ WIPO. "IA". Turkish IA. WIPO. Archived from the original on 19 March 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  16. ↑ Turkish Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication. "Information for Content Regulation". explanation on IA. PTC. Archived from the original on 24 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  17. ↑ "Opinion on Law No. 5651 on Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publication ("The Internet Law")". venice.coe.int. Venice Commission. June 10–11, 2016. Archived from the original on June 16, 2016. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
  18. ↑ Anadolu Agency (26 February 2014). "Turkey's general assembly ratifies Internet bill". Anadolu Agency. Archived from the original on 18 March 2014. Retrieved 22 March 2014.
  19. ↑ Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication, PTC. "Information about the regulations of the content of the Internet". PTC. Archived from the original on 21 March 2014. Retrieved 22 March 2014.
  20. ↑ Mehmet Gun & Partners. "Turkey: "Turkish Restrictions On The Internet"; The Highly Debated New Law In Turkey Enters Into Force And Is Subsequently Amended". Mondaq, Connecting Knowledge and People. Archived from the original on 23 March 2014. Retrieved 22 March 2014.
  21. ↑ Akay and Sir, Ozlem and CanKat. "Turkey: Turkey's New Regulation On Social Media; Social Network Provider, Content Extraction, Representation And More". mondaq. Archived from the original on 20 January 2021. Retrieved 19 January 2021.
  22. ↑ AK Party, Justice and Development Party. "Turkey's internet law in line with developed countries". AK Party. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 22 March 2014.
  23. ↑ TRT English (19 February 2014). "Turkey's President ratifies controversial Internet Bill". TRT English. Archived from the original on 24 March 2014. Retrieved 22 March 2014.
  24. ↑ Justice and Development Party. "speech on IA". Prime Minister's speech. Akparti. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  25. 1 2 Yell Ali (February 16, 2014). "Turkey's Internet Bill - Law No. 5651". Yell Ali. Archived from the original on April 7, 2014. Retrieved April 2, 2014.
  26. ↑ Anadolu Agency (February 19, 2014). "Turkey: UK has its own Internet restrictions". Anadolu Agency. Archived from the original on March 24, 2014. Retrieved April 2, 2014.
  27. ↑ Zaman Politika. "Başbakanlık, internet yasası için bilgi notu yayınladı". Zaman Politika. Archived from the original on March 24, 2014. Retrieved April 2, 2014.
  28. 1 2 Bozbel, Savas. "savas bozbel's blog". comments on IA. savas bozbel wordpress. Archived from the original on 18 May 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  29. ↑ worldbulletin (15 February 2014). "the explanation of ICTA". worldbulletin.net. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  30. 1 2 BBC (5 February 2014). "Turkey passes law tightening control of internet". BBC web site. Archived from the original on 5 March 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  31. ↑ Today'szaman (4 March 2014). "Turkish public unhappy about government's media interference, Internet law". Today's zaman. Archived from the original on 5 March 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  32. ↑ Haberturk (15 February 2014). "yeni-internet-duzenlemesi-aciklamasi". haberturk web site. haberturk. Archived from the original on 2 March 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  33. ↑ Editorial board (21 February 2014). "Turkey's internet crackdown". NY times. Archived from the original on 3 March 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  34. ↑ Kinikoglu, Batu (2014). "Evaluating the Regulation of Access to Online Content in Turkey in the Context of Freedom of Speech". Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology. 9 (1): 36–55. Archived from the original on 6 March 2014. Retrieved 4 March 2014.
  35. ↑ Erikkson, Johan; Giampiero Giacomello (2009). "Who controls the Internet? Beyond the obstinacy and absolescence of the state". International Studies Review. 11: 205–230. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2008.01841.x. Archived from the original on 2019-04-30. Retrieved 2019-09-20.
  36. ↑ savas bozbel
  37. ↑ Kara, Merve. "internet yasası küçük hosting sirketleri için büyük bir test niteliğinde olacak". IA is a test for small scale hosting firms. webrazzi. Archived from the original on 13 February 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  38. ↑ Turkish Information and Communications Technologies Authority. "public announcement on safe internet" (PDF). BTK. BTK web site. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 July 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  39. ↑ Turkish Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication. "information on safe internet". safe internet. PTC. Archived from the original on 2014-03-21. Retrieved 2014-03-05.
  40. ↑ Tattersall, Nick (February 18, 2014). "UPDATE 1-Turkey's Gul approves law tightening Internet controls". Reuters. Archived from the original on March 7, 2016. Retrieved April 2, 2014.
  41. ↑ NY Times (February 21, 2014). "Turkey's Internet Crackdown". NY Times. Archived from the original on March 10, 2014. Retrieved April 2, 2014.
  42. ↑ Letsch, Constanze (March 28, 2014). "Turkey blocks YouTube amid 'national security' concerns". The Guardian. Archived from the original on March 23, 2015. Retrieved April 2, 2014.
  43. ↑ Editorial (2017-04-29). "Wikipedia blocked in Turkey". Turkey Blocks. Archived from the original on 2017-05-01. Retrieved 2017-04-29.
  44. 1 2 "Turkey's Wikipedia ban ends after almost three years". BBC News. 2020-01-16.

For information related to Turkey and to its administrative law, please refer to:

For information about regulatory authorities and sectors regulated, please refer to:

For an unofficial translation document, related to the crimes against Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, please refer to:

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.