{"id":4679,"date":"2019-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-11-21T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/"},"modified":"2019-11-21T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2019-11-21T00:00:00","slug":"esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/","title":{"rendered":"Esq. G\u00f6khan Tek\u015fen \u201cCommunication Law in Light of Recent Judicial Rulings\u201d Workshop"},"content":{"rendered":"

NAZ AKMAN- Implemented by the Association of Journalists and funded by the European Union, \u201cDemocracy for Media\/Media for Democracy\u201d project hosted lawyer G\u00f6khan Tek\u015fen at the Press House in Ankara for his presentation titled \u201cCommunication Law in Light of Recent Judicial Rulings\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"Before the presentation, M4D Project Assistant Coordinator Seva \u00dcman gave brief biographical information about Tek\u015fen who completed his primary education in TED College and later graduated from Ba\u015fkent University- Law Faculty. Having worked as a freelance lawyer for some time, Tek\u015fen later worked as a legal advisor for the Ankara Bar Association.\u00a0 Tek\u015fen, who established his own law firm, was among those who followed the trial of Bekir Co\u015fkun where the Constitutional Court with its verdict set a precedent regarding violations of national press and freedom of expression. \u00dclman also told the audience that Tek\u015fen has conducted work on S\u00f6zc\u00fc newspaper writer Kemal Ba\u015fyta\u015f\u2019 individual appeal as a result of his verdict. Tek\u015fen is married and the father of two children.\u00a0
\nTek\u015fen began his presentation by displaying a video about \u201cwhat freedom of the press is not\u201d and underlined that altering the truth has got nothing to do with press freedom.\u00a0 Reminding the audience the importance of protecting the basic principles of press freedom Tek\u015fen stated that the Constitutional Court is the highest legal institution in Turkey and plays a very important role regarding freedom of expression and the press.\u00a0 Tek\u015fen remarked that legal concepts and definitions in terms of freedom of the press are positive whereas this does not reflect on practise. Tek\u015fen stated that the European Declaration of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights\u2019 decisions are binding, therefore are part of domestic law and are related to freedom of expression and the press.<\/p>\n

Non-prosecution verdict in Izmir but conviction in Istanbul for Bekir Co\u015fkun<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Freedom of expression is a fundamental norm while not being an absolute right pointed out Tek\u015fen and underlined that it can be limited in terms of national security or public morality. According to Tek\u015fen what influences the law is judicial opinion, while verdicts are shaped by lawyers and judges through legal precedents. Many court cases depicted in the media have showcased good laws but bad practise, and bad laws but good practise, these two situations are problematic in Turkey according to Tek\u015fen.
\nTek\u015fen mentioned the example of journalist Bekir Co\u015fkun, who was taken to court on grounds of \u201cinsulting members of parliament\u201d. The court in Izmir ruled non-prosecution in Izmir, while the court in Istanbul convicted Co\u015fkun. Tek\u015fen said \u201cThe law is the same in all of Turkey, but we see different practises. Co\u015fkun\u2019s case was taken to the Constitutional Court which deemed it freedom of expression. Although the Constitutional Court makes bad verdicts from time to time when it comes to freedom of expression it tends to rule in favour of the applicant. These days we increasingly see that defamation is being decriminalized in Europe and the US. It\u2019s still a controversial topic in Turkey\u201d.<\/p>\n

Detention is a disproportionate intervention<\/strong><\/em>
\nTek\u015fen remarked that \u201cinsulting the President\u201d is legally considered different from \u201cdefamation\u201d and has become a punitive weapon and said \u201cWhile the law \"\"should protect people it can become a weapon\u201d.\u00a0 According to Tek\u015fen court cases regarding \u201cinsulting the President\u201d were very high in 2014, after the July 15 Coup Attempt these figures dropped in 2016 but increased again in 2018 and 2019. Tek\u015fen remarked that Law No: 301 is also quite problematic:
\n\u201cLaw No:301, that we\u2019ve seen in the Hrant Dink case also, is now used at the discretion of the Ministry of Interior. Expressing an idea with the aim of criticism in not a crime, we see bad legal practise in the Hrant Dink case. The cases regarding Erdem G\u00fcl and Can D\u00fcndar are good examples of \u201cexposing state secrets\u201d. In terms of press freedom, nothing that constitutes a crime can be a secret. If it concerns public interest, access to news must be considered in terms of freedom of the press. Therefore, being detained due to news is a good example. Here, detention is a disproportionate intervention\u201d.<\/p>\n

Access restriction to Wikipedia is still a big problem<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Tek\u015fen remarked that accusations of \u201cbeing a member of a terrorist organization\u201d and \u201cconducting terrorist propaganda\u201d have ambiguous definitions, and newspapers such as S\u00f6zc\u00fc and Cumhuriyet have been accused of these crimes, this poses a risk to freedom of expression much like the sword of Damocles. Tek\u015fen also remarked that press outlets facing such predicaments also implicates its readers, too.
\nCiting the \u201cAy\u015fe \u00d6\u011fretmen\u201d trials Tek\u015fen said \u201can up-to-date, positive verdict was given regarding terror allegations that called for peace rather than violence\u201d. Articles regarding \u201cinciting hatred and enmity among the public\u201d also pose a significant risk against press freedom said Tek\u015fen.
\nTouching on access restrictions Tek\u015fen pointed out that the blocking of Wikipedia is still a big problem, and despite measures taken to block specific links, while in cases where this has not been practised has meant complete access restriction to websites. Rights gained in printed press should also be applied in digital media said Tek\u015fen and added that the statute of limitations for printed press is four months, whereas there is no limit imposed on the internet which is quite problematic.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Sledgehammer and Ergenekon trials known for \u2018fabricated evidence\u2019 were replaced by trials based on no evidence <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Talking about the structural problems of the judiciary Tek\u015fen remarked that one of the most frequently encountered problems are judicial organs being unaware of verdicts of the Constitutional Court. He said \u201cForget about ECtHR verdicts, the lack of awareness regarding binding Constitutional Court verdicts demonstrate the degree of disconnectedness when it comes to applying the law. It is important that in the project conducted by the Constitutional Court and the ECtHR, lawyers and related judges are informed about the verdicts in question. The Constitutional Court will of course lead the way\u201d.
\nTek\u015fen continued with the following words:
\n\u201cWe are able to get results in terms of freedom of the press by applying to the Constitutional Court and the ECtHR. Verdicts of the Constitutional Court are binding on other courts, therefore they are obliged to prevent negligence, and rule for acquittals, and so on. We need to internalize this system. Recently, trials such as the Sledgehammer and Ergenekon trials where there have been allegations of \u2018fabricated evidence\u2019 were replaced by \u2018trials conducted without evidence\u2019.
\nThe announcement of the verdict being deferred means the postponement of the sentence for 5 years, but in terms of the press this can be used as a form of oppression resulting in self-censorship. That\u2019s why the Constitutional Court says \u201cyou can bring the issue to me\u201d. The Constitutional Court and the ECtHR have certain criteria regarding individual applications; inciting violence, hate speech, discrimination, degrading treatment.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Press members should stand together and protect their rights<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Tek\u015fen said that as long as journalists do not stray away from rights-based journalism and do not enter \u201cminefields\u201d they will be able to circumvent sanctions \u201cThe Constitutional Court and the ECtHR rule in favour of journalists provided the content is not shocking, disturbing or contains provocative statements\u201d.
\nDrawing attention to solidarity and awareness G\u00f6khan Tek\u015fen concluded his presentation with the following statement:
\n\u201cPress members should come together, protect their rights and organize in alignment with the principles of the profession.\u00a0 Social solidarity, the right to access news are important for the public; in addition, the ECtHR model can be employed to show solidarity with journalists on trial. A journalistic organization comprised of people from here could directly intervene a trial and provided that can be done, we could talk about a real referendum in terms of practices\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NAZ AKMAN- Implemented by the Association of Journalists and funded by the European Union, “Democracy for Media\/Media for Democracy” project […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4680,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4679","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-events","9":"post-with-thumbnail","10":"post-with-thumbnail-large"},"yoast_head":"\nEsq. G\u00f6khan Tek\u015fen \u201cCommunication Law in Light of Recent Judicial Rulings\u201d Workshop - M4D Project<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"tr_TR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Esq. G\u00f6khan Tek\u015fen \u201cCommunication Law in Light of Recent Judicial Rulings\u201d Workshop - M4D Project\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"NAZ AKMAN- Implemented by the Association of Journalists and funded by the European Union, “Democracy for Media\/Media for Democracy” project […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"M4D Project\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-11-21T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Yazan:\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tahmini okuma s\u00fcresi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 dakika\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/\",\"name\":\"Esq. G\u00f6khan Tek\u015fen \u201cCommunication Law in Light of Recent Judicial Rulings\u201d Workshop - M4D Project\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-11-21T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-11-21T00:00:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/03ae41fe92af961cab2554790d4e3941\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Anasayfa\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Esq. G\u00f6khan Tek\u015fen \u201cCommunication Law in Light of Recent Judicial Rulings\u201d Workshop\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/\",\"name\":\"M4D Project\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"tr\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/03ae41fe92af961cab2554790d4e3941\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/576bbd661b1f0e07c491d12ceb756fba867e119e2369b69bf6268bfb9c24a3f6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/576bbd661b1f0e07c491d12ceb756fba867e119e2369b69bf6268bfb9c24a3f6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Esq. G\u00f6khan Tek\u015fen \u201cCommunication Law in Light of Recent Judicial Rulings\u201d Workshop - M4D Project","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/","og_locale":"tr_TR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Esq. G\u00f6khan Tek\u015fen \u201cCommunication Law in Light of Recent Judicial Rulings\u201d Workshop - M4D Project","og_description":"NAZ AKMAN- Implemented by the Association of Journalists and funded by the European Union, “Democracy for Media\/Media for Democracy” project […]","og_url":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/","og_site_name":"M4D Project","article_published_time":"2019-11-21T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":400,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Yazan:":"admin","Tahmini okuma s\u00fcresi":"7 dakika"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/","url":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/","name":"Esq. G\u00f6khan Tek\u015fen \u201cCommunication Law in Light of Recent Judicial Rulings\u201d Workshop - M4D Project","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-11-21T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-11-21T00:00:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/03ae41fe92af961cab2554790d4e3941"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"tr","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/esq-gokhan-teksen-communication-law-in-light-of-recent-judicial-rulings-workshop\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Anasayfa","item":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Esq. G\u00f6khan Tek\u015fen \u201cCommunication Law in Light of Recent Judicial Rulings\u201d Workshop"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/","name":"M4D Project","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"tr"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/03ae41fe92af961cab2554790d4e3941","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"tr","@id":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/576bbd661b1f0e07c491d12ceb756fba867e119e2369b69bf6268bfb9c24a3f6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/576bbd661b1f0e07c491d12ceb756fba867e119e2369b69bf6268bfb9c24a3f6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/media4democracy.org"],"url":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4679","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4679"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4679\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4680"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media4democracy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}