{"id":38,"date":"2020-10-10T19:00:01","date_gmt":"2020-10-10T16:00:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/web.ifade.org.tr\/en\/?page_id=38"},"modified":"2026-02-09T19:06:18","modified_gmt":"2026-02-09T16:06:18","slug":"reports-books","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/ifade.org.tr\/en\/publications\/reports-books\/","title":{"rendered":"Reports & Books"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Social Media Report<\/h3>

In the report titled Digital<\/i> Obedience<\/em> Regime: Social Media Platforms and the Illusion of Transparency in T\u00fcrkiye<\/i><\/a>, prepared by the Freedom of Expression Association (\u0130F\u00d6D) and examining the role of social media platforms in T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s internet censorship ecosystem, it is documented, on the basis of concrete findings, that the current legal regime governing social media platforms and its implementation practices have, rather than safeguarding users\u2019 freedom of expression and right to access information, effectively turned platforms into \u201ccompliant apparatuses\u201d of the state\u2019s censorship and surveillance mechanism.<\/p>

Within this framework, the report sets out a platform \u201ccompliance scorecard\u201d for social media platforms that established local representation in T\u00fcrkiye following the amendments to Law No. 5651. Its most striking finding is that, while platforms display formal compliance with the legal process, in practice they have retreated from transparency, and promised transparency has devolved into systematic \u201cdata obscuration\u201d, leaving platforms to function as a \u201cdigital obedience\u201d mechanism.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

the Right (Not) To Be Forgotten<\/h3>

Within the scope of The Right NOT to be Forgotten on the Internet: Freedom of Expression Assessment of the Application of the Turkish Right to be Forgotten Measures under Law No. 5651 report of the \u0130fade \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Derne\u011fi (\u0130F\u00d6D – Freedom of Expression Association), it has been observed and identified that in recent years, individuals increasingly request that their futures not be negatively affected by news or published content related to events caused by themselves or third parties in their past, with reference to their right to be forgotten.<\/p>

These requests have been frequently evaluated as violations of personal rights under article 9 of Law No. 5651 by criminal judgeships of peace and the judgeships issued decisions of access blocking and content removal involving such news articles and content even though they did not contain any violation of personal rights or violation of the law at the time of their publication. Therefore, such requests may only be considered favourably in cases where there is no superior public <\/span>interest, and especially in exceptional cases where ordinary citizens have the right to \u201ccontrol their past\u201d and \u201cto request that certain issues erased from their past and forgotten.\u201d<\/span><\/p>

This study evaluates how the right to be forgotten is applied by the criminal judgeships of peace for the purpose of \u201cprotecting personal rights\u201d within the scope of Law No. 5651. The study evaluates further the requests, whether the judgeships referred to the judgments of the Court of Cassation, the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights in their decision-making processes, and therefore whether they took into account the relevant case-law.<\/p>