Turkey's social media prosecution

For the past years prosecutors and judges of Turkey have been making decisions based on social media trends. Supporters of the government react on social media about someone known for his/her opposition personality, the subject of the reason is detained for a short time and ‘punished’. After the incident is forgotten, the case usually ends in acquittal. The opposite is also happening. A pro-government person is targeted and detained on social media by the opposition, etc.

This system within the judiciary reminds me of cowboy movies. Someone makers a rumour about a stranger who has come to town, and the public is aroused in a short time and the stranger is punished after a fake and staged trial. In the following minutes of the movie, it is understood that he is not guilty.

Places that do not regulate the law, lynching is common.

However, where there is law, detention and arrest is a measure. In cases of escape, it is applied very rarely. In recent years we want everyone to be detained and arrested. If anyone and everyone we wanted was to be detained and arrested, half of the people would be in a cell or prison. Therefore, we arrest everyone and then leave them with a an amnesty because there is no space left in prisons to put them in.

The latest incident was the arrest and release of journalist Oktay Candemir. Remarks a very funny incident. Seventy years ago those who sing the song “Kızılcıklar Oldu mu?” [Has the cranberries ripened?] would be detained for making communist propaganda, however, the current government is detaining those who criticise the TV series of TRT as a propaganda mechanism.

Journalist Candemir shared a tweet, teasing TRT and the government regarding films relating to the ottomans. Government supporters immediately started a social media lynch campaign. Therefore, the prosecutor, who should be bound by the law, was affected by this campaign and perhaps had Oktay Candemir detained with the order of an authorised person. So what is the reality? Of course, this cannot simply be justified due to criticising the government and TRT. As a result, it looked at the TCK and began an investigation for committing the crime under Article 130 of the TCK of insulting the memory of the person, as being the most appropriate offence. Later, we was released with caution.

This incident can be asked as an exam question within law faculties, and those who defend the prosecutor would fail criminal law, if you ask why? Not just for one reason but for many.

According to Article 130 of the TCK, the partner, son, or daughter of the dead person, must file a complaint to begin an investigation. In cases where there is no one filing a complaint. It seems that the complainant is kept confidential, although many people can guess the complainant.

Secondly, to be convicted under Article 130, the person who has passed away must be insulted. In the case of Oktay Candemir, where he had made fun of TRT producers, however, there was no dead person.

Thirdly, there must be verbal insult, such as; dishonest, thief, bribery, etc. The tweet shared by Candemir had no insulting words or phrases. Meaning no insult.

Fourthly, for the journalist to be detained, there must be a suspicion of escape, the possibility of destroying evidence and or a crime with a heavy penalty. Whereas a tweet is fixed. It cannot be destroyed or changed. The alleged crime is a crime that can be convicted with three or five months of punishment. Although the criminal punishment is fixed, postponing the announcement of the verdict, or imposing a judicial fine in other words, there is reason to be arrested or detained.

Things that are said to be impossible are happening.