By Duggan Flanakin
In the aftermath of Turkey's devastating earthquake, 78 people have been arrested ― not necessarily as scapegoats of the tragedy but because they are accused of "sharing provocative posts" on social media.
Twenty have been placed in pretrial detention, and hundreds of others face legal proceedings.
These arrests, in combination with the Turkish government's outrageous blocking and throttling of social media access right at the peak of the response effort, have drawn renewed attention to the country's draconian and restrictive social media law, which lawmakers passed last fall.
A government-decreed Twitter outage on Feb. 8, confirmed by the monitoring service Netblocks, lasted about 12 hours before service resumed. According to state media coverage, Turkish authorities had held a meeting with Twitter's head of policy on disinformation and the need for content takedowns before allowing access.
The government claimed it needed to cut off access because of "misinformation." One source quoted by Reuters said it had to be done because some accounts were sharing "untrue claims, slander, insults and posts with fraudulent purposes." Another government official denounced ― ironically in a Twitter post ― the "politically motivated disinformation campaigns and provocations."
Of course, Turkish citizens understand very clearly that the purpose of these arrests and access restrictions is to silence criticism of the leadership and to curtail freedom of expression.
In Turkey, with a population of approximately 85 million, there are about 53 million smartphone users. Turkey is one of the most active nations in the world on social media. Yet this basic freedom is under assault.
The Turkish government has repeatedly demonstrated that it has little tolerance for independent expressions of opinions, ideas and thoughts, especially if they run counter to government policy. From suppression of nonaligned media outlets, often under spurious accusations and false charges, to the filing of court cases alleging slander and defamation, to the periodic blocking of social media outlets, the current regime has worked diligently to muzzle independent voices and ensure that the only viable sources of news and information are those that toe the government line.
In October, the ruling party and its allies in parliament forced through a new media law. This added a new article to the Turkish Penal Code that calls for one to three years of imprisonment for "any person who publicly disseminates untrue information concerning the internal and external security, public order and public health of the country with the sole intention of creating anxiety, fear or panic among the public."
The law is sweeping in its scope. It grants the government wide-ranging powers to regulate the internet and force compliance on the part of social media companies to remove content deemed harmful by the government and to surrender user data related to such content. Failure to comply with such "requests" can lead to either a throttling or a complete blockage of service to the Turkish market.
Content moderation is a legitimate challenge faced by many nations, especially where online extremism and radicalism result in very concerning acts of terrorism, violence and insurrection. But the way the Turkish censorship law is constructed, the sole authority to decide what is offensive is vested in the ruling party, with zero independent oversight or citizen participation. As such, flagrant abuses of these powers are only to be expected.
Opposition leaders have been sharply critical of this law. Meral Aksener, leader of the IYI Party, has mocked President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's attempt to exert total control over the country's internet, asking if he intends to replace Facebook with "AKbook," referring to the ruling party.
Aksener has been outspoken about the need to roll back laws that hinder or prevent the free expression of ideas and about the need to craft internet legislation that protects basic democratic rights and values for the people of Turkey.
In contrast to the creeping authoritarianism and pivot away from the West under the AK Party, Aksener and the IYI Party represent Turkish voters who remain interested in reviving the country's bid to join the European Union. Their goal is to bring Turkish laws, values and standards in line with the country's long and proudly held democratic identity.
Under Aksener, the IYI Party has joined other parties opposing Erdogan in the upcoming election and adopted a multipoint plan that balances the regulatory role and obligations of government with the freedoms necessary to develop an open and democratic society, in particular as it relates to how Turkish citizens use the internet.
The plan also calls for free and open access to an uncensored internet, and social media platforms would have limited regulation so as to remain accessible to all of Turkish society. Citizens would not be punished for posting their views or opinions online, and access to the internet would be viewed as a basic human right.
Under the opposition's plan, internet companies that follow all applicable laws for taxation and licensing would find initiatives similar to those found in the EU available to them in Turkey. These companies would feel safe and free to invest in the development of online opportunities in the country ― which would contribute to employment, innovation and growth.
Under the current government's social media law, citizens are not being protected from "disinformation." They are having their access to critical information curtailed, which the leadership believes will make them less informed, less engaged and less interested in protecting the democratic process. This is an existential threat to the future of the country.
Duggan Flanakin is director of policy research with the nonprofit think tank Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. This article was published in the Chicago Tribune and distributed by Tribune Content Agency.
In the aftermath of Turkey's devastating earthquake, 78 people have been arrested ― not necessarily as scapegoats of the tragedy but because they are accused of "sharing provocative posts" on social media.
Twenty have been placed in pretrial detention, and hundreds of others face legal proceedings.
These arrests, in combination with the Turkish government's outrageous blocking and throttling of social media access right at the peak of the response effort, have drawn renewed attention to the country's draconian and restrictive social media law, which lawmakers passed last fall.
A government-decreed Twitter outage on Feb. 8, confirmed by the monitoring service Netblocks, lasted about 12 hours before service resumed. According to state media coverage, Turkish authorities had held a meeting with Twitter's head of policy on disinformation and the need for content takedowns before allowing access.
The government claimed it needed to cut off access because of "misinformation." One source quoted by Reuters said it had to be done because some accounts were sharing "untrue claims, slander, insults and posts with fraudulent purposes." Another government official denounced ― ironically in a Twitter post ― the "politically motivated disinformation campaigns and provocations."
Of course, Turkish citizens understand very clearly that the purpose of these arrests and access restrictions is to silence criticism of the leadership and to curtail freedom of expression.
In Turkey, with a population of approximately 85 million, there are about 53 million smartphone users. Turkey is one of the most active nations in the world on social media. Yet this basic freedom is under assault.
The Turkish government has repeatedly demonstrated that it has little tolerance for independent expressions of opinions, ideas and thoughts, especially if they run counter to government policy. From suppression of nonaligned media outlets, often under spurious accusations and false charges, to the filing of court cases alleging slander and defamation, to the periodic blocking of social media outlets, the current regime has worked diligently to muzzle independent voices and ensure that the only viable sources of news and information are those that toe the government line.
In October, the ruling party and its allies in parliament forced through a new media law. This added a new article to the Turkish Penal Code that calls for one to three years of imprisonment for "any person who publicly disseminates untrue information concerning the internal and external security, public order and public health of the country with the sole intention of creating anxiety, fear or panic among the public."
The law is sweeping in its scope. It grants the government wide-ranging powers to regulate the internet and force compliance on the part of social media companies to remove content deemed harmful by the government and to surrender user data related to such content. Failure to comply with such "requests" can lead to either a throttling or a complete blockage of service to the Turkish market.
Content moderation is a legitimate challenge faced by many nations, especially where online extremism and radicalism result in very concerning acts of terrorism, violence and insurrection. But the way the Turkish censorship law is constructed, the sole authority to decide what is offensive is vested in the ruling party, with zero independent oversight or citizen participation. As such, flagrant abuses of these powers are only to be expected.
Opposition leaders have been sharply critical of this law. Meral Aksener, leader of the IYI Party, has mocked President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's attempt to exert total control over the country's internet, asking if he intends to replace Facebook with "AKbook," referring to the ruling party.
Aksener has been outspoken about the need to roll back laws that hinder or prevent the free expression of ideas and about the need to craft internet legislation that protects basic democratic rights and values for the people of Turkey.
In contrast to the creeping authoritarianism and pivot away from the West under the AK Party, Aksener and the IYI Party represent Turkish voters who remain interested in reviving the country's bid to join the European Union. Their goal is to bring Turkish laws, values and standards in line with the country's long and proudly held democratic identity.
Under Aksener, the IYI Party has joined other parties opposing Erdogan in the upcoming election and adopted a multipoint plan that balances the regulatory role and obligations of government with the freedoms necessary to develop an open and democratic society, in particular as it relates to how Turkish citizens use the internet.
The plan also calls for free and open access to an uncensored internet, and social media platforms would have limited regulation so as to remain accessible to all of Turkish society. Citizens would not be punished for posting their views or opinions online, and access to the internet would be viewed as a basic human right.
Under the opposition's plan, internet companies that follow all applicable laws for taxation and licensing would find initiatives similar to those found in the EU available to them in Turkey. These companies would feel safe and free to invest in the development of online opportunities in the country ― which would contribute to employment, innovation and growth.
Under the current government's social media law, citizens are not being protected from "disinformation." They are having their access to critical information curtailed, which the leadership believes will make them less informed, less engaged and less interested in protecting the democratic process. This is an existential threat to the future of the country.
Duggan Flanakin is director of policy research with the nonprofit think tank Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. This article was published in the Chicago Tribune and distributed by Tribune Content Agency.
