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.
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.
[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".
[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"), 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.
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.
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 suspect is found innocent at the conclusion of the judicial hearing, the decision for prevention of access shall be deemed invalid (Act No.
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.
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.
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).
The Court shall render its decision in 48 hours stating its opinion if the content does in fact constitute intrusion upon private affairs/seclusion.
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.
In a declaration, the Transportation, Maritime and Communication Minister Lutfi Elvan mentioned that “we want to protect individual rights and liberties.
[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.
He specifically pointed to the Internet Watch Foundation's blacklist of websites hosting child pornography and criminal activity to defend the restrictions.
[26] 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.
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.
[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.
[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.