Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Şiddete Çağrı İçermeyen Söylemler İfade Özgürlüğü İçindedir: Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Ayşe Çelik Başvurusu Hakkında Verdiği Karar (Discourses that do not Invoke Violence are within the Freedom of Expression: The Constitutional Court's Decision on the Application of Ayşe Çelik)

2021; RELX Group (Netherlands); Linguagem: Turco

1556-5068

Murat Volkan Dülger,

Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Turkish Abstract: Celik isimli ogretmenin telefon ile Beyaz Show'a baglanarak Her sey cok farkli aktariliyor, yani gercekten konusamiyorum, sessiz kalmayin insan olarak biraz daha hassasiyetle yaklasin, gorun, duyun artik bizi, el verin. Yazik insanlar olmesin, cocuklar olmesin, anneler aglamasin demesi, ardindan teror orgutu propagandasi yapmak sucundan mahkumiyetine hukmedilerek hapis cezasiyla cezalandirilmasi uzun bir sure Turkiye'nin gundemine oturmustu. Celik'in bireysel basvurusu uzerine Anayasa Mahkemesi, 10 Mayis 2019'da Ayse Ogretmen davasi olarak bilinen olaya iliskin kararini verdi (Basvuru no: 2017/36722). AYM bu kararinda ifade ozgurlugunun ve teror orgutu propagandasi yapmanin anlami ve kapsamina iliskin detayli aciklamalarda bulunarak Ogretmen'in ifade ozgurlugunun ihlal edildigine oybirligiyle karar verdi. Anayasa ve uluslararasi sozlesmeler ile koruma altina alinmis bir hakkin sinirlanabilmesi mumkun olsa da bu sinirlamanin mesru olarak kabul edilebilmesi icin belirli sartlara uyulmasi gerekir. Anayasanin 13. maddesinde temel hak ve ozgurluklerin hangi kosullarda sinirlanabilecegi duzenlenmistir: Temel hak ve hurriyetler, ozlerine dokunulmaksizin yalnizca Anayasanin ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere bagli olarak ve ancak kanunla sinirlanabilir. Bu sinirlamalar, Anayasanin sozune ve ruhuna, demokratik toplum duzeninin ve lâik Cumhuriyetin gereklerine ve olcululuk ilkesine aykiri olamaz. Bu kapsamda mudahalenin ihlal teskil edip etmedigi degerlendirilirken, (1) Kanunilik (mudahalenin kanunlar tarafindan ongorulmus olmasi) (2) Mesru amac (hakka getirilen sinirlamanin mesru bir amaca dayanmasi) (3) Demokratik toplum duzeninin gereklerine uygunluk sartlari acisindan bir inceleme yapmak gereklidir. Bu sartlar, AIHM sinirlama rejimine de paraleldir. AIHM ictihadi uyarinca bir hakkin mesru olarak sinirlanmasindan bahsedilebilmek icin uc asamali bir test uygulanmalidir: Soz konusu mudahale hukuki duzenlemeler tarafindan ongorulmus olmalidir ve mudahaleyi duzenleyen mevzuatlar keyfilikten korumayi saglayacak nitelikte olup, sonuclari acisindan ongorulebilir olmalidir. Soz konusu mudahale mesru bir amac gutmelidir. English Abstract: By connecting to Beyaz Show with the phone named Celik, Everything is transmitted very differently, I mean I can't really talk, don't stay silent, approach with a little more sensitivity as a human being, see, hear us now, give us a hand. Pity people don't die, children don't die, mothers don't cry say, after his conviction be punished with imprisonment from hukmedilerek making propaganda for a terrorist organization offense was sitting on Turkey's agenda for a long time. Upon Celik's individual application, the Constitutional Court gave its decision on the event known as the Ayse Ogretmen on 10 May 2019 (Application no: 2017/36722). In this decision, the Constitutional Court made detailed explanations regarding the meaning and scope of freedom of expression and making propaganda for a terrorist organization, and unanimously decided that Ogretmen's freedom of expression was violated. Although it is possible to limit a right protected by the Constitution and international conventions, certain conditions must be observed in order for this restriction to be considered legitimate. Article 13 of the Constitution regulates the conditions under which fundamental rights and freedoms can be restricted: Fundamental rights and freedoms can only be restricted by law and depending on the reasons specified in the relevant articles of the Constitution, without affecting their essence. cannot be against the principle of proportionality. In this context, when evaluating whether the intervention constitutes a violation, (1) Legality (the intervention is prescribed by law) (2) Legitimate aim (the limitation on the right is based on a legitimate purpose) (3) It is necessary to make an examination in terms of compliance with the requirements of the democratic social order. These conditions are also in line with the ECtHR restriction regime. In order to be able to talk about the legitimate limitation of a right in accordance with the ECtHR's case law, a three-stage test should be applied: The intervention in question should be prescribed by legal regulations, and the legislation regulating the intervention should protect from arbitrariness and should be predictable in terms of its consequences. The intervention in question should pursue a legitimate aim.