They created a new office that has the authority to block any website url / domain / ip address without prior notice or court order. All ISPs are required to apply restrictions within 4 hours. Plus, all ISPs are required to log HTTP access + IP + Date pairs and store them for two years for government access (again, no court involvement)
It is not a secret or military court, but a civil one. And yes, we're fighting against it.
Also, the European Court of Justice is currently in the process of deciding whether the data retention directive violates basic rights. From what has been heared from the court lately, things look as if the directive will be shot down at least in part.
Also the whole point of having Courts grant permission for stuff is to be a check on the executive and legislative's power. Whether that worked well in Turkey or not is a whole different issue. But I'm guessing they wouldn't bother to pass this law if it didn't.
This office (TIB) is not new at all. From what I understand, here is what really changed:
Before for blocking a web site you needed a court order. Now
People can contact TIB for a take down request. They immediately contact with association of ISP's and within 4 hours they take down the site. This request is also presented to Court (by TIB I think) and court has to give a verdict in 48 hours to make the take-down permanent. Otherwise after 48 hours site access will be restored.
New law looks better for content protection and personal privacy cases because it is fast, but of course this power can easily be abused.
"any bureaucrat can now decide to take down a certain website without having to apply for a court order, but you will need to take that decision to court in order to get it reversed."
This is going to be used/abused by the Islamic government to silence opposition or to cover up corruption news. That's the main goal of the law.
I wrote a couple of articles about Turkey in 2007. I never expected Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to deteriorate so much, of course I'm not referring to this specific law, but to his reactions and his unwillingness to step down after pretty much the most successful decade a politician could reach for (2000-2010).
Regarding the law, with all these new technologies floating around, I think censorship will become more and more difficult for the government to enforce it on geeks but I firmly believe that people of Turkey should rely mostly on overturning the part where the ISP blocks whatever website without court order and not on tech to circumvent it. That might turn nasty and jails in Turkey are not fancy.
Given recent events, I think the law is going to be used in order to fight anti-establishment (as in anti-current-government) websites mostly and not pedophilia (surprised no one mentioned pedophilia yet...), copyright, etc.
What exactly did you expect an islamist to do, other than declaring himself caliph and start to act like an islamist ? This has barely begun. This is only really about removing content. The last actual caliph in Turkey would get people summarily executed for criticism.
Plus they're kind of right. It's plainly true that islam means criticism of the government = criticism of the religion = punishable by death. The prophet executed people for that, and if you believe in islam, clearly that's the right thing to do.
Your statement: "islam means criticism of the government = criticism of the religion = punishable by death" is patently untrue (and is really better saved for clan meetings than HN).
Do you have citations for: "The prophet executed people for that"?
(Its kinda interesting that with all the recent documentation of states using the Internet to infringe on peoples rights, the moment Turkey does it, the response is: "see.. islam!")
Oh great an ad hominem. Now google "Asma Bint Marwan" (hardly the only one[1]), and if you have any integrity whatsoever, apologize.
[1] Others executed for criticism ("poetry" about muhammad as it's generally called in the hadith) include "Abu Afak", "Al Nadr ibn al-Harith", "Uqba bin Abu Muayt", "Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf", "Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq", "Fartana" and I doubt this is anywhere near the full list.
Note that this was most definitely NOT common practice during those times. You should read some of the texts that survive from Roman fora in the same area. Let me tell you Romans are not afraid -at all- of calling the head of the army a coward, and comparing them to dog entrails (I assume that's not a compliment). Same sort of things are regularly said about the governors and so on. And in at least one instance that did not even lead
I'm assuming that when you point towards the story of Asma Bint Marwan you acknowledge that classical scholars have rejected this story?
It also pretty amazing that you would complain about an ad hominem when your comment led with "what did you expect an islamist to do?"
(I also note your silence on the fact that draconian Internet silliness seems ok when done by non-"islamists")
Again: There is certainly a lot in the OP's post relevant to HN, but i would submit that sweeping statements on religions are not
I wasn't aware of any such rejection. Nor you, nor a google search, nor my local library can find any reference to such a rejection. Furthermore it's easy to find fatwas agreeing with this. Care to point out at least one paper (that isn't on an obviously political site) ? To be honest I've read the sources on the story and several of the others and I'd find it hard to believe.
And what about all the other ones ? It's not like executing people for criticism is something islam's prophet did once. Well, compared to the thousands of people he ordered executed (e.g. the massacres he ordered around Mecca) it may not be that much.
This is not a sweeping statement about a religion. It is a simple statement of fact. Just because a statement is currently policitally inconvenient or "sweeping" doesn't affect my opinion of it at all. As you very well know, there are far more damning sweeping statements one can make about islam that are equally true.
Frankly, islam was created through a protracted and bloody war. Everyone, including muslims, agree on this. Do you find it all that surprising that atrocities happened on both sides ? The problem I have, of course, is that one side claims to be the definition of good, and went on to commit massacres elsewhere in the world on a scale never seen before.
Why do you feel the need to reject historical fact ?
Britain detained someone for nine hours to question him over material he arguably shouldn't have had in his possession. He's now suing through the British courts for wrongful arrest, and he return of the allegedly infringing material.
Turkey is responsible for about 1/5 of known jailed journalists worldwide[1] and routinely jails them for many years. It deported a journalist for criticizing the Prime Minister - "a blunt assault on Erdogan's honor" - yesterday
[1]https://www.cpj.org/imprisoned/2013.php#turkey
True, there are many levels of gray.
It's a shame this is happening, Turkey made great struggles towards democracy and "freedom" which is even more exceptional considering it's an "islamic" country. I hope the people will not let this go worse.
"The law requires service providers to take down objectionable content within four hours and any page found in violation by the country's telecom authority or face fines up to $44,500."
Normally you spend a week of your time to report an insulting content. This regulation speed these kind of processes up. Also They have right to block for only 24 hours, If you do not go to law for it, the content is unblocked again.
In addition, they are keeping record of everything we do on the internet already no court involvement. Actually as you know it is much worse in other countries(USA,UK...).
In short I think the regulation is exaggerated. Moreover funny but pathetic most turkish who complain about it don't know what even changed. They just complain to complain, they complain because they don't like government.
People complain because these are not rules destined for a democratic republic. They are as draconian as it can get and just aiming to silence opposing ideas and evidence exposing government of corruption.
By the way how any democratic republic can materialize a rule of "immunity for TIB precidency for any dispute over it's ruling taken without court orders"?
I'm surprised that this didn't come about in the guise of "protecting intellectual property". That seems to be the usual beard when imposing internet censorship in western countries.
I love to bitch about NSA as much as the next guy, but you have to admit, it's one thing to spy, and its a totally different when you start to block content.
Unfortunately this is just one of the current oppressions in Turkey. This pro-Islamic government has limited individual freedom by every step taken, ironically in the name of "advanced democracy". Scare tactics such as putting people through trials because of tweeting anti-government ideas or sharing something on Facebook have become common practice.
I wish this sort of behavior, by any government, would draw immediate, global, and severe economic sanctions. Repression is repression, whether online or off. I feel like most of the governments around the world are intentionally refraining from considering rights to fully or properly translate to the online sphere, so they can all first figure out in which ways they want to restrict or abuse their own domestic populations.
I wonder if news coverage of the restrictions is restricted in Turkey.
It'd be nice if SOME country started leading by example. 'Safegaurds' like these are gambling on the premise that they will -never- be abused, which is always a lofty bet if not flat out disingenuous.
They created a new office that has the authority to block any website url / domain / ip address without prior notice or court order. All ISPs are required to apply restrictions within 4 hours. Plus, all ISPs are required to log HTTP access + IP + Date pairs and store them for two years for government access (again, no court involvement)