<h2 fr-original-style="" style="margin: 0px; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.85); font-weight: 500; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box;"><img src="https://images.aposto.com/2024/9/1/1730079771863.jpeg" style="display: block; vertical-align: top; margin: 5px auto; text-align: center; width: 100%; max-width: 550px; border-style: none; position: relative; cursor: pointer; padding: 0px 1px; box-sizing: border-box;" width="550" ratio="1.50" fr-original-style="display: block; vertical-align: top; margin: 5px auto; text-align: center; width: 100%; max-width: 550px;" fr-original-class="fr-draggable"></h2>Israeli Air Force F-15 fighter jets prepare to head out for strikes in Iran, early October 26, 2024 | Israel Defense Forces<h2 fr-original-style="" style="margin: 0px; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.85); font-weight: 500; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box;">The wait is over: Israel hits Iran</h2>Israeli air strikes destroyed air-defense systems that protect important energy sites in Iran on Saturday, but did not directly target energy facilities or civilian infrastructure. Iran said that 4 soldiers and 1 civilian were killed.What they're saying:&nbsp;The IDF is saying that it inflicted considerable damage on Iran's missile production and defensive capabilities. Iran’s leaders emphasized on Sunday that they had a right to respond to Israel’s airstrikes but appeared to take a measured tone, with Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, saying that the country would "answer any stupidity with wisdom and strategy."A step back:&nbsp;Iran fired almost 200 missiles to Israel on October 1 as a response to the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. Israel vowed revenge and an "unexpected response" to Iran. Since then, the world has been watching closely to see what that response could look like as Israel allies, namely the US, urged Netanyahu to show restraint.Perspective:&nbsp;The long-awaited response is seen as deescalatory, or at least not as dire as feared. The markets responded accordingly as gold prices which had been surging took a dip following the Israeli strikes.Zoom out:&nbsp;While the latest attacks by Israel are seen as mild, since October 1 Israel had been heavily bombing Iran's allies, inflicting heavy damage on Hamas and Hezbollah in air strikes killing many holding leadership positions in the organizations and also thousands of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon.

Aposto World

Turkish politics has witnessed significant developments in the past week and a half. Two events—the government's blocking of access to Instagram and President Erdoğan's accusation that those who criticized him were 'morally corrupt'—were widely discussed and criticized.The decision to block access to Instagram stems from the government's anger over Instagram's refusal to publish condolence messages regarding Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, who Israel killed. According to the statement made by the relevant minister, the government now routinely imposes social media bans to protect the 'values' of society. Once again, we have learned that these 'values' do not include human rights, such as freedom of expression, which are inherent and independent of the government's approval or the majority's 'values.The President's angry characterization of citizens who criticized this decision as 'morally corrupt' reflects the AKP government's categorical rejection of citizens' freedom of expression and their democratic right to criticize the government. Above all, according to the Constitution, the President has the honor and duty to represent the 'unity of the nation.' However, it is incomprehensible that the President has made a habit of attacking the individuals of the 'nation' he represents with language that is far from dignified.In this issue, Ali Rıza Çoban provides a legal analysis of the Instagram ban, Ömer Faruk Şen examines the government’s initiation of foreclosure proceedings against opposition municipalities, and Can Gerek highlights the economic effects of 'carry trade' operations within the context of the global economy and the problems caused by corporate bailouts disrupting the normal functioning of markets.See you in the next Freedom Observer!

The Freedom Observer

On the morning of August 2, 2004, Turkey woke up to the news that Instagram, the social media platform with the most users in the country (48 million), had been blocked. The legal uncertainty surrounding the reason for the ban persists. The Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) only announced the date and number of the decision to block access but did not share the decision itself with the public. Therefore, the specific legal basis for the decision remains unknown. From the statements of the Minister of Transport[1] And the Deputy Minister2, the ban appears to be based on the fourth paragraph of Article 8 of the Internet Law No. 5651. However, as will be explained below, the actual reason seems to be more political than legal. The statements made do not meet the conditions stipulated in Article 8/4 and instead reflect the government's reaction to Instagram's refusal to publish condolence messages for Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, who was killed in Tehran.Article 8 regulates the investigation of internet publications that constitute a criminal offense and the blocking of access to these publications as a precautionary measure. The first paragraph of the article lists ten specific crimes to which these measures can be applied. These crimes include obscenity, prostitution, sexual exploitation of children, encouraging drug use, incitement to suicide, providing a place and opportunity for gambling, offenses against Atatürk, illegal betting, and the disclosure of documents and members of the intelligence organization.If there is sufficient suspicion that online content constitutes any of these crimes, it is possible during the investigation and prosecution process for a judge or court to order the removal of the content or the blocking of access to the relevant publication. However, the fourth paragraph of Article 8 grants the President of the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) the authority to order the removal of content and the blocking of access as an administrative measure for these offenses. While the scope of this authority was initially much narrower, it has been progressively expanded through Laws No. 6518, 7226, and, most recently, Law No. 7418, enacted in 2023. Previously, this authority was limited to crimes related to the sexual exploitation of children and obscenity, where the publisher was located abroad. However, with the recent amendments, the scope has been broadened to include all offenses listed in the first paragraph, regardless of whether the publisher is based domestically or abroad.In 2017, the Constitutional Court annulled this authority about the crime of obscenity.3 However, instead of complying with the Constitutional Court’s decision, the government introduced amendments that progressively expanded the scope of this authority. In 2023, the Constitutional Court issued another ruling, annulling the authority granted to the President of the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) by Law No. 7253 to remove content.4 The Court emphasized that the rule, which grants the BTK President the power to determine whether an action constitutes a crime and to ban content without judicial oversight indefinitely, violates the presumption of innocence. There is no doubt that this reasoning is equally applicable to decisions regarding the blocking of access.In statements made by various government officials, it is claimed that Instagram was blocked entirely because it failed to comply with requests related to 'catalog crimes.' However, the crimes or specific content involved are not disclosed. 5&nbsp;Additionally, according to the 17th paragraph of Article 8, decisions to block access and remove content must be made primarily on a URL basis. A complete ban is considered a last resort by law. The reason why a total ban was applied is also not explained.In Meta's transparency report dated July 31, 2024, which includes Facebook and Instagram, it is stated that during the period from January 1 to June 30, 2024, the company received 2,580 requests from Turkey concerning specific content, of which 504 pieces of content were removed for violating Meta’s policies, and 1,941 pieces of content were made invisible in Turkey. 6&nbsp;This indicates that more than 95% of the requests from Turkey were addressed by the company.From the statements made public, it appears that government officials have requested Meta to address issues like terrorism, which are not covered by Law No. 5651. The declarations by public authorities, who themselves do not comply with the law, accusing social media companies of non-compliance and emphasizing the rule of law, are unconvincing.It is highly problematic that social media companies, in line with their own policies, remove certain content on the grounds of terrorism. Meta has an internal appeal mechanism (the Oversight Board) for such actions. However, in Turkey, there is no legal framework governing such practices by companies. The government is reluctant to regulate these areas transparently.It also appears ironic that the government, which blocked access to Instagram for removing Hamas and Haniye-related posts on the grounds of terrorism, is now asking Meta to remove content it considers related to terrorism in order to lift the ban.The arbitrary banning of a social media platform with 48 million followers in Turkey, where a significant amount of economic activity also takes place without any clear legal basis, shows that the country is increasingly surrendering to lawlessness.

The arbitrary banning of a social media platform with 48 million followers in Turkey, where a significant amount of economic activity also takes place without any clear legal basis, shows that the country is increasingly surrendering to lawlessness.

Ismail Haniyeh ile ilgili hikayeler