17.12.2025 00:20
A reasoned decision has been announced regarding journalist Fatih Altaylı, who was arrested on the grounds of targeting President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in a program he published on social media and using threatening expressions, and was sentenced to 4 years and 2 months in prison. The decision stated that Altaylı "made threats suggesting that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan could be the victim of an assassination or could be killed."
Journalist Fatih Altaylı was sentenced to 4 years and 2 months in prison for "threatening the President," and the reasoning for the sentence has been announced.
"HE THREATENED THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE KILLED"
In the reasoned decision of the Istanbul 26th High Criminal Court, it was noted that Altaylı threatened that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan could be the victim of an assassination or could be killed with his statements on his YouTube channel.
In the court's decision, regarding the defenses that the defendant is a journalist and that the statements subject to the indictment fall within the scope of press and freedom of expression, it was mentioned that the content of the concept of "press freedom" and the reasons for its legality were referred to in the Supreme Court of Appeals' decision from February 2007.
The decision stated that the criteria necessary for the lawful use of the right to inform are grouped under four headings, and these criteria were listed as "the news must be true, it must be current, there must be a public interest in the news being given, and there must be a conceptual link between the way the news is presented and its essence."
"IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT HE HAD THE INTENT TO COMMUNICATE THE THREATENING STATEMENT"
In the decision, it was stated that when the questions asked by the presenter and the answers given by the defendant were examined, it was noted that there were evaluations regarding Erdoğan's re-election as president. The decision stated, "It has been established that the defendant had the intent to communicate the threatening statement, considering that he shared the video content in question publicly through the application called YouTube, which is an international platform and accessible in our country, and that the channel he shared has over one million subscribers, and the video content in question has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times."
LIMITS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The decision noted that freedom of expression and press freedom, like other fundamental rights and freedoms, are not unlimited. It emphasized that the limitation of freedom of expression and press freedom is regulated in international and national legislation, especially in Article 10/2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The decision reminded that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) monitors whether national authorities use this discretionary power in accordance with Article 10 of the ECHR through the cases brought before it. It stated, "Therefore, national authorities must consider the following when exercising their discretion regarding the limitation of freedom of expression: 'Whether the limitation is provided for by law, whether it is clearly defined, whether the limitation is compatible with the legitimate aims specified in Article 10/2 of the ECHR or provided for by law, whether the limitation is in accordance with the requirements of a contemporary democratic society, and whether there is no excessive limitation, and whether it is proportional and measured.'
In the decision, it was stated that the term "legitimate aim" generally refers to public safety, social morality, and other situations present in the laws of countries as written in Article 10/2 of the Convention. It was pointed out that what is attempted to be explained by the definition of "requirements of a contemporary democratic society" is that the expression or news that should not be limited, condemned, or left free should contain a discussion that attracts the public's interest, is current, and serves the public good, and should not incite hatred and hostility, promote violence, contain hatred or discrimination, glorify or legitimize crime and criminals, praise terrorism or separatist movements, and should not harm the personality rights, dignity, honor, and respect of others through insults, curses, or similar means.
"IN MOST MODERN COUNTRIES, DEFAMATION, WORDS THAT DAMAGE HONOR, DIGNITY, AND RESPECT ARE PUNISHED"
Although it is argued in the doctrine that member states should adopt the same standards in this regard, it was noted in the decision that value judgments vary from country to country.
"In most modern countries, defamation, words and statements that damage honor, dignity, and respect, obscene content, incitement to war, expressions aimed at changing the legal order through force, and those that create hatred, discrimination, enmity, and violence are not considered within the scope of freedom of thought and are punished as crimes. It is accepted that the press, which is obliged to raise awareness of individuals regarding the problems of society and humanity, to equip them with accurate and factual information, to objectively enlighten the public about the problems, events, and phenomena that occur, to initiate discussions that lead to thinking, to criticize and warn the authorities, and thus to supervise, uses its right in a lawful manner, provided that the information in the form of explanation, criticism, and value judgment is true and current, that there is a public interest and benefit in its disclosure, that there is a conceptual link between the way it is disclosed and its subject, and that no derogatory words are used in the disclosure."
The decision emphasized that the defendant's statements fell within the scope of expressions aimed at changing the legal order through force, creating hatred, discrimination, enmity, and violence. It was noted that the defendant's statements would not be evaluated within the scope of freedom of thought, and that the expression or news that should not be limited, condemned, or left free should contain a discussion that attracts the public's interest, is current, and serves the public good, and should not incite hatred and hostility, promote violence, contain hatred or discrimination, glorify or legitimize crime and criminals, praise terrorism or separatist movements, and should not harm the personality rights, dignity, honor, and respect of others, and that the principles were not adhered to, and that the expressions were considered to be inciting violence, thus it was understood that they did not fall within the scope of press and freedom of expression.