04.07.2026 18:40
The 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation overturned a 6-month prison sentence imposed by a local court on a defendant who called a politician "scum" on social media, finding it unlawful. The ruling emphasized that not every harsh criticism or disturbing remark directed at individuals can be considered insult.
The 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation overturned a conviction for the crime of "insult" against a defendant who called a politician "scum," finding it contrary to law.
LOCAL COURT IMPOSED A PENALTY, COURT OF CASSATION OVERTURNED
According to the chamber's decision, a person living in Ankara used the expression "scum" about a politician in a post on their social media account. Following the politician's complaint, a lawsuit was filed against the account owner for the crime of "insult."
The Ankara 41st Criminal Court of First Instance, which conducted the trial, stated that the act constituted a crime and sentenced the defendant to 6 months in prison for the alleged offense. After the defendant's appeal was also rejected, they appealed the decision.
The defendant stated that according to the Turkish Language Association, the word "scum" means "bad, harmful behavior or action, a bad situation, and a person who harms others," and argued that politicians must endure harsh criticism and that they did not act with the intent to insult.
The 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which reviewed the appeal, ruled that the word "scum" does not constitute insult and overturned the conviction against the defendant.
FROM THE REASONING OF THE DECISION
In the chamber's decision, it was stated that for the crime of insult, "the targeting of a person's honor, dignity, and reputation" is required, and that for this crime to occur, "the behavior must be aimed at humiliating the person."
The decision noted that whether an action is degrading is relative in some cases and may vary depending on time, place, and circumstances, and included the assessment: "Any harsh criticism or disturbing remarks directed at individuals should not be evaluated within the context of the crime of insult; the words must clearly constitute an imputation of a specific act or fact capable of offending honor, dignity, and reputation, or an act of swearing."
The decision stated that the defendant's word "scum" used in the post was of a "disturbing, rude, and discourteous manner of address" and noted that the elements of the crime of insult were not established in the case under trial.