Tenpin

The Yorkshireman
Turkey's top court says Wikipedia ban is violation of rights
Turkey's top court says Wikipedia ban is violation of rights - Turkey News

Turkey’s Constitutional Court ruled against the ban on access to Wikipedia, saying that it violates rights and freedoms.

The decision was taken on Dec. 26 by the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court for Wikipedia, the world's largest Internet encyclopedia.

Following this decision, the website, which has been inaccessible since April 2017 in Turkey, is expected to be accessible.

On April 29, 2017, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) said it had blocked access to Wikipedia in Turkey, citing a law allowing it to ban access to websites deemed obscene or a threat to national security.

The Constitutional Court ordered Ankara 1st Criminal Court of Peace, which made the decision on access ban, to unblock Wikipedia.

Following the ban, Wikipedia applied to Turkey’s Constitutional Court on May 9, 2017, after its appeal against the ruling that blocked access to it was rejected by a local court.

In 2018, Wikipedia launched a social media campaign with the hashtag “WeMissTurkey” to press for the removal of the block.

Due to the ban on access to the site, the individual application to the Constitutional Court by Wikimedia Foundation was replied by the Court on Dec. 26 as a violation of freedom of expression.
 

bickern

Member
Turkey's top court says Wikipedia ban is violation of rights
Still off but I use Wikiwand plugin so I always saw it For those that don't know about Wikiwand it is a proprietary software interface developed for viewing Wikipedia articles available for several popular web browsers as a free browser extension or mobile app.

Wikiwand: https://www.wikiwand.com/
 

Tenpin

The Yorkshireman
Turkey's top court says Wikipedia ban is violation of rights
Quick to block, slow to unblock even after a court decision :12:
 

Camden

Member
Turkey's top court says Wikipedia ban is violation of rights
I hear the Wikipedia ban has still not been lifted in Turkey even after the Supreme Court ruling ????

There is an even stranger ruling in case of Facebook....


Hikmet Adal
İstanbul - BIA News Desk
06 January 2020, Monday

The Court of Cassation has ruled that not only the person who posted insulting messages on Facebook, but also the owner of the line that the computer connected to Internet shall pay non-pecuniary damages.


Filing a lawsuit into the swearwords and insults posted on Facebook about himself/herself, the complainant demanded that the owners of the IP address be penalized as well.

The 2nd Civil Court of First Instance rejected the complainant's request for damages on the ground that the defendants did not know each other and there was no social or physical relation between the defendants that would necessitate them to do the act which was the subject matter of the suit for non-pecuniary damages.

Examining the case upon the objection of the complainant, the 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has ruled that not only the one who wrote the message, but also the one who owned the line shall be held accountable.


Speaking to bianet about the Court of Cassation verdict, Prof. Dr. Yaman Akdeniz from the Freedom of Expression Association (İFÖD) has underlined that IP addresses cannot be regarded as the single evidence in such cases.

Indicating that messages shared through common access points such as WiSPotter can cause problem in cases like this, Akdeniz has said:

"If the only evidence is the IP address and the defendant claims that he or she did not share the messages in question, it is open to debate how accurate it would be to determine it solely based on IP. Because the person might have shared this message, say, in a university or a cafe. In that case, will the owner of the cafe be found guilty? The person who posted the message should be identified first.

"If such a message is shared in a crowded house, in a student house or by guests, will the one who pays the bill be found guilty? Because IP address is not anything like a T.R. identity number. It changes. To me, more evidence is needed to bring charges. More evidence is needed especially in such criminal procedures."


https://bianet.org/english/freedom-...ufk-ZpsOiGkhSgsjqLZ-2Lqqx6MUUDIrhqV1MCIt5MPg8
 

Tenpin

The Yorkshireman
Turkey's top court says Wikipedia ban is violation of rights
Wikipedia is back :amen:
 

Latest Posts

Top Bottom