The Ankara 11th Lower Criminal Court ordered the Telecommunications Directorate (TİB) to impose a ban on the website on Tuesday. Access to YouTube, a unit of Google Inc., was banned in Turkey in 2008 after users posted four videos denigrating Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey. A court on Saturday lifted the ban after a German-based firm removed the videos by using an automated copyright system designed by Google to protect copyrighted material.
On Monday YouTube said it had reposted the videos for access outside Turkey, arguing that such videos did not constitute copyright infringement. This balanced move, however, fell short of protecting the website from being banned again because this time the reason turned out to be videos of Baykal which led the former CHP leader to resign from his post in May.
Baykal’s lawyer, Muzaffer Yılmaz, said it is not right to associate the ban on YouTube, imposed because the videos of his client were posted on the site, with a “restrictive mentality.” In a written statement yesterday Yılmaz added that “it is natural that an attack on personal rights was avoided” with the ban.
Turkey has cited offenses including child pornography, insulting Atatürk and encouraging suicide as justification for blocking websites. In June, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said Turkey’s Internet law had been expanded to bar access to more than 5,000 sites. The YouTube ban has attracted particular criticism, and even President Abdullah Gül has used his Twitter page to condemn it, urging authorities to find a solution.
Speaking specifically on the latest ban, Gül said Turkey should not be a country that immediately resorts to prohibitions for these kinds of matters. “The world has already become very transparent. No one can isolate their country with custom walls or through other means. Our self-confidence is immense. Although some problems may arise because of that transparency, Turkey will overcome all obstacles with its self-confidence and resolute stance. There is no need for fear. Restrictions do not bring about the desired outcome, anyway,” he said.