The user, a lawyer, was sentenced to an administrative fine for posts he made on his account on the social media platform Twitter. Applicant’s appeal against the administrative fine was rejected by the criminal court of peace. The applicant appealed the judge’s decision, which was also rejected on the grounds that there was no procedural or legal violation in the decision.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression was violated due to the imposition of an administrative fine on the grounds that he made a social media post that could lead to violence in sports.
Assessment of the Court
In order to determine whether the imposition of an administrative fine for the applicant’s social media post fulfills a compelling social need and whether it is proportionate, it is necessary to evaluate the content of the post, the medium in which it was made, its impact and its consequences. In the concrete case, the applicant made some allegations regarding the football match-fixing case in his social media post. As such, it was observed that the applicant shared his personal opinions on social media about a subject that concerns the society, attracts the attention of football fans and has been discussed for a long time.
However, when evaluating the applicant’s statement, it should be taken into account that the applicant was in a state of excitement, passion and dedication arising from being a supporter. The applicant stated that the statement “The struggle will be won through total struggle” should not be understood as a statement that the struggle for rights should be fought by resorting to physical violence, but as an expression of belief in the injustice done. By demonstrating the collective will of all F.Bahçe fans, F.Bahçe could be eliminated.
On the other hand, the existence of a finding or a fact that, following the applicant’s post, fans took to the streets, violent acts broke out or caused an environment that could jeopardize the safety and order of sports competitions has not been established by the Court. public authorities. Nor is there any finding in the decisions of the relevant authorities that the applicant’s statements were likely to offend or arouse feelings of hostility amo
Assessment of the Court
It should also be taken into consideration that the social media sharing platform in question is an area where instant feelings and thoughts are expressed, spread rapidly and used extensively, and that it is an area that becomes outdated and out of fashion in a short period of time. time. In addition, the fact that the number of followers of the social media account where the applicant made the post is not very high limits the objective effect of the statement on a wide audience. Therefore, the impact of the statement of opinion subject to the penalty was limited under the circumstances of the concrete case.
Considering that the applicant is a fan of F.Bahçe, that he serves as a manager in supporters’ associations and that the interference with freedom of expression is carried out through criminal sanctions, it is clear that he was punished with an administrative fine for social offenses. The posts made in the media would have a deterrent effect on the applicant’s subsequent expression of his views in discussions on the match-fixing case.
There is no valid and sufficient justification that the imposition of an administrative fine on the applicant for his social media posts fulfills a compelling social need. The interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Therefore, this interference does not comply with the requirements of a democratic society.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the freedom of expression was violated.
You can access our other articles and petition examples by clicking here.