Events
The applicants are the reporter, owner, and publisher of a national newspaper. Th e October 2, 2013 edition of the newspaper contained an article titled “They made the martyr’s daughter cry!” The headline of the article read, “A 10th-grade girl wearing a headscarf was subjected to pressure and oppression at her school.”
The Criminal Court of First Instance rejected the plaintiff’s claim for damages against the defendants, stating that the relevant news reports had violated their personal rights. After the decision was appealed, the Regional Court of Justice ruled that the defendants should pay a total of 5,000 TL in damages jointly and severally.
Claims
The applicants claim that their freedom of expression and press freedom were violated by the compensation decision against them due to the news published in a national newspaper.
The Court’s Assessment
T he Regional Court of Justice stated, “Some ignorant people behave hostile towards women wearing headscarves, as if they were venting their hatred and resentment just to satisfy their egos. Here is a new example of this…“ The court concluded that ”such statements do not fall within the scope of the right to criticism and freedom of expression and that the inclusion of the plaintiff’s photograph created a false impression that the plaintiff was hostile to religion and headscarves.” The court ruled that the news article as a whole did not correspond to reality and constituted an attack on the plaintiff’s personal rights.
One of the main issues cited by the appellate court as grounds for the compensation claim was that the allegations that the plaintiff teacher mistreated the student for coming to school wearing a headscarf and that the student faced negative attitudes in this context did not reflect the truth. Considering the events as a whole, it was assessed that the individuals who were the source of the allegations that the student was subjected to severe pressure and threats because she wore a headscarf at school were shown in the news reports, regardless of whether they were true or not, that the journalist acted in accordance with his responsibilities in this regard, and that the factual allegations were not contrary to the apparent reality and were not baseless.
With the amendment to the dress code regulation for students in schools affiliated with the Ministry of National Education, middle and high school students were allowed to attend school wearing headscarves as of September 27, 2014. Prior to the amendment, the issue of whether students of this age could attend school wearing headscarves was widely debated and these debates had a significant impact on public opinion. In the recent past, prior to the regulation change, news articles were written about this event, which concerned the vast majority of society.
It is acceptable that the statements in the news articles were disturbing to the plaintiff. However, according to the Constitutional Court, public officials must be more tolerant of criticism of their actions. Subjecting the actions and omissions of public officials to strict scrutiny and allowing citizens to contribute to decision-making processes is one of the indispensable conditions of a democratic society. In this context, the fact that an expressed opinion is harsh, criticizes the authorities harshly, uses sharp language, or is even one-sided, contradictory, and subjective does not mean that it cannot benefit from the protection of freedom of expression.
The statements considered by the Regional Court of Justice were found to be harsh criticism by teachers of a student wearing a headscarf at school, aimed at drawing attention to this issue and related to a debate in the public interest. Furthermore, it was understood that the student was warned in front of her classmates for wearing a headscarf and that the plaintiff was subjected to harsh criticism in the news due to her own behavior; in this context, it was concluded that the statements in the news did not constitute an unwarranted attack.
Despite these findings, the Regional Court of Justice, without discussing the circumstances in which the statements used in the application were made, the context of the statements, and their factual basis, decided to award damages against the applicants by taking certain statements out of context and without considering that they had sufficient factual basis.
When the Regional Court’s decision is evaluated together with the findings of the Constitutional Court, it cannot be said that the court struck a fair balance between the applicants’ freedom of expression and the plaintiff’s right to honor and reputation. The reasons given by the Regional Court to justify accepting the case against the applicants were found to be inappropriate and insufficient, and it was concluded that the restrictions imposed on the applicants’ freedom of expression and freedom of the press under Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution did not correspond to a legitimate social need.
The Constitutional Court ruled that freedom of expression and freedom of the press had been violated.