They turned the law upside down for Fatih Altaylı
The unlawful aspects of Fatih Altaylı’s arrest are being followed by new blows to journalism. The İstanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office acted ex officio to block access to videos on Fatih Altaylı’s YouTube channel and to shut the channel down.
The reason was that in a broadcast on 5 August 2025, in which his empty chair was on screen, Fatih Altaylı voiced certain allegations about the resolution process. The next day, 6 August 2025, the prosecutor’s office requested access blocking for a programme featuring former AKP MP Emin Şirin, citing “protection of national security and public order”. The prosecutor did not even specify which statements in the broadcast were the reason for the request. In other words, he did not even write the news report of what he considered to be a crime. Yet stating this clearly is a legal obligation. Lawyers and journalists had to guess which statements were deemed criminal.
The prosecutor’s office based this censorship request on Article 8/A of Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publications. The title of this article is: “Removal of content and/or blocking of access in cases where delay would be prejudicial.”
In fact, the İstanbul 3rd Criminal Judgeship of Peace, which assessed this request, included the full text of Article 8/A of Law No. 5651 in its ruling. In this law, enacted during the AKP era, it is stated very clearly that a publication blocking decision can only be taken upon the request of the President or the relevant ministries, following a criminal complaint by the President of the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK). In other words, the prosecutor has no right to make such a request ex officio.
Moreover, the İstanbul 3rd Criminal Judgeship of Peace, which examined the prosecutor’s request for an internet access block, referred to Article 8/A of Law No. 5651 after stating “It has been considered”. The law cited in the ruling says exactly this:
“In cases where delay would be prejudicial, upon the request of the Presidency or the ministries concerned with the protection of national security and public order, the prevention of the commission of a crime, or the protection of general health, the President may decide to remove the content and/or block access to the publication on the internet.”
The law repeatedly emphasises that after the BTK President files a criminal complaint, the prosecutor’s office can take action.
The law is this clear. The judge must make a decision in accordance with it. In other words, the law explicitly requires telling the prosecutor’s office “You have no authority”. But in Turkey now, there is no law, and the law itself has no significance.
The İstanbul Criminal Judgeship of Peace wrote “for the reasons stated above”, cited the law, and made the following decision:
“To accept the request of the İstanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office dated 6 August 2025,
To block access to the said broadcast and Fatih Altaylı’s broadcast and to remove the content pursuant to Article 8/A of Law No. 5651…”
Although the criminal complaint should have come from the BTK, the court even ordered that the decision be sent by the prosecutor’s office to the President of the Information and Communication Technologies Authority. In other words, the law was applied completely in reverse by a judge.
But the tragicomic judicial process was not over. The prosecutor’s office had forgotten to request the complete closure of Fatih Altaylı’s YouTube channel. The next day, it sent a request for the complete blocking of the channel. Since the law had already been turned upside down once, the İstanbul 6th Criminal Judgeship of Peace again accepted the request, which the İstanbul Prosecutor’s Office had no authority to make, in violation of the law. Without a request from the President or the relevant ministers and without the criminal complaint that should have been made by the BTK President, a decision was made to block access to Fatih Altaylı’s YouTube channel. Moreover, although the prosecutor had not requested content removal, the judge also ruled for content removal.
While a ban was imposed on Fatih Altaylı’s broadcast and YouTube channel “for the protection of national security and public order”, another investigation was launched against him. In this investigation, he was accused of the offence of “Publicly Disseminating Misleading Information”. This was also a bitter contradiction.
In short, all those volumes of law books and statutes were written in vain.
In a judiciary where even laws are applied in reverse, no one is safe anymore.
Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Fatih Altaylı için yasayı ters düz ettiler, published in BirGün newspaper on August 13, 2025.
