Blocking access to an entire social media platform does not affect only the post alleged to be unlawful. News, educational content, professional publications and personal statements on the same platform may also become inaccessible. For this reason, intervention against a specific piece of content and closure of the entire platform cannot be assessed on the same footing. The legal basis of the decision, the competent authority, the content targeted and whether a narrower measure would be sufficient must each be examined separately.
The decision of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM) in Youtube LLC Corporation Service Company and others is one of the key examples of this distinction. However, that 2014 decision concerned the legislation of the time and a specific administrative act. In current disputes, the applicable provisions, including Article 8/A of Law No. 5651 added later, must be assessed separately.
Which rights does a block on an entire platform affect
Freedom of expression covers access to information as well as expression
Article 26 of the Constitution (Anayasa) guarantees the freedom to express and disseminate thoughts. In the internet environment, this guarantee matters not only for a person sharing their own views but also for access to the statements of others. Blocking a platform may also restrict the ability of users who produce no content to obtain information. The scope of protection for freedom of expression is explained in a separate article, and remedies against refusals of access to information are explained in the article on refusals of information requests.
However, it cannot be concluded that anyone may lodge an individual application in the abstract about any platform. The applicant must explain how they are currently and personally affected by the act of public authority. A regularly used educational channel, ongoing journalistic work or inaccessible professional content may be important in showing personal impact. Victim status and other admissibility conditions are examined separately.
A general ban also covers unrelated content
The claim that a particular video constitutes a crime does not mean that every other video on the platform is of the same nature. As the scope of the interference expands, so do the effects that the decision must justify. The administration or a judicial authority must explain what danger arises from which content and why the measure must be as broad as the one selected.
This review is not merely a technical question about addresses. A restriction at the URL level is linked to specific content, whereas blocking the entire platform affects the opportunities for expression and access to information of many people together. The fact that the user did not produce unlawful content makes it especially important to assess the indirect consequences of a general ban.
What happened in the YouTube decision of the Constitutional Court and how the ruling was reached
Despite a partial blocking order, the whole platform remained inaccessible
In the application of Youtube LLC Corporation Service Company and others [Plenary], Application No. 2014/4705, decided on 29 May 2014, access to YouTube had been blocked by the Telecommunications Communication Presidency (Telekomünikasyon İletişim Başkanlığı), which was then responsible. In the judicial process, the Gölbaşı Criminal Court of First Instance (Gölbaşı Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi) ordered that the block continue for fifteen URLs and ordered that the block affecting the entire site be lifted.
The Ankara 4th Administrative Court (Ankara 4. İdare Mahkemesi) also stayed the execution of the act. The Constitutional Court found that the court decisions had not been implemented and that the block across the platform continued. The review focused on the lawfulness of the administrative act, which at that time had been based on Article 8 of Law No. 5651. See §§ 60–64.
The core reason for the violation was the uncertainty of the legal basis
The Constitutional Court assessed that the scope and limits of the administrative power were not sufficiently clear, that blocking an entire website was not foreseeable for users, and that the possibility of a narrower interference had not been examined. In paragraph 64 of the decision, the following wording is used for the interference:
“does not have a sufficiently clear and explicit legal basis”
Quotation source: Youtube LLC Corporation Service Company and others, § 64. This wording is taken verbatim from the relevant part of the sentence in that paragraph; it is not presented as a complete sentence.
Summary of the Constitutional Court's ruling: It was decided by majority vote that the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 26 of the Constitution was violated. Hicabi Dursun and Celal Mümtaz Akıncı dissented. The ruling contains no separate finding of violation under Article 22 of the Constitution.
A copy of the decision was sent to the relevant administrative institutions for the purpose of remedying the violation and its consequences. The ruling also regulates litigation costs such as application fees and attorney fees. These items cannot be characterized as a ruling on moral compensation. The outcome, the reasoning and the provisions on costs of the decision should be read separately.
How the 2014 decision applies to current access blocks
Article 8/A, which entered into force later, must also be examined
Article 8/A, added to Law No. 5651 in 2015, sets out a mechanism based on specific grounds: the right to life, the security of life and property, national security, public order, the prevention of crime and the protection of public health. The provision is not a general content-removal route that can be used in every personal dispute. Current routes for removing content and blocking access are explained in the article on removing internet content or blocking access.
Under the provision, a judge may decide on the matter. In cases where delay would be prejudicial, the President of BTK may decide upon the request of the Presidency or the relevant ministries. The authority making the request and the authority making the blocking decision should not be treated as the same. The judicial approval of the administrative decision is also separately regulated.
The decision of the President of BTK must be submitted for approval to a criminal judge of peace (sulh ceza hâkimi) within twenty-four hours, and the judge must announce the decision within forty-eight hours; otherwise the decision lapses automatically. The period for implementing the decision, which is immediate and at most four hours, is different from these approval periods. When assessing time limits, the dates of the request, the decision, notification and judicial approval should be recorded separately.
URL-based measures are the rule; additional conditions apply to a whole site
Paragraph 3 of Article 8/A is based on blocking limited to the publication or section in which the violation occurred. It provides that a decision covering the entire website may be made where the relevant content cannot be blocked technically, or where blocking at the content level is not sufficient to prevent the violation.
Because of this provision, it is not accurate to say that every whole-site block now lacks any basis in law. However, the existence of a power in law does not mean that every use of it complies with the Constitution. The concrete content, technical necessity, duration of the interference, alternatives and the effectiveness of judicial review continue to be examined.
Author's assessment: The basic criterion that the YouTube decision carries into current disputes is that a broad interference requires a clear legal authority and a concrete justification. Treating the 2014 legal findings as if they were the present text of the law, or treating the present power as unlimited, are both mistaken.
What information is needed to prepare a file against an access block
First determine the type of decision and the procedure to apply
The fact that a platform is inaccessible does not by itself indicate the legal nature of the act. A judicial or administrative access ban, the platform's own content moderation, a technical fault and a bandwidth throttling sanction may each rest on different grounds. Before an application route is chosen, the date, number, authority and legal basis of the decision should be obtained.
The catalogue-of-offences mechanism in Article 8 of Law No. 5651, the provision in Article 8/A and Article 9/A on the confidentiality of private life should not be confused. Assuming that every application can be made to the same authority and on the same grounds may lead to missing the application period or the correct procedure. If the decision cannot be obtained, the date on which it was learned of and the information requests made should also be documented.
| Information to examine | Function in the legal assessment |
|---|---|
| Authority, date, number and legal basis of the decision | Determines the competent authority, the procedure to apply and the route of objection. |
| Full URLs of the target content | Shows which publications the general block is based on. |
| Technical explanation and alternative measures | Tests whether blocking the whole platform is necessary. |
| Dates of notification, learning and judicial approval | Makes possible the review of time limits and judicial control. |
| Records showing the effect on the applicant | Contributes to the assessment of personal harm and victim status. |
An objection must respond to the specific reasoning
The fact that the decision refers to national security cannot be met merely by reminding the authority of freedom of expression. It must be shown which risk is alleged in relation to which content, why that risk requires blocking the entire platform, and whether the position of unrelated content and users was assessed.
Where a comparison is possible, information may be provided on why URL-level blocking would technically be sufficient. However, a method should not be asserted without a technical basis showing that it is actually applicable. The request should be made specific in line with the information in the file: complete removal, narrowing of the scope, or re-evaluation.
Compliance with judicial decisions is also important
One of the important facts in the YouTube decision is that the general block continued despite removal and suspension-of-execution decisions. In a current file as well, the date of any favorable decision, its notification to the institution and the subsequent implementation should be tracked separately. Obtaining a decision alone does not prove that actual access has been restored.
Access status can be shown with dated records. However, a connection problem on a single device should not be treated as conclusive proof that a nationwide block continues. The distinction between the technical observation and the legal consequence should be preserved.
Application deadlines and the limits of individual application
The objection route against a judge's decision is determined by examining the relevant special provisions together with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Article 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), the general period for objection is two weeks from learning of the decision, unless a special provision applies. The transitional rule for decisions made before 1 June 2024 and any special periods must also be taken into account. The seven-day period in an older article should not be carried over directly to the current file.
For individual application to the Constitutional Court, the exhaustion of ordinary remedies and the thirty-day time limit are important. The Constitutional Court's assessment of the effectiveness of remedies in the YouTube decision does not permit skipping ordinary routes in every new access block. The remedies used, the answers received, whether the decisions were implemented and the personal effect on the applicant should be explained. The general conditions for individual application are set out in the article on conditions for individual application to the Constitutional Court.
A judicial decision and an administrative act should not be treated as if they followed the same procedure. Especially where there are several decisions or different legal bases, the competent authority and the time limit are determined separately for each act. When preparing an application, the decision texts and notification documents should be preserved alongside screenshots.
Conclusion
Unlawful content on one platform does not by itself justify blocking the entire platform. In the YouTube decision, the Constitutional Court found that freedom of expression was violated because the specific administrative act lacked a sufficiently clear and foreseeable legal basis. This conclusion should be used while keeping the 2014 facts and legislative context in view.
In current disputes, it must be investigated which legal mechanism the decision rests on, whether the conditions for covering the whole site are actually met, and whether effective judicial review is provided. The strength of a legal assessment depends less on general criticism of blanket bans than on documenting the relationship between the scope of the decision and its concrete justification. For measures connected with expression, the article on judicial control and freedom of expression and the article on rights qualified by Constitutional Court decisions may also be reviewed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an entire platform be blocked because of a few items of content?
Article 8/A provides for the possibility of a whole-site decision where content-level blocking is technically impossible or cannot prevent the violation. These conditions must be present in the concrete case, and the interference must comply with constitutional safeguards. The existence of a few items of content is not sufficient justification on its own.
Does the YouTube decision make every access block unlawful?
No. The decision was given within the framework of the specific act and the legislation of 2014. Each current act is examined separately for its basis and reasoning. The findings of the decision on lawfulness, scope and narrower measures nevertheless remain important for current reviews.
Does a ministry decide on an access block alone?
Under the mechanism for cases where delay would be prejudicial in Article 8/A, the authority that decides on a request from the Presidency or a relevant ministry is the President of BTK. The judicial approval process provided for in the law then follows. The request, the administrative decision and the judicial approval are different acts.
Can one apply directly to the Constitutional Court?
The rule is that effective ordinary remedies must be exhausted. An exceptional assessment of the remedies in one decision cannot be applied automatically to every file. Personal impact, the remedies used and time-limit conditions should be assessed together.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), Youtube LLC Corporation Service Company and others [Plenary], Application No. 2014/4705, 29 May 2014, in particular §§ 59–64 and Section V (ruling). Official decision record · Full text of the decision reviewed.
- Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), Summaries of Decisions on Qualified Rights, section on blocking access to social media platforms. Source book.
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 13, 26, 138 and 148; Law No. 6216, Articles 45–47 and 50.
- Law No. 5651, Article 8/A; provision added by Article 29 of Law No. 6639 dated 27 March 2015. Accessible publication of the article text.
- Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Article 268; amendments and transitional provisions under Law No. 7499. Accessible publication of the objection article.