Severe criticism directed at the State or public policy cannot be treated as propaganda for a terrorist organization merely because it is harsh or one-sided. By contrast, statements that legitimise, praise or encourage the use of force, violence or threats by a terrorist organization are subject to a different criminal-law assessment. A clear link must be established between the elements of the offence and the concrete words or acts.
This article is based on Article 7 of Law No. 3713 on the Fight against Terrorism (Terörle Mücadele Kanunu) and on the decision of the Constitutional Court (AYM) in Zübeyde Füsun Üstel and Others [Plenary Assembly], Application No. 2018/17635, July 26, 2019. Constitutional protection is not the same as adopting the content of a statement. The operative part and the majority reasoning of the decision are kept separate from the dissenting opinions and from the author's assessment.
Which legal element is examined in the offence of propaganda?
Article 7(2) of Law No. 3713 addresses propaganda linked to the methods of an organization that involve force, violence or threats. Forms of legitimisation, praise and encouragement must be connected to a concrete statement. The mere mention of an organization's name or criticism of public authorities does not replace this examination.
The law also contains specific provisions on certain conduct. For this reason, files cannot be assessed by reducing them to a single sentence. The act on which the accusation rests and the provision it relies on must be clearly identified. News reporting, criticism, slogans, the sharing of images and other conduct are examined in their own context.
The 2019 amendment provides that opinions expressed for the purpose of criticism, or that do not exceed the limits of news reporting, do not constitute an offence. This safeguard does not mean that all content is protected merely because it is labelled "news". The actual function of the statement and its relationship to the statutory elements are assessed.
Are organization membership, praise for an offence and propaganda the same?
No. Different offences have different elements and different subjects of proof. The fact that a post gives rise to a propaganda allegation does not mean that the person's membership of the organization has been automatically proven. Likewise, if a statement is held insufficient for one particular offence, this does not mean that any other legal allegation can never be examined.
Legal classification: The name of an offence is not a description of the event. It must be shown which words, in which context, constitute which statutory act. The reasoning of a conviction must make this connection reviewable. A general political opinion or a person's identity cannot take the place of the elements of the act.
What was examined in the Zübeyde Füsun Üstel and Others decision?
The applicants argued that their conviction for propaganda for a terrorist organization, based on a declaration they had signed, violated their freedom of expression. The Constitutional Court discussed the harsh, one-sided and disturbing character of the declaration. It also examined whether the statements showed that the organization's violent methods were legitimised or encouraged.
The decision does not disregard the need to combat terrorism and to protect public security. The focus of the examination is the relationship between the legitimate aim and the concrete grounds for interfering with freedom of expression. Agreeing with the critical content of the declaration is different from accepting that it may be protected under freedom of expression (§§ 123–126).
Direct quotation from the decision
"for a finding of propaganda to be reached, an objective and direct link must be established between the elements of the alleged offence and the act"
Where the quotation appears: AYM, Zübeyde Füsun Üstel and Others [Plenary Assembly], Application No. 2018/17635, July 26, 2019, § 117. The relevant part of the sentence is reproduced here in English translation.
The Court found that the lower courts did not make a sufficient assessment of the manner in which the declaration legitimised, praised or encouraged the use of violence and threats (§§ 120–122). Attributing indirect or subjective meanings to statements must not replace the link with the statutory element.
The Court's ruling and the place of the dissenting opinions
The Court's ruling: By majority vote, the Court found a violation of freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 26 of the Constitution. To remedy the violation, retrial before the relevant courts and non-pecuniary compensation to the applicants were ordered. The decision on admissibility and the vote on the merits are different; the finding of violation was not reached unanimously.
The decision contains dissenting opinions. These present different views on the context of the events and on the assessment of the interference. However, a dissenting opinion cannot be presented as the reasoning or the ruling adopted by the majority of the Court. When writing about the decision, it must be indicated which sentence belongs to the majority and which to a dissent.
Our assessment: The practical value of the decision lies not in declaring particular words free or prohibited in every case, but in requiring that the elements of the offence be assessed one by one and linked to concrete statements. This method both protects freedom of expression and makes criminal judgments reviewable.
Why is context decisive for a statement?
The whole text and the purpose of the statement
A sentence may acquire a different meaning when separated from what precedes and follows it. A slogan quoted in a news report is not the same as supporting that slogan. An image shown for the purpose of criticism does not in every case indicate that the message it carries is endorsed. The relationship between the source, the commentary and the statement must be examined.
An intention the person later declares is not sufficient by itself; the content as it appears externally is also assessed. On the other hand, selecting only the most negative meaning and excluding other reasonable interpretations may also create a problem of reasoning. Language, context, the sharing chain and the intended audience must be considered together.
Place, time, target audience and likely effect
The period in which a statement is made, ongoing events, the speaker's role and the circle the message reaches may all be important. An allegation of incitement to violence must be linked to the content of the text and to the circumstances. No general conclusion can be drawn that actual violence must occur in every case; the statutory element and the assessment of danger must be made concrete.
The harshness of public debate is not, on its own, a ground for punishment. On the other hand, presenting a statement that legitimises violent methods as criticism does not remove its character. What is decisive is a reasoned assessment of the message as it appears externally and of the statutory act.
How are academic statements, news reporting and political criticism distinguished?
Expressing views on public matters is part of freedom of expression for academics. In the Zübeyde Füsun Üstel and Others decision, the link with academic freedom was also assessed (§§ 110–113). However, an academic title does not mean that a statement is exempt from all legal review.
In journalism, the news value of the statement, the manner of its presentation and whether the violence is endorsed are important. Reporting a statement made by an organization is not the same event as praising the organization's methods. This distinction must be drawn from the whole publication, including the headline and any images.
Political criticism may question the practices of public authorities in harsh terms. A finding that a statement is wrong, unjust or one-sided does not by itself constitute the elements of the offence of propaganda. The Constitutional Court's review addresses the constitutional conditions for interfering with a fundamental right, rather than voting on whether the political opinion is correct.
How are evidence and attribution assessed in digital posts?
Whose account it is, who made the post, and the date and integrity of the content must be examined. Screenshots may be important; however, claims such as alterability, incomplete context or similarity between accounts must be assessed in the concrete case. Once attribution of the account is accepted, the dispute may shift to the legal character of the content.
Re-sharing, liking, commenting and producing original content are not the same conduct. What each of them means and which statutory act it is linked to must be explained. Where there are many posts, the posts relied on for a conviction must be identifiable by date and content; a vague collective reference makes review difficult.
In the defence, the full sharing sequence, the original source of the news, the relevant historical context and the purpose of the statement may be shown. Obtaining evidence by accessing another person's account without permission, or by altering records, is not a lawful method. Preserving the original records and presenting them in accordance with procedure is important.
What should be considered in investigation, trial and individual application?
The indictment or the reasoning of the judgment must show which statement is linked to which element. The defence should not be confined to general sentences about freedom of expression; it must respond, at the level of content and context, to the allegation of legitimisation, praise or encouragement. Where a specific act provision is invoked, its conditions must be discussed separately.
In investigation and prosecution, the assistance of counsel, challenges to evidence, the reasoned decision and legal remedies are important. If protective measures such as detention are applied, their conditions are not the same examination as the merits of the offence. The fact that an offence is alleged does not mean that every protective measure is automatically necessary. The review of judicial control obligations applied in such investigations from the standpoint of freedom of expression is examined in the article on judicial control and freedom of expression.
An individual application to the Constitutional Court is, as a rule, made within thirty days of notification of the final decision, after effective remedies have been exhausted. The application must show which essential objection the courts left unanswered and why they could not establish the link between the statement and the statutory element. The Constitutional Court is not an ordinary appellate body that re-weighs every item of evidence. Whether expression and meeting activities may be treated as evidence in a file concerning membership of an organization is examined in the article on how expression and meeting activities are assessed in membership of a terrorist organization offences.
If a violation is found, redress follows the route stated in the judgment. Retrial aims to remove the grounds of the violation. The compensation amount awarded in this decision cannot be used as a fixed tariff or as a guarantee of success in later files.
For further detail, see our articles on Constitutional Court decisions on qualified rights, the boundary between freedom of expression and insult and the principle of legality of offences and penalties. Our firm's work in this field is presented on the Constitutional Court and ECtHR applications page.
Conclusion
The boundary between propaganda and criticism is determined by the objective link between the elements of the offence and a concrete statement. The decision in Zübeyde Füsun Üstel and Others shows that harsh or unpopular opinion cannot by itself be the ground for punishment. The link with violent methods, the context and the reasoning must be clearly set out, and the majority ruling, the dissenting opinions and the author's commentary must be kept separate.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is criticising the State's security policy by itself propaganda?
No. The link between the statement and the concrete elements of the law must be shown. Harshness or one-sidedness does not by itself establish that link.
Is the mere mention of an organization's name sufficient for an offence?
That conclusion cannot be drawn on its own. The content, the context and the statutory act alleged must be examined. Specific provisions on particular conduct, where they exist, are assessed separately.
Is reporting the news the same as propaganda?
No. The purpose of the reporting, the manner of presentation and whether the message is endorsed are important. The label "news" alone does not determine the legal character of the content.
Was the Zübeyde Füsun Üstel and Others decision given unanimously?
The finding of violation was made by majority vote. The decision on admissibility and the vote on the merits must not be confused.
Does protection under freedom of expression mean that the statement is considered correct?
No. Protection of a statement under the Constitution does not mean that the Court endorses it. The examination concerns the legal conditions for interfering with the statement.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Articles 13, 26, 27, 28 and 38.
- Law No. 3713 on the Fight against Terrorism (Terörle Mücadele Kanunu), Article 7; relevant amendments made by Laws No. 6459 and No. 7188.
- Constitutional Court, Zübeyde Füsun Üstel and Others [Plenary Assembly], Application No. 2018/17635, July 26, 2019, in particular §§ 108–126, the operative part and the dissenting opinions; access to the link may require a session.
- Ministry of Justice, UYAP Legislation and Case Law: decision text reflecting the amendments to Article 7(2), on the 2019 safeguard for news reporting and criticism.
- Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, Articles 45–50.
- Constitutional Court, Qualified Rights: Summaries of Decisions (Nitelikli Haklar: Karar Özetleri), June 2025, the sections on freedom of expression and terrorist propaganda.