Explore

Coskun Ak, a former moderator of various forums operated by Superonline, one of the largest ISPs in Turkey was sentenced to 40 months in prison due to a particular message about human rights abuses in Turkey sent to a Superonline forum by an anonymous poster. The message that triggered a prosecution under article 159 of the Turkish Criminal Code was sent anonymously in May 1999. The court decided to sentence Ak for insulting and weakening the Republic of Turkey, the Military Forces, the Security Forces, and the Ministry of Justice, to one year in prison for each insult separately, totaling four years. Later, his sentence was reduced to 10 months for each insult, totaling 40 months. And on 12 March 2002 Istanbul Criminal Court No. 4 passed a second verdict against Coskun Ak. The sentence of 40 months' imprisonment was...

Bianet.Org: Internet Related Court Decisions & Bans, http://www.bianet.org/konu/internet-censorship EFF.Org: Turkey, https://www.eff.org/search/site/Turkey Engelli Web.Com (Restricted Web Sites), http://engelliweb.com European Court of Human Rights: Turkish Page, http://echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Turkey_ENG.pdf Human Rights Watch: Turkish Page, http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/turkey Internet Law Turkey.Com: Articles, http://www.internetlawturkey.com/articles-in-english Presidency of Telecommunications and Communication (TIB), http://www.tib.gov.tr/en/ Information and Telecommunication Authority (ITCA) (BTK in Turkish), http://eng.btk.gov.tr Safe Internet, http://www.guvenliweb.org.tr/index_eng.php?Pg=1 Turkish Government CyberSecurity Website, http://www.cybersecurity.gov.tr/regulations.html

This is one of series of country reports prepared for the Council of Europe in 2015. Other countries' reports, and responses from national governments, are available here. The studies undertake to present the laws and, in so far as information is easily available, the practices concerning the filtering, blocking and takedown of illegal content on the internet.

This is a UK government White Paper, setting out the plans to provide for a major reform of the obligations of various online services towards illegal content and user safety. It is under consultation until the 1st of July 2019. The core of the new proposals is a novel, statutory duty of care, tied to tackling illegal content in an adequate and efficient manner, as well ensuring the safety of the service's users. This duty is to be placed on a wide category of entities - “companies that allow users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online”. The exact content of the duty in question is not specified yet - this is to occur through a series of corresponding codes of practice. For now, the possible obligations include: operating specific notice & takedown procedures, with corresponding...

This is a Supreme Court decision concerning the allocation of compliance costs tied to website blocking injunctions, granted against trademark-infringing websites. In the course of the proceedings, five types of corresponding costs (thus far borne, in similar cases, by the appelant Internet Service Providers) were identified: “i) the cost of acquiring and upgrading the hardware and software required to block the target sites; (ii) the cost of managing the blocking system, including customer service, and network and systems management; (iii) the marginal cost of the initial implementation of the order, which involves processing the application and configuring the ISP’s blocking systems; (iv) the cost of updating the block over the lifetime of the orders in response to notifications from the rights holders, which...

This is a key decision on the application of the CJEU judgement in Google Spain. The case combines two nominative deindexing claims against Google Search. The first one (NT1 - claimants were anonymised), was raised by a businessman who was convicted of conspiracy to falsely account in the late 90s. His conviction was spent in 2014, on the basis of the amended Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Consequently, he requested that Google remove specific links leading to online sources reporting on his conviction. The second claimant (NT2) was also a businessman, who was convicted of using phone and telephone hacking to trace individuals seeking to disrupt his business. His conviction was spent in 2014 in a manner similar to NT1's, and he made a similar request to Google. Google refused to delist the search results in both...