Turkey's Wikipedia Ban Violates Rights, Top Court Rules

The Constitutional Court in Ankara ruled that the nationwide access ban on Wikipedia constitutes a violation of free speech, state-run Anadolu Agency reported on Thursday. From a report: The 10-to-6 majority ruling follows Wikimedia Foundation's application to the top court. Authorities are expected to lift the ban, Haberturk website said. Turkey's information technologies watchdog BTK blocked access to the ubiquitous online encyclopedia that lets users edit its content in April 2017. The reason was Wikipedia's refusal to remove content that accused the government of cooperating with terrorist organizations.

Uh oh

[Nidi62]

Looks like the Turkish government is about to find out they missed a few Gulen supporters at the top of their judiciary during that "coup" attempt.

Re:

[Carewolf]

Yep. Sounds like a few extra arrests days of "terrorists" will follow soon.

Re:

[Baki]

This Turkish blind nationalism is hard to bear.
Why do so many people seem to loose their senses when it comes to matters of their country of origin?!?

Re: Uh oh

[MrNaz]

I'm not Turkish I'm just judging countries in the world equally.

As for nationalism... Turks have nothing on the flag-waving heart-holding self-declared greatest nation on Earth.

Re:

[Brett Buck]

A situation that will soon be rectified.

10-6 opinion

[Arthur, KBE]

Why don't they ever identify the dissenters by name, in this case, the six people who are opposed to humans speaking freely in Turkey. Please **identify** these six people, by name, as I think that is important in a society that claims to be democratic.

Re:

[Rockoon]

There is a name, Eric Ciaramella, that the "free" American press cant utter.

Just figured I'd point that out.

Re:

[DNS-and-BIND]

Who is he? A disgusting Islamophobe, I'd guess. And well they should not mention someone like that who gives aid and comfort to the neo-nazi right.

Re:

[Martin Blank]

Ciaramella is alleged to be the whistleblower over the Ukraine call. He's not mentioned by many outlets because a) only a couple of outlets know the identity of the person for sure and they're not releasing it, and b) because if Ciaramella isn't the person, it brings attention on someone potentially uninvolved.

Search his name and you'll find him mentioned all over conservative and right-wing media outlets from the Washington Examiner to OANN and everything in between. It's part of the attempt to dissect eve

Alternately

[Brett Buck]

He's a "whistlblower" who didn't witness anything, only heard about it, was deposed in a closed setting in a hearing entirely controlled by democrat operatives, and is now being hidden, ostensibly because he is in "danger", but conveniently also prevents his actually testifying in an open hearing, where his testimony would be summarily dismissed as hearsay. Oh, he's a member of the spy community, too, but I am sure he would be above just making something up for the benefit of politics, that just wouldn't b

Re:

[Brett Buck]

He's the intelligence operative "whistleblower" who had it on third-hand information that some one told someone who had told someone that OrangeManBad

Re:

[DRJlaw]

There is a name, Eric Ciaramella, that the "free" American press cant utter.

Yay! You admit that the New York Post [nypost.com] is not the free American press. Let's see how many other conservative propaganda rags are captive to Trumpism with a Google news search [google.com]. Ooooo! Breitbart [breitbart.com] is in the unfree (un?)American press pool too!

Re:

[franzrogar]

When you get the names of the ones that rejected the free speech, add them to the article in Wikipedia... Oh, the irony...

all those middle-east/islamic countries

[FudRucker]

violate human rights wholesale everyday, islam is a violation of human rights. any religion that has a holy book that advocates murder & genocide should be illegal,

Re:

[Neddies]

Islam says women are shit. Go ahead and insult Islam in an American university. All of a sudden, the SJW's come pouring out of the woodwork and defend Islam.

Re:

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The silencing of others through government power is alive and well in the US.

Feminists used to complain that the more clothing women were required to wear, the more oppressive. But that left them in the ram of persuasion.

But whining of hurt feelings (this has gone way beyond pervasive and repeated harrassment issues) yields actual government censorship results.

Re:

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Realm of persuasion

Re:

[Send it to the newts]

any religion that has a holy book that advocates murder & genocide should be illegal,

I agree. Let's ban the bible immediately.

Re:

[Send it to the newts]

I agree entirely. It's just that the Bible does not [skepticsan...dbible.com]. The point being, while there is plenty of bad shit in the Quran [skepticsan...dbible.com], that stuff is hardly unique to Islam. The Bible is just as bad [skepticsan...dbible.com].

Re:

[Send it to the newts]

Thankyou, but I am aware of the common origins of the Abrahamic religions. I don't see how that undermines my point about judging them by the same standard. If anything, it only strengthens my point that, if you were to ban one of them for what's in the Torah, you'd have to ban them all to be consistent. Seems that the OP is, to my surprise, comfortable with that, but I am not.

Re:

[FudRucker]

i agree, the old testament bible is just as bad as the koran AKA quran

Re:

[Send it to the newts]

Okay, to be clear, I was being sarcastic when I suggested banning Christianity. In fact, the majority of Christian, Muslims, Jews, etc. have managed to find a way to ignore or gloss over the evil bits of their holy books and follow their religions without slaughtering heretics. To start banning whole religions based on the actions of a few extremists is to become no better than those extremists. Religions should generally be left in peace to die off naturally instead.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion