YOUTUBE BAN HITS JUDICIARY CREDIBILITY
Today’s Zaman
June 3 2008
Turkey
The latest in a series of bans on the popular video sharing Web site
YouTube has left some asking if the ill-informed move will have any
repercussions on the judiciary’s credibility.
It all started when a Turkish Internet user uploaded a video to
the popular video sharing Web site YouTube last year, saying that
homosexuality began in Greece and that all Greek men are gay. An
angry Greek user responded with an equally childish video, claiming
that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic,
was gay. Then came the Turkish newspapers, declaring a "virtual war"
between Turks and Greeks on YouTube and calling on Turkish users to
"drown" the Greek videos insulting Ataturk by sending messages of
protest to YouTube administrators urging them to remove the clips.
The newspapers’ online reports on the matter included links to the
videos in question and, not surprisingly, the "virtual war" reports
helped them increase the traffic on the YouTube clips, thus increasing
the number of "clicks" they got. But when the Turkish public set its
attention on the Internet fight after newspaper and television reports,
so did the prosecutors. YouTube was banned by a court decision over
the insulting video and, although access was restored later following
the removal of the clip, banning the popular video sharing Web site
became a popular trend in the months that followed. YouTube has been
banned several times since then — the latest court decision being
issued on May 5 — mostly on the same grounds: insulting Ataturk.
Turkish Internet users trying to access YouTube get an error message
saying that access to the site has been blocked under a court decision,
without stating the court ruling and explaining why the popular Web
site has been banned. The ban does raise questions on freedom of
expression and has been heavily criticized by human rights activists,
particularly in the Western media. But Turkish experts are worried
more about another question: Will the ban, almost impracticable
because of dozens of other ways available to access YouTube, hurt
the credibility of the judiciary.
Despite widespread discontent with the ban, few users in Turkey have
raised their voice against the ongoing limitations. The silence is
not that of assent but of indifference: Despite the court ban that
blocks access to YouTube, the site can be reached through dozens
of other sites. Internet users are enthusiastic about sharing with
other users lists of proxy servers that allow one to access YouTube
and those not yet familiar with the simple tricks to evade the ban
can learn through a quick Internet search.
Nongovernmental organizations, lawyers and Internet professionals
agree that banning YouTube is both incorrect and impractical, saying
the ban is no different than an ostrich sticking its head in the sand
or burning an entire library because of a single book. They warn the
ban might in the end harm the courts the most since the failure in
implementing it in practice is likely to undermine public confidence
in the judiciary.
Speaking to Today’s Zaman, Turkish Informatics Association (TBD)
Chairman Turhan MenteÅ~_ emphasizes the lack of efficient laws
on information technology and complains that a court unfamiliar
with the Internet and its technology is allowed to issue decisions
regulating them.
"The practical implementation of the decision is impossible. Before
issuing a law, they have to think about its feasibility. Otherwise,
its credibility in the eyes of people decreases to a large extent,"
he says. Noting that blocking YouTube damages the prestige of the
state, MenteÅ~_ said, "While there are many more Web sites that
have the same type of videos — deemed to be humiliating Ataturk —
on the net, only YouTube is blocked because it is very popular."
Comparing the blocking of YouTube to ostriches burying their heads
into the sand, he said the Web site is accessible everywhere other
than Turkey and that there are other ways to access to the site from
within Turkey. He also indicated that Turkey does not suffer from the
lack of laws on prohibition of online child pornography and online
gambling, yet regulations on information sharing Web sites like
YouTube are quite limited. Unlike foreign press comments linking
the YouTube ban to the problem of freedom of expression in Turkey,
MenteÅ~_ claimed that YouTube and cases of freedom of expression,
such as court cases brought against novelist Orhan Pamuk and slain
Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, have nothing in common because
there is no state security implication in the case of YouTube.
"The court must abstain from decisions which will show it to be
incompetent," said Ozgu Eralp, a lawyer and a member of the Ankara Bar
Association. "If the decision cannot be implemented, it will bring to
mind questions about its power. Is it a crime to access YouTube via
other Web sites? We do not know this. There is no indication about
this in the law."
He also recalled that it is technically possible to block only
problematic videos, yet that would require technical competence
and information on the use of particular software. "Sometimes it is
necessary to block Web sites exhibiting child porn videos or abetting
drug usage or suicide. Therefore we cannot say that we are totally
against blocking Web sites. However, YouTube is a beneficial site,
and its block prevents us from accessing necessary information,"
Eralp said.
In a panel discussion organized in early May by the Ankara Bar
Association over filtering Web sites and fighting crime committed
through the Internet, Mustafa Akgul — an assistant professor at
Ankara’s Bilkent University — said there are more than 100,000 videos
on Ä°stanbul and almost 40,000 videos about Ataturk on YouTube and
asks, "Who are you punishing with the ban?"
He recalled the movie "Midnight Express," which deviates from the book
in its portrayal of Turkish people by presenting them in a negative
light. It was prohibited in Turkish theaters. Akgul said Turks could
not comment on the movie because they were unable to watch it.
A manager of Turk.internet.com, a Web site for Internet technology
professionals, Fusun Sarp Nebil, said that it was wrong to block an
entire Web site instead of only problematic pages; she noted that
886 Web sites were blocked in Turkey in 2006 and compared the ban on
YouTube to "burning the entire library because of one book."
YouTube officials claim that the Web site helps users raise their
voices and express themselves through videos they upload and recalls
that users accept the terms and conditions before uploading their
videos. They are also open to communication and cooperation with
local administrators if contents of videos are illegal under local
administrations’ laws. Bilisimhukuku.net, a Web site on information
law, says inappropriate videos can be flagged through the "flag this
video" option. In this way allegedly inappropriate videos are sent to
the authorities and they are removed from the site if the authorities
deem the video violates the Web site’s terms and conditions.
————————————- ——————————————-
Other countries that block YouTube
The popular information sharing Web site has been blocked in many
countries for reasons similar to those of Turkey in 2008. In February
Pakistani authorities blocked the Web site for broadcasting videos by
Geert Wilder, an anti-immigrant Dutch politician who said the Quran
incited people to violence. Following the removal of the videos in
question, the ban was lifted. The politician’s videos triggered a
similar ban in Indonesia in April. After a three-day ban ending on
April 11, Indonesian Internet providers lifted the ban on the Web site
and decided to only block individual pages with the videos. Syrian
officials blocked YouTube and various Web sites like Facebook and
Skype, thought to be a danger to state security, while China banned
sites about Tibetan protestors attacking China.
–Boundary_(ID_xRE5xD+4XfaFN9VOstt+qg)–