- A lawsuit has been filed against journalist Timur Soykan due to his social media posts, on charges of Article 217/A of the Turkish Penal Code—referred to by the government as the “disinformation law”—and “publicly inciting to commit a crime."
- This is the third case filed against Soykan within the scope of this so-called “censorship law.”
- While the indictment interprets the conditions of the law in a controversial way, it reveals a picture that contradicts the emphasis by one of the architects of the regulation, Feti Yıldız, that “all five conditions must be present together.”
- Soykan had been detained within the scope of the investigation and later released.
Semra Pelek
A case was filed against Soykan on charges of “publicly spreading misleading information” (TCK 217/A) and “publicly inciting to commit a crime” (TCK 214), citing his social media posts regarding operations targeting municipalities run by the CHP.
The law, which had been defended to the public with the claim that it “would not be applied to journalists,” was this time enforced directly over a journalist’s commentary.
Soykan was detained in Taksim on the evening of July 5 due to the posts in question. After spending one night in custody, he was referred to a judgeship with a request for arrest. The court ruled for his release with judicial control measures, including signing in three times a week and a ban on leaving the country.
Soykan: “I stand behind this criticism”
In his statement included in the indictment, Soykan confirmed that the posts belonged to him and said he was reacting to operations against CHP municipalities:
“The regime is declaring that it no longer cares about convincing society regarding corruption operations… I stand behind these words and this criticism to the end.
Conducting operations only against opposition mayors who are targeted by politicians under the name of anti-corruption operations is proof of this and is an obvious fact.
Despite this obvious fact known by everyone, my detention on the charge of ‘publicly spreading misleading information’ is nothing short of a joke.”
Soykan also stated that his post saying, “The coup continues. The will of the people is being usurped. The ballot box is losing its meaning,” was a reaction to the detention of Adıyaman Mayor Abdurrahman Tutdere.
Lawyer: “It is unclear how he was found; suspicion of surveillance”
Soykan’s lawyer Enes Ermaner, in his assessment to MLSA, drew attention to the detention process:
“Timur Soykan was detained in Taksim on the evening of the day he made the posts. We were not informed how he was located there by law enforcement. This indicates that technical and physical surveillance was carried out.”
Ermaner stated that Soykan was held in custody for one night and then referred to a judgeship with a request for arrest but was released under judicial control. He added that the obligation to sign three times a week was later lifted, but the travel ban remains:
“This decision restricts both Timur Soykan’s freedom of expression and freedom of movement.”
He also said that their request to lift judicial control at the latest hearing was rejected and that they will object to the decision.
Indictment: commentary turned into “information”
In the indictment, Soykan’s posts about operations targeting CHP municipalities are defined as “false information.” However, the text itself does not clearly show how this conclusion was reached.
Because Soykan’s statements clearly contain political evaluation rather than a concrete fact. Despite this, the indictment places these evaluations into the category of “disinformation.”
Thus, the indictment effectively eliminates the boundary between “misleading information” targeted by the law and “critical commentary.”
“Public peace” and “publicity”: automatically accepted
In the indictment, the fact that the posts were made on the X platform was considered sufficient in terms of having the “potential to disrupt public peace.”
However, in the Savva Terentyev v. Russia decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which the indictment cites, it is emphasized that the scope of access and capacity for dissemination must be concretely examined when evaluating the impact of online expressions.
Similarly, in the Mehdi Zana v. Turkey decision, the ECHR points out that factors such as the context of the statement, the position of the speaker, and its impact on society must be considered together.
Despite this, instead of applying these criteria in detail, the indictment considers the mere fact that the post was made on social media as sufficient. This shows a clear gap between the ECHR case law it relies on and the conclusion it reaches.
“Incitement” interpretation: the boundary expands further
The prosecution evaluated Soykan’s statement—“The public will either submit to this pressure and become slaves of the regime… or defend its freedom, rights, and country”—as “incitement to commit a crime.”
However, for the crime of incitement under TCK 214 to be formed, a concrete and clear call directing toward a specific crime is required. In the indictment, there is no clear demonstration of how this threshold was exceeded.
Despite this, the prosecution interpreted the call to “defend rights” as “encouraging people to take to the streets” and “directing them toward illegal actions.” This interpretation is based not on the direct content of the statement but on its possible consequences.
As a result, not only the charge of “disinformation” but also political criticism itself becomes the subject of prosecution in the file.
Yıldız’s latest statement: narrow framework, broad application
MHP’s Feti Yıldız, in a statement on March 26, once again recalled the limits of TCK 217/A. He emphasized that for the crime to occur, there must be an intent “solely to create anxiety, fear, or panic among the public,” and that the regulation is a “concrete danger offense,” adding that “if five conditions do not occur together, the crime of disinformation does not arise.”
He also referred to TCK 218, stating that “expressions of opinion that do not exceed the limits of reporting and are made for the purpose of criticism do not constitute a crime.”
However, the indictment against Soykan diverges from this framework at key points. In the file, statements of a political criticism nature are accepted as “false information,” while the “intent to create panic” is assumed without being demonstrated with concrete evidence.
How the elements of “concrete danger” and “special intent,” particularly emphasized by Yıldız, are formed is not shown in detail. This situation makes visible the difference between the narrow limits drawn by the law and the broad interpretation in practice.
First hearing held today; judicial control not lifted
The first hearing of the case was held on April 16 at the Istanbul 32nd Criminal Court of First Instance. The court did not lift the travel ban on Soykan. The file was sent for the prosecutor’s opinion, and the hearing was postponed to June 16.
