And see, criticism of Erdogan is not really forbidden. Criticism in its every form is forbidden, if you're powerful enough. Criticise Ataturk, and what happens? Lawsuits, and you'll probably be jailed (1). Say that the Armenian Genocide happened, you'll be jailed. Criticise the party leaders, and they sack half of the party, e.g. the recent MHP situation.
Erdogan does not like criticism, but it's our culture that allows him to actually enforce a surpression thereof. There was a guy who reported his own wife because she spoke pejoratively about Erdogan. Here there still is a godly ruling class, the class of devlet buyukleri. Until they become merely the citizens with the duty to decide for us for a limited time and with full responsabilities, the status quo will go on.
(1) A very recent example is the havoc against a documentary that criticised him.
It's even "better" than that, because it is so easy for a leader to re-spin outside criticism from "attack against me" to "attack against us", strengthening his position internally. And this pattern is not even limited to dictators and the like: when Americans made fun of Bush junior, it was perfectly fine application of of free speech. If Europeans did the same, it was antiamericanism making Americans rally around the flag to protect him.
So in the interplay between international and domestic opinion, there seems to be some kind of inverse Streisand effect. Can we please have a word for that? It would make the whole world easier to understand... (german has "Burgfriedensmentalität“, but that is the resulting state, not the mechanism that causes it)
It hurts your country's ability to leverage foreign minds when you begin to censor the outside world. Plus, with the internet, censorship becomes really impractical. China and North Korea don't do this completely successfully and they spend a lot of effort to keep their citizens on some form of lock down. So not only do you end up missing out on the collective conscience of foreigners, but you also lose some portion of your own population's trust and creativity.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world is working together to solve problems in an open, concerted manner. I'm not saying our world is perfect but I think it's fairly obvious that censorship, in the days of the internet, is not the right way to the future.
We need to get over ourselves, stop being so sensitive, and recognize that even when governments make laws to protect people's feelings, people will still say mean and negative things. I don't want to read those garbage comments here on HN because it fills up the thread, but I can tolerate them in the real world because I know I can just walk away. The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence, and I'm sorry to all the extremist Muslims, but drawing a picture is not viewed as inciting violence by most of the world, including most of the people who follow similar forms of that faith.
> The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence [...]
Speech should not be regulated in any ways, or we will have millions of who decides questions. A picture of Mohammad is annoying to each and every muslim, because the religion expressly forbids the likeness of the holy figures. Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks. This does not in any way justify the violence, but does not help either. Have you seen the latest cover of Hebdo, Papa où t'es? That's within freedom of speech too, but freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning. It is possible to criticise, or even attack in a civil, graceful way. In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?
If someone says "everybody, let's go kill this person or group of people on Saturday at Noon". THAT, is inciting violence.
If the courts and police starts prosecuting that kind of euphemism laden language, then they shift further.
On the other hand, keep everything open and people tend to learn and build filters for stuff like this.
The US is strong in the business world because they endure differing opinions!
Astute businessmen can see how limiting free speech limits their own success. Good businessmen do not surround themselves with yes-men.
When you limit free speech of a country, you cut off most of your people from certain intelligence. You could argue the intelligence agency has access to everything, however, at some point, the original guys will retire. They will be replaced with people who grew up without consistent access to the entire world picture. They will thus be disadvantaged when engaging in international politics and trade deals.
I guess it comes down to, do you think current and former leaders of the likes of China and North Korea are more or less happy or successful than current and former leaders of the likes of the US and France.
> Speech should not be regulated in any ways
You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. Governments set limits to every right in order to balance public safety. If you think that's wrong, that's your choice. I'd just point out that you grew up in a society that benefited from this increased safety while sacrificing some portion of its people's rights. Unless you were raised in the jungle :-D.
Yes, you are. Look at "Trope Two" in the link below. The post linked is written by Ken White who specializes in the 1st amendment.
https://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-cens...
Come on mate, I thought we're talking about political speech :)
With regards to Erdogan as a businessman, the thing is, he is using his position to prosper as a rich man. I repeat, he has no care about what happens to the country. There are no ideologies, no nothing here. He uses the state as a means to cash in what he can. And he has his circle of assistants etc., what he wants is to be able to steer the politics and ultimately the state the way he wants w/o any friction.
I just said he would prosper more by accepting the diversity that exists in his region and the world. You're not even reading my comment, you're just repeating the same thing you said before.
When one looks at his actions in the light of those motives his actions make a lot of sense. Without those motives his actions appear stupid.
Thanks, I see that now. Some of @gkya's words sounded like they take the opposite viewpoint, such as,
>> Speech should not be regulated in any ways
>> Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks.
>> freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning.
It reads like it was unedited and is very hard to follow
> When one looks at his actions in the light of those motives his actions make a lot of sense. Without those motives his actions appear stupid.
I disagree, see my comments about astute businessmen not using yes-men above. No worries if we don't agree here. Countries are most certainly businesses. They're in the business of acquiring people who generate money.
> I disagree, see my comments about astute businessmen not using yes-men above. No worries if we don't agree here. Countries are most certainly businesses. They're in the business of acquiring people who generate money.
Right, but that is assuming that Erdogan is trying to do what is best for the country in the long term. Many would argue his primary concern is Erdogan's interests in the short term.
Former dictators who censored speech don't generally have happy post-political careers. I wouldn't imagine trying to put a strangle hold on a whole country's speech is exactly stress free either.
Whether he is planning for the short term or for his whole life, Erdogan isn't so bright as @gkya would have you believe. He certainly doesn't have the best interests of his country in mind. However, I'll add something else you may not expect me to believe, which is that I believe everyone does things in their own interests. I wouldn't expect anyone to do otherwise. Erdogan's behavior is simply a matter of foresight. He's not seeing his own future clearly.
Ergo, Erdogan isn't bright.
No one - least of all @gkya - is saying he is bright. They are saying his actions aren't stupid.
Former dictators who censored speech don't generally have happy post-political careers.
Plenty have died in office while still holding power, too. Most of Turkey's immediate neighbors have had dictators who died while in power.
Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't.
For example, France, which seems freer than Turkey, actually just fined a comedian that have insulted the prime minister of half retarded Musolinni. That's not okay and it's not fundamentaly different of what's happening in Turkey.
It seems like many countries have limitations on free speech, which according to this definition would mean they do not actually have free speech.
> In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?
So to this I agree:
> Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't.
What I say is, the individuals should be considerate when using their freedom to speech. Freedoms bear responsabilities. One cannot say anything and go by. If what you say is lies, or pure insults, or if it's provocative, there will be consequences, or else it conflicts with the right to human dignity of the one(s) at the receiving end of your speech. One should be responsible and mindful of what he says.
Yes you CAN. Nobody has a right not to be offended. You don't have to be mindful of what you say. That's not freedom of speech.
You're free to insult, but you don't have to. If you do so, people will get offended, and you'll be excluded, ignored, or insulted back at. Again, you're free to insult, but there will be consequences, and by insulting you take the responsibility, and accept being excluded, or insulted at.
And everybody has a right to not be offended, which has to protect them from bullying, demeaning, racism, etc., called the "right to human dignity":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120...
> Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected. (Article 1)
> Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. (Article 3/1)
> The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right. (Article 10/2)
> Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. (Article 11)
> Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. (Article 21/1)
> Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. (Article 21/2)
Either you believe in free speech or you don't. Don't pussy foot around it.
If you believe that people should be arrested for insulting people in the wrong way then SAY it! Dont hide behind some human dignity double speak.
Sure, "free speech exactly like in the US" is a binary issue.
Free speech, as sensibly construed, is a whole spectrum.
And free speech is not very useful unless you have access to ways to practice it. In a country where mass media practice active censorship voluntarily (against "wardrobe malfunctions" and swear words) in order to avoid state sanctions, that absolutist view gets a bit problematic.
But however much I might disagree with Erdogan, I know that he probably isn't actually be an idiot: people who can grab and hold that much power rarely are. Your explanation of how he's manufacturing this kerfuffle for a domestic audience makes a lot more sense.
What are divorce laws like in Turkey? I'm betting this guy just wanted to get rid of his wife, and found this to be a convenient way to do so.
So it really is forbidden, just not enforced until you actually start making an impact?
So it's mostly an abuse of the law via installed judges and misuse of the constitution. The parliamenters are immune to lawsuits during their duty, so it's easier for them to act so.
I wonder, will Erdogan bring back Janissaries? Or has he already through his full control of the security forces?
And I guess if we preserved the ruling house like the Brits and the spaniards did, and also some form of the Caliphate that acted like Vatican, maybe the things would be easier (I'm a secular agnostic, and I'm completely anti-nationalist). Nowadays there is no entity that is respected as a unifier of the Muslim world.
And further, maybe the Empire was better for middle-east. Here, the nation failed, for the bindings among people are mostly based on kinship, belonging to the same mahalle and memleket, and ultimately religion. But in Turkey you'll find many adjacent mosques and churches, for, AFAIK, it wasn't until nationalism took on that the major conflicts started. Under the Ottomans, yes, the muslim were a bit more advantageous, but not less subject to the sultanate than the christian subjects.
Only if you ignore the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians and other minority Christian groups.
Think before you write.
I say this, in the sentence before the one you quote:
> AFAIK, it wasn't until nationalism took on that the major conflicts started.
The genocide happened during the late nineteenth-early twentieth century. Armenians were under Ottoman rule since long before, so were Greeks.
1: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/27/trump-freedom-press-n...
2: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-...
3: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/business/media/25trump.htm...
Berlusconi was nowhere near Erdogan's style of strongman politics, but unfortunately, during his term, Berlusconi did stifle press freedom somewhat in Italy... primarily via questionable libel lawsuits against any critical outlet if I recall.
It's easy for me to see Donald Trump following a similar pattern, of attempting to sue any critical outlet into silence.
Unfortunately for Trump, the courts have consistently sided with the press when they report accurate and factual statements, even if they may be unflattering. This doesn't seem to register with Trump. If asked to define what "treating me fairly" actually, genuinely means, I'm pretty sure he couldn't.
Do you think the media needs to be a little more accountable or the hysteria is good?
Practically I don't think Trump would get very far with any sort of libel lawsuits. Even in Italy, Berlusconi's "sue into silence" strategy was not 100% effective -- and Berlusconi is a much more dominant player in comparative national medias than Trump is.
Even so, my gut feeling is that Trump would be perfectly okay with a Putin / Erdogan style strongman media takeover if he could get away with it.
And Europe is helpless as it braces for the massive waves of immigrants coming its way, with Turkey winning big political concessions in exchange for "stopping" them. I can only imagine how Erdogan handles that.
But it's not just Turkey.
I'm afraid this can be said about more and more leaders in lots of countries around the world. Most of the former USSR has developed such political systems/leaders, with Putin leading the pack.
Corruption is growing all over the world and these types of leaders are consequences of that.
In the end it's up to the people of all this countries to use the still remaining democratic levers to bring new people into power.
Don't worry, we'll join those other countries later this year when we elect our own queen of corruption, Hillary.
- Erdogan's intolerance for satire or criticism is very disturbing indeed, but the law that is used in these cases was introduced in 2005, during Ahmet Necdet Sezer's presidency (TCK 299), being an expert in constitutional law, he should have vetoed it. Erdogan knows that media eroded his predecessors power,(e.g. Turgut Ozal) and unlike them, he will do anything to not allow that for himself.
- Police force had always been controlled by internal affairs ministry. There is nothing new there.
- That "barely standing democracy" was actually also a semi dictatorian state as well, only controlled by military and minority bureaucrat elite.
- In the end, it still takes a single election to take him and his party down, I have faith in Turkish people, they did it before to others, they will do it to him as well.
I think Erdogan lost his cool after the affair with Gulen cult, has too many yes mans around and apparently does not care about streisand effect. I don't see him in power for long time.
Also he will be in power for a long long time - he has a big core of pious Turks that support him. The recent elections were always about him getting a supermajority.
In the end, it still takes a single election to take him and his party down,
I have faith in Turkish people,
they did it before to others, they will do it to him as well.
- In the end, it still takes a single election to take him and his party down, I have faith in Turkish people, they did it before to others, they will do it to him as well.
Not to mention that his voters are the religious people and mostly not the most educated type. They get easily manipulated by the media. We are at brink of civil war and our international relationship is suffering but he still gets the votes because "he is so charismatic and religious"
As a result, the guy really lives in a bubble where everything he says almost immediately happens, but only in Turkey. This does not stop him to order doing something about that stupid foreign press, and all his advisors think is to ask the German govt to suppress free press in Germany.
Expect more from him in the coming months since he's on a ride to the top of idiocy.