Compensation for Journalists

Events

The applicants are the reporter who makes the news in a national newspaper, the owner and publisher of the newspaper. A copy of the newspaper dated 2/10/2013 with photos of the plaintiff (teacher) said “They made the martyr’s daughter cry!” and 10 a.m. an article was written about the fact that a female student studying in the classroom was subjected to oppression and persecution at her school, where she went in a hijab

Stating that the plaintiff’s personality rights were damaged due to the relevant news, the Court of First Instance rejected the compensation case filed against the applicants. After the decision was taken to the court of appeal, the District Court of Justice decided to compensate the applicants jointly and severally for a total of TL 5,000.

Count

The applicants alleged that their freedom of expression and the press had been violated due to the fact that compensation had been awarded against them for a news story they had published in a national newspaper.

Evaluation of the Court

The District Court of Justice said in the news, “Some self-aware people are hostile to others by vomiting their hatred and hatred just to satisfy their egos. Here is another new example …”it has been concluded that the statements in the form of “right to criticism and freedom of expression are not covered by the scope, and by adding the plaintiff’s photo, a perception has been created contrary to the truth, as if the plaintiff was making religious hostility, xenophobia. The court has decided that the news, when viewed as a whole, is not in accordance with the apparent reality and is an attack on the plaintiff’s personality rights.

One of the main points on which the appeal authority based the compensation in the news subject to the application is that the plaintiff teacher mistreated his student because he came to school with his head covered, and in this context, the allegations that the student encountered negative attitudes do not reflect the truth. The events taken as a whole, due to wear the headscarf in the student’s school-fair or not – which is the source of the claim that is exposed to heavy pressure and threats of the people shown in the news, in this regard, acting in accordance with the responsibilities of journalists, processed, contrary to the apparent reality of the factual allegations baseless and have not been evaluated.

With the amendment made to the regulation on the costumes and clothes of students in schools affiliated to the Ministry of National Education, it became possible for middle and high school students to go to school with a hijab on 27/9/2014. In the period before the change in the regulation, the issue of whether students of this age can go to schools with a headscarf was discussed a lot and these discussions found a wide place in the public opinion. The news was written about an incident that posed a sensitivity for a large segment of society in the recent history before the change of the regulation.

It can be assumed that the statements contained in the news are hurtful from the point of view of the plaintiff. However, according to the Constitutional Court, public officials in particular should be more tolerant of criticism related to their savings. It is one of the requirements of the indispensable tolerance of a democratic society for citizens to contribute to decision-making processes by subjecting the actions and omissions of public officials to strict supervision. In this context, the fact that a thought described is too heavy, harshly criticizes the authorities, is expressed using sharp language, or even is one-sided, contradictory, and subjective does not mean that freedom of expression will not benefit from the scope of protection.

It has been evaluated that the statements based on the assessment of the District Court of Justice are a heavy criticism of the attitude of a student wearing a hijab at school to a student who is opposed by his teachers, are intended to draw attention to this issue, have to do with a discussion that has a public benefit. In addition, it is understood that the student was somehow warned in front of his other friends because he was wearing a hijab, which caused the plaintiff to be heavily criticized in the news by his own behavior; in this aspect, it has been concluded that the statements contained in the news do not constitute an unprovoked attack.

Despite these determinations, the District Court of Justice made the evaluation subject without discussing the conditions, context and factual basis of the statements during the period in which the statements subject to the application were used, by removing some of the statements from their context and without considering that they have sufficient factual basis and decided that compensation should be paid against the applicants.

Considering the decisionof the District Court of Justice together with the conclusions reached by the Constitutional Court, it cannot be said that the court has established a fair balance between the applicants’ freedom of expression and the plaintiff’s right to honor and reputation. The reasons presented by the District Court of Justice to justify accepting the case against the applicants were not considered appropriate and sufficient, the applicants were required to comply with Article 26 of the Constitution. and 28. it has been concluded that the restrictions imposed on the freedoms of expression and the press within the scope of the articles do not correspond to the social need to justify them.

The Constitutional Court has decided that the freedoms of expression and the press have been violated on the grounds described.

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak.