Criminal General Assembly Decision On The Limits Of Freedom Of The Press
T.C. JUDGMENT
. Criminal General Assembly
Esas No: 1997/4-386
Decision No: 1998/52
Date of Decision: 24.02.1998
OFFENCE OF INSULT THROUGH THE PRESS – GENERAL INTENT FOR THE OFFENCE TO OCCUR
IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROTECT THE HONOUR AND DIGNITY OF THE TARGETED PERSON
INSULT WITH INTENT TO INFRINGE OR PROVOKE
– NOT EXCEEDING THE LIMITS OF THE RIGHT OF THE PRESS TO REPORT AND CRITICISE
REQUIREMENT
SUMMARY:
10.5.1994, 13.9.1994 and 20.9.1994 of the newspaper of which the defendants are the owners and editors-in-chief
in the articles they published in their dated issues, they humiliated the complainant and thereby insulted him the local court merged the cases filed with the allegation of committing the offence and the limit of criticism It was decided to acquit the defendants by accepting that the elements of the offence did not occur.
Upon the appeal of the participant, the Special Chamber, criticised and criticised the articles in the newspapers dated 10.5.1994 and 13.9.1994. the limit of informing was exceeded and the participant was humiliated in the neighbourhood, without considering that the crime was committed with general intent
in the offence of swearing, acquittal based on the opinion of the expert seeking special intent” the judgement was reversed.
(765 S. K. art. 480, 482)
Case: On the acquittal of defendants Ömer Mustafa and Enver for the offence of insult through the press The judgement dated 11.7.1995 and numbered 209-100 rendered by the (Bulancak Criminal Court of First Instance) Upon the appeal by the Supreme Court of Appeals Fourth Criminal Chamber, which examined the file, on 4.6.1996, 3930/5080
with the number; “In the issue dated 13.9.1994 of the G… In the issue of the newspaper dated 13.9.1994, the other defendant In an article written and published by Ömer Mustafa under the title “What does the District Governor want to do?
If the district governor O… is conducting all the works with such different forged documents. if he is trying to deceive us”, and in the issue dated 10.5.1994; the article written by Enver In the article titled “school opened without teachers, district governor thinks he is the director of national education”
“And then we realised that we’d already changed the documents in the formation of the board of directors of the teacher’s centre. who can even put us to sleep”, and he also included the words “the district governor O… appeared before us”. criticism and news that render the action lawful by creating the impression that the district governor has forged documents the limit of giving has been exceeded and the said person has been humiliated in the neighbourhood, without considering that the crime committed with general intent to establish a verdict of acquittal by giving weight to the opinion of the expert who seeks special intent in the offence of swearing”
because of its inaccuracy,
The Local Court, with the number 337-146 on 17.12.1996
“General intention is not sufficient for the offence to be committed, and it is not enough to violate the honour and dignity of the targeted person or insult with the intention to provoke. Information and information and criticism, insult and defamation whether the offence was committed with intent to humiliate. Whether the defendants did not intend to humiliate, whether the elements of the offence that the articles were not intended to inform and inform the public. The writings are intended to inform and inform the public.”
The court resisted the previous judgement.
Since the review of this judgement by the Court of Cassation was requested by the participant in due time, the file was sent to the Court of Cassation C. The file was sent to the First Presidency with the notification dated 25.12.1997 by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation requesting “reversal”,
The General Assembly of Criminal Offences read, discussed and deliberated as necessary:
Decision: The defendants, in the articles published in the issues dated 10.5.1994, 13.9.1994 and 20.9.1994 of the newspaper of which they are the owner and editor-in-chief, humiliated the complainant and thereby insulted her. the local court merged the cases filed with the allegation of committing the offence and the limit of criticism
It was decided to acquit the defendants by accepting that the elements of the offence did not occur.
Upon the appeal of the participant, the Special Chamber, criticised and criticised the articles in the newspapers dated 10.5.1994 and 13.9.1994. the limit of informing was exceeded and the participant was humiliated in the neighbourhood, without considering that the crime was committed with general intent in the offence of swearing, acquittal based on the opinion of the expert seeking special intent” overturned the judgement.
Regarding the article titled “Let’s not make our future cry” published in the newspaper dated 20.9.1994, Special The Chamber did not make an examination and did not make an explicit decision of reversal and the local court did not resist in this regard since it is out of the question to issue a judgement, the examination was conducted on 10.5.1994 and 13.9.1994.
limited to the articles in the newspapers. In addition, in the reversal decision of the special chamber, the incorrect writing of the titles of the articles in the newspapers dated 10.5.1994 and 13.9.1994 was considered as a material mistake.
only the owner and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper were accepted as the owner and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper due to the copy dated 10.5.1994. the defendant Ö.M. was charged, and since the defendant Enver was not on duty in this number, a case was opened against him. not considering that there is no case, stating that both defendants are responsible in the reversal decision, Pursuant to Articles 150 and 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the courts shall decide on the offences and persons stated in the indictment. Since it is dependent, it is not deemed to have an effect on the result, taking into account the decision of the court.
The issue to be resolved is whether the articles in the newspapers dated 10.5.1994 and 13.9.1994 were in violation of the press’s right to report news and whether it exceeds the limits of the right to criticise and whether there is a general intention for the offences of insult and swearing to occur whether special intent should also be sought.
The cases of lawfulness in offences committed through the press are based on the Constitution’s 28 et seq. The right to information, the right to criticise and the consent of the victim. Reporting and criticism In order for the right to be recognised, the news subject to explanation or criticism must be real and up-to-date,
there is a public interest and benefit in disclosure, there is an intellectual connection between the manner of disclosure and its subject matter must be present. No derogatory remarks should be made about those mentioned in the news item or article. This
In the absence of even one of these elements, the right to inform and criticise cannot be mentioned, the action would be unlawful.
“On the other hand, the rights to inform, criticise and defend, which express the exercise of a right, can only be exercised for the offence of defamation; without attributing a specific act to a person, it is not permissible to insult his honour and dignity Anyone who says or writes a word or writes an article that defames his/her reputation cannot claim that he/she has exercised a right.
Because no one has such a right. In fact, the perpetrator can not even claim that he if he commits both insult and swearing offences and there is a reason for compliance with the law, this reason
although it prevents the insult from constituting an offence, it does not prejudice the existence of blasphemy and the perpetrator may be charged with blasphemy It becomes necessary to punish” (Prof. Sahir Erman, Insult and Swearing Crimes, p. 130).
In judicial decisions and in the doctrine, it is generally accepted that a special intention is not required in the offences of insult and swearing, It is accepted that general intent is sufficient. Articles 480 and 482 of the Penal Code do not mention motive, the accused’s motive was not given importance. The offensive nature of the words spoken and writings It is sufficient to know and knowingly say or write that the offence is committed. In these offences, the moral The element is general intent.
In the case, in the issue dated 10.5.1994 of the newspaper whose owner, editor-in-chief and writer was the defendant Ö.M. “What does the district governor want to do? In the article titled “Document addressed to B… District Governor O… is being changed”,
“The management and supervision boards of the district teachers’ centres are not formed, documents are circulated, and there is no that it was previously reported that he was in a frivolous behaviour”, it was then stated that “… day after day A new scandal has been added to the scandal. The District Directorate of National Education proposed and the governorate proposed The District Governor (Y.O) will select the members from among the names of two members by the method of changing the document. changes it. District Governor O… rewrites the letter from the District Directorate of National Education, the District National Education Directorate uses the title of National Education Directorate, changes the names, cancels the cancellation of the previous governorship approval. He adds, without the signature of the District and Provincial Director of National Education, he has the governor sign it with his own signature. The governor their own bureaucrats sleep and increase the signature. In the bureaucracy, all the writings are changed like this.
If he can write according to his own mind without any authority, then no other authorities..
If the District Governor is carrying out all the work with such different forged documents, he’s trying to deceive the higher authority by lulling them to sleep. if he’s working, woe is us.”
The late formation of the administrative and supervisory boards of the teacher training centres, the proposal proposed by the Directorate of National Education if there was a public interest and benefit in reporting the change of names by the district governor
even to preserve the intellectual connection between the way the news is presented and the subject matter, and to protect the behaviour in the news. It is necessary to avoid derogatory value judgements about the participating district governor who is criticised. Whereas In the letter, the actions of the district governor involved were characterised as “scandalous”. In his capacity as head of department the district governor, who signed it, has the right to change the names on the list. This action is a forgery and explaining that it was done “by the method of changing the documents”, the participant
“trying to deceive even the governor by lulling him to sleep” is degrading to the participant and is a personal insult. judgements.
In the issue dated 13.9.1994, which was edited by the defendant Enver, the defendant Ömer Mustafa “School opened without a teacher, District Governor O.. thinks he is the Director of National Education” the reasons why a school is left without a teacher even though students have been enrolled and schools have opened. “We enquired and enquired, and we realised that the management of the teacher training centre “The district governor who changed the documents in the formation of the board and even made the governor sleep came out…”
and then criticises the actions of the district governor involved in this matter. Participant, while the district’s actions regarding the relocation of teachers were reported and criticised,
the repetition of words from the previous article, that the participant changed documents and put the governor to sleep the mention of the right to inform and criticise is an abuse of the right to inform and criticise, and the defendants are in compliance with the law cannot benefit from the circumstances.
In both articles subject to the offence, the limits of criticism and informing were exceeded and the impression that the participant organised a forged document was created. and humiliated in the neighbourhood, special intent is not required for the occurrence of the offence, but the writings written the general intention of knowing that it is defamatory and wanting it to be written is sufficient It is contrary to the law to resist the previous judgement without taking into consideration the fact that the previous judgement was not made.
Accordingly, the judgement of the local court should be reversed.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the local court’s resisting judgement should be reversed, on 24.2.1998 It was unanimously decided in accordance with the opinion in the notification.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.