No Violation Of The Freedom Of Expression Due To The Transfer Of The Teacher Due To Social Media Posts
Events
A disciplinary investigation was initiated against the applicant, who is a teacher, on the grounds that he made posts in favour of a terrorist organisation on social media. As a result of the investigation, it was stated that it would be appropriate to transfer the applicant out of the province and the applicant was assigned to a school in another province. The applicant filed an action for annulment against the reassignment process, and it was decided to dismiss the case definitively.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his transfer to another province due to the statements he had shared on social media violated his freedom of expression.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, since the applicant is a teacher, the effects of the posts on the civil service should be analysed by taking into account the qualifications of the teaching profession. It must be recognised that the expressions made by teachers on social issues have a greater social impact than those made by any other citizen or public official.
In one of the applicant’s posts that led to his transfer, a member of a terrorist organisation who had been killed was explicitly glorified and the district where the applicant was working was invited to protect the terrorist in question. Although the applicant claimed that he shared the content created by another account without comment, he did not make any statement or declaration that he did not agree with the content of the post or that he shared the statements in question for another purpose.
There is no doubt that the said post of the applicant, who works in a small district, may cause unrest in the school and neighbourhood where he works. As a matter of fact, the post in question, which clearly glorifies and legitimises terrorism, is of a nature that may cause the parents of the students studying at the secondary school where the applicant works to react to the school administration or cause tension between the applicant and his colleagues or the administration.
Many of the applicant’s other posts were related to the trench incidents, which is a movement based on terrorism and violence, and were made on the dates when the aforementioned events took place. Although these posts do not contain expressions that clearly and directly legitimise or glorify terrorism and violence, the applicant, as a public official, is expected to be more careful and meticulous when criticising the state’s anti-terrorism policies.
The courts of first instance, examining the applicant’s request for cancellation, considered the public nature of the posts made by the applicant on the social networking site under his management and the fact that the school where the applicant was employed was located in a narrow neighbourhood. As a result, the courts of first instance decided that the applicant’s continuing to work in the same place would cause unrest in the neighbourhood, disturb the peace and trust of the institution and adversely affect the execution of the service.
Considering the potential impact of the applicant’s comments on his students as a teacher and the fact that the posts were publicly accessible, the assessment of the court of first instance that the public service could be adversely affected was not arbitrary. Accordingly, it is concluded that the applicant’s reassignment fulfils a compelling need in a democratic society. In this context, it has been concluded that the courts of first instance have made a decision with a relevant and sufficient justification.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court concluded that there was no violation of the freedom of expression.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.