Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANKARA: YouTube Ban Hits Judiciary Credibility

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ANKARA: YouTube Ban Hits Judiciary Credibility

    YOUTUBE BAN HITS JUDICIARY CREDIBILITY

    Today's Zaman
    June 3 2008
    Turkey

    The latest in a series of bans on the popular video sharing Web site
    YouTube has left some asking if the ill-informed move will have any
    repercussions on the judiciary's credibility.

    It all started when a Turkish Internet user uploaded a video to
    the popular video sharing Web site YouTube last year, saying that
    homosexuality began in Greece and that all Greek men are gay. An
    angry Greek user responded with an equally childish video, claiming
    that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic,
    was gay. Then came the Turkish newspapers, declaring a "virtual war"
    between Turks and Greeks on YouTube and calling on Turkish users to
    "drown" the Greek videos insulting Ataturk by sending messages of
    protest to YouTube administrators urging them to remove the clips.

    The newspapers' online reports on the matter included links to the
    videos in question and, not surprisingly, the "virtual war" reports
    helped them increase the traffic on the YouTube clips, thus increasing
    the number of "clicks" they got. But when the Turkish public set its
    attention on the Internet fight after newspaper and television reports,
    so did the prosecutors. YouTube was banned by a court decision over
    the insulting video and, although access was restored later following
    the removal of the clip, banning the popular video sharing Web site
    became a popular trend in the months that followed. YouTube has been
    banned several times since then -- the latest court decision being
    issued on May 5 -- mostly on the same grounds: insulting Ataturk.

    Turkish Internet users trying to access YouTube get an error message
    saying that access to the site has been blocked under a court decision,
    without stating the court ruling and explaining why the popular Web
    site has been banned. The ban does raise questions on freedom of
    expression and has been heavily criticized by human rights activists,
    particularly in the Western media. But Turkish experts are worried
    more about another question: Will the ban, almost impracticable
    because of dozens of other ways available to access YouTube, hurt
    the credibility of the judiciary.

    Despite widespread discontent with the ban, few users in Turkey have
    raised their voice against the ongoing limitations. The silence is
    not that of assent but of indifference: Despite the court ban that
    blocks access to YouTube, the site can be reached through dozens
    of other sites. Internet users are enthusiastic about sharing with
    other users lists of proxy servers that allow one to access YouTube
    and those not yet familiar with the simple tricks to evade the ban
    can learn through a quick Internet search.

    Nongovernmental organizations, lawyers and Internet professionals
    agree that banning YouTube is both incorrect and impractical, saying
    the ban is no different than an ostrich sticking its head in the sand
    or burning an entire library because of a single book. They warn the
    ban might in the end harm the courts the most since the failure in
    implementing it in practice is likely to undermine public confidence
    in the judiciary.

    Speaking to Today's Zaman, Turkish Informatics Association (TBD)
    Chairman Turhan MenteÅ~_ emphasizes the lack of efficient laws
    on information technology and complains that a court unfamiliar
    with the Internet and its technology is allowed to issue decisions
    regulating them.

    "The practical implementation of the decision is impossible. Before
    issuing a law, they have to think about its feasibility. Otherwise,
    its credibility in the eyes of people decreases to a large extent,"
    he says. Noting that blocking YouTube damages the prestige of the
    state, MenteÅ~_ said, "While there are many more Web sites that
    have the same type of videos -- deemed to be humiliating Ataturk --
    on the net, only YouTube is blocked because it is very popular."

    Comparing the blocking of YouTube to ostriches burying their heads
    into the sand, he said the Web site is accessible everywhere other
    than Turkey and that there are other ways to access to the site from
    within Turkey. He also indicated that Turkey does not suffer from the
    lack of laws on prohibition of online child pornography and online
    gambling, yet regulations on information sharing Web sites like
    YouTube are quite limited. Unlike foreign press comments linking
    the YouTube ban to the problem of freedom of expression in Turkey,
    MenteÅ~_ claimed that YouTube and cases of freedom of expression,
    such as court cases brought against novelist Orhan Pamuk and slain
    Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, have nothing in common because
    there is no state security implication in the case of YouTube.

    "The court must abstain from decisions which will show it to be
    incompetent," said Ozgu Eralp, a lawyer and a member of the Ankara Bar
    Association. "If the decision cannot be implemented, it will bring to
    mind questions about its power. Is it a crime to access YouTube via
    other Web sites? We do not know this. There is no indication about
    this in the law."

    He also recalled that it is technically possible to block only
    problematic videos, yet that would require technical competence
    and information on the use of particular software. "Sometimes it is
    necessary to block Web sites exhibiting child porn videos or abetting
    drug usage or suicide. Therefore we cannot say that we are totally
    against blocking Web sites. However, YouTube is a beneficial site,
    and its block prevents us from accessing necessary information,"
    Eralp said.

    In a panel discussion organized in early May by the Ankara Bar
    Association over filtering Web sites and fighting crime committed
    through the Internet, Mustafa Akgul -- an assistant professor at
    Ankara's Bilkent University -- said there are more than 100,000 videos
    on Ä°stanbul and almost 40,000 videos about Ataturk on YouTube and
    asks, "Who are you punishing with the ban?"

    He recalled the movie "Midnight Express," which deviates from the book
    in its portrayal of Turkish people by presenting them in a negative
    light. It was prohibited in Turkish theaters. Akgul said Turks could
    not comment on the movie because they were unable to watch it.

    A manager of Turk.internet.com, a Web site for Internet technology
    professionals, Fusun Sarp Nebil, said that it was wrong to block an
    entire Web site instead of only problematic pages; she noted that
    886 Web sites were blocked in Turkey in 2006 and compared the ban on
    YouTube to "burning the entire library because of one book."

    YouTube officials claim that the Web site helps users raise their
    voices and express themselves through videos they upload and recalls
    that users accept the terms and conditions before uploading their
    videos. They are also open to communication and cooperation with
    local administrators if contents of videos are illegal under local
    administrations' laws. Bilisimhukuku.net, a Web site on information
    law, says inappropriate videos can be flagged through the "flag this
    video" option. In this way allegedly inappropriate videos are sent to
    the authorities and they are removed from the site if the authorities
    deem the video violates the Web site's terms and conditions.

    ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------

    Other countries that block YouTube

    The popular information sharing Web site has been blocked in many
    countries for reasons similar to those of Turkey in 2008. In February
    Pakistani authorities blocked the Web site for broadcasting videos by
    Geert Wilder, an anti-immigrant Dutch politician who said the Quran
    incited people to violence. Following the removal of the videos in
    question, the ban was lifted. The politician's videos triggered a
    similar ban in Indonesia in April. After a three-day ban ending on
    April 11, Indonesian Internet providers lifted the ban on the Web site
    and decided to only block individual pages with the videos. Syrian
    officials blocked YouTube and various Web sites like Facebook and
    Skype, thought to be a danger to state security, while China banned
    sites about Tibetan protestors attacking China.

    --Boundary_(ID_xRE5xD+4XfaFN9VOstt+qg)--
Working...
X