I am strongly averse to this habit of his, which I believe has a destructive effect on the general situation of freedom of expression in Turkey. When we raise this issue, many people defend Erdoğan by saying that he also has the right to protect his reputation. Therefore, like anyone else, he is entitled to sue anyone who utters insulting remarks against him.
However, he is not anyone. He is the prime minister. He is the chief of the executive body. The cases he has brought against journalists are quite problematic in some ways. First of all, most of the time, I can only see harsh criticism but no insults in statements for which he brings compensation cases. Secondly, I see his habit of suing journalists as a kind of disproportionate use of force because an ordinary citizen and he, the prime minister, can only be equal before a court only on a theoretical level. In practice, it may be quite difficult to handle a case brought by the prime minister as an ordinary case by any court in Turkey. Thirdly, in most cases I think the amount of the compensation he demands is excessive and may have a destabilizing effect on a journalist who lives on a much smaller salary. In February 2012, the European Court of Human Rights delivered an important judgment in which it evaluated two compensation cases brought by Erdoğan against journalist Erbil Tuşalp for two articles he wrote. Tuşalp’s articles, which were published in the Birgün daily, bore the headlines “Stability” and “Get well soon.” In these articles, Tuşalp criticized Erdoğan and his government with strong language in statements like this: “I consider it useful for both his and the public’s mental health to investigate whether he had a high-fevered illness when he was young. … I suspect that he is suffering from a psychopathic aggressive illness. I wish him a speedy recovery.”
Mr. Tuşalp originally lost both court cases and was ordered to pay Erdoğan around TL 17,000 in compensation and expenses.
The European Court of Human Rights decided that the Turkish courts’ decisions breached the freedom of expression of the applicant. I have highlighted some paragraphs from the judgments of the European court:
“The Court reiterates in this connection that the press fulfils an essential function in a democratic society. … Journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation. …
“The Court observes that the plaintiff in the two sets of compensation proceedings … was and still is the prime minister of Turkey. … The limits of acceptable criticism are wider as regards a politician than as regards a private individual. Therefore, he was obliged to display a greater degree of tolerance in this context. …
“The Court considers that, even assuming … that the language and expressions used in the two articles in question … were provocative and inelegant and certain expressions could legitimately be classed as offensive, they were, however, mostly value judgments based on particular facts, events or incidents. …
“As to the form of the expressions, the Court observes that the author chose to convey his strong criticisms, colored by his own political opinions and perceptions, by using a satirical style. In this connection, the Court reiterates that Article 10 is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. …
“The Court would add that offensive language may fall outside the protection of freedom of expression if it amounts to wanton denigration, for example where the sole intent of the offensive statement is to insult … but the use of vulgar phrases in itself is not decisive in the assessment of an offensive expression as it may well serve merely stylistic purposes. …
“Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that various strong remarks contained in the articles … could not be construed as a gratuitous personal attack against the prime minister, Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In addition, the Court observes that there is nothing in the case file to indicate that the applicant’s articles had any affect on Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s political career or his professional and private life.
“In any event, the Court would point out that the amount of compensation which the applicant was ordered to pay … was significant and that such sums could deter others from criticizing public officials and limit the free flow of information and ideas.”
I really wish that Erdoğan would read this judgment very carefully and reconsider his habit of suing journalists so readily.
