Events
The applicant, a lawyer, was sentenced to an administrative fine for the posts he made on his account on the social media platform Twitter. The applicant’s objection to the administrative fine was rejected by the criminal court of peace. The applicant objected to the decision of the judge; this objection was also rejected on the grounds that there was no procedural or legal violation in the decision.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression was violated due to the imposition of an administrative fine on the grounds that he made a social media post that could cause violence in sports.
Assessment of the Court
In order to determine whether the imposition of an administrative fine for the applicant’s social media post fulfills a compelling social need and is proportionate, the content of the post, the medium in which it was made, its impact and its consequences must be evaluated. In the concrete case, the applicant made some allegations regarding the football match-fixing case in his social media post. As such, it has been observed that the applicant shared his personal opinions on social media on a subject that concerns the society, attracts the attention of football fans and has been discussed for a long time.
However, while evaluating the applicant’s statement, it should be taken into consideration that the applicant was in a state of excitement, passion and dedication arising from his belonging as a fan. The applicant stated that the statement that “the fight will be won with a total struggle” should not be understood as a statement that the struggle for rights should be fought by resorting to physical violence, but as a statement of the belief that the injustice done to Fenerbahçe can be eliminated by putting forward the common will of all Fenerbahçe fans.
On the other hand, the existence of a determination or fact that the fans took to the streets after the applicant’s post, that violent actions emerged, or that it caused an environment that could jeopardize the security and order of sports competitions has not been established by the public authorities. The decisions of the relevant authorities also did not include a determination that the applicant’s statements had a content that could offend the fans, officials and managers of other football teams or cause hostile feelings in these persons.
It should also be taken into account that the social media sharing platform in question is an area where instant feelings and thoughts are put into words, where they are quickly circulated and intensively used, and that it loses its currency and becomes outdated in a short period of time. In addition, the fact that the number of followers of the social media account where the applicant made the post is not very high limits the objective effect of the statement on a wide audience. As such, the sphere of influence of the expression of opinion subject to punishment was limited under the circumstances of the concrete case.
Considering the fact that the applicant is a Fenerbahçe fan, has served as a manager in supporters’ associations and that the interference with the freedom of expression is carried out through a criminal sanction, it is clear that being penalized with an administrative fine for a social media post will have a deterrent effect on the applicant’s later expression of his views in the discussions on the match-fixing case.
There is no relevant and sufficient justification that the imposition of an administrative fine on the applicant in relation to the social media post fulfills a compelling social need. The interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression is not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Therefore, this interference does not comply with the requirements of a democratic society.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the freedom of expression was violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.