TURKISH COURT BLOCKS ACCESS TO "YOUTUBE" WEBSITE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 000542

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

USDOC FOR 4212/ITA/MAC/CPD/CRUSNAK; FCC FOR A THOMAS AND A
WEINSHENK

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL ECPS OSCE TU
SUBJECT: TURKISH COURT BLOCKS ACCESS TO "YOUTUBE" WEBSITE

1.(SBU) Summary: A Turkish court banned access to the
"YouTube" website on March 7 to block a cartoon video that
lampooned Turkey's founding father Ataturk as gay. The video
was part of a "virtual war" on YouTube between Greeks and
Turks, each posting videos to demean and provoke the other.
Turks, especially young people, condemned the Ataturk video
but were uniformly dismayed and outraged by the court's
response to ban access. Newspaper columnists expressed
criticism and shame. On Thursday, March 8, the court ruled
in a new decision that it would lift its prior order if
YouTube removed the offensive video. Finally, as of March 9,
the ban appears to have been lifted. The YouTube angle of
Turkey's latest free speech case makes it a hot topic,
particularly among youth, in this country where Internet use
is widespread and growing. A ban on YouTube may be the spark
needed to motivate the approximately 30 percent of Turkey's
population that is between 15 and 30 years old to actively
encourage broader freedom of expression in line with western
norms. End summary.

-------------- --------------
Turkish Court Rules YouTube Video Insulted Ataturk
-------------- --------------

2.(U) A Turkish court blocked access to the YouTube website
on Wednesday, March 7, after a prosecutor alleged that videos
posted on the site violated the 1951 law that prohibits
"publicly insulting the memory of Ataturk." Turk Telekom,
Turkey's dominant telecommunications company and largest
Internet provider, immediately enforced the ban, and said it
would allow access to the popular video sharing site again
only if the court so permitted. Although access to YouTube
was reportedly possible through other providers, thousands of
Turks, unable to access the increasingly popular site,
emailed YouTube to complain.

3.(U) The case arose out of what Turkish media dubbed a
"virtual war" on YouTube between Greek and Turkish
contributors who posted videos designed to demean and provoke
each other. After receiving complaints regarding the videos,
the Istanbul Prosecutors' Office instructed the Istanbul
police and a prosecutor to examine the videos. The cartoon
video that prompted the ban lampooned Ataturk and the Turkish
people as being gay. The video showed two sophomoric
cartoon-like clips, less than a minute long, of Ataturk
making statements about being gay, as the Village People's
well-known anthem "YMCA" played in the background. After
viewing the clips, prosecutor Nurten Altinok determined the
videos violated the Law Against Insulting Ataturk, and
applied to an Istanbul court to block access to the site.
The court agreed, ruling the ban was necessary because,
"Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and Turkey were insulted with swear
words written in English on Ataturk's photos and to protect
freedom of expression."

4.(U) On March 8, the court ruled in a new decision that it
would revoke the ban as soon as it could verify that YouTube
had removed the offensive video. The company did so, and by
the afternoon of March 9 users were again able to access the
site.

--------------
Turks Condemn Video but Outraged by Total Ban
--------------

5.(SBU) Many Turks roundly condemned the Ataturk video.
Several diplomats at the MFA expressed outrage in private and
sent emails to YouTube requesting that the offensive images
be removed from the website. Nevertheless, most Turks,
particularly high school and university students, strongly
opposed completely blocking access to the site. One group of
university students submitted a petition to the Sisli
Istanbul Penal court requesting the court lift the ban. The
petition stated that the students deplored the video at issue
but stressed that the court was punishing Turkey's citizens
with the ban. A student from Ankara's Middle East Technical

ANKARA 00000542 002 OF 002


University told us that students are much more concerned with
lack of access to YouTube than other free expression issues
the EU and international observers focuses on, such as
Turkish Penal Code Article 301 (insulting "Turkishness").
His anthropology professor, Dr. Aykan Erdemir, hoped the
YouTube controversy would serve as a wake-up call for Turkish
students who have generally remained passive in the debate
over amending Article 301.

6.(U) Turkish media, both mainstream secular and Islamist,
uniformly criticized the ban. After the court ruling, senior
columnists from every major paper wrote of what one called
"the blunt blow" to freedom of expression. "Posta" columnist
Mehmet Ali Birand argued that the ban harmed Turks by
detaching them from the rest of the world, which remained
connected to the site. "Hurriyet's" Cuneyt Ulsever likened
the court's attitude to that of a small child who thought he
would be invisible by burying his head under a pillow. As
the ban moved into its second day, columnists pointed out
that the world's attention was now focused on Turkey, and
speculated that the event would damage Turkey's EU accession
negotiations. "Radikal's" Tarhan Erdem reminded readers that
anything banned would only attract more attention. "Vatan"
later reported that a Google search of Ataturk plus "gay"
resulted in 415,000 hits.

7.(SBU) In addition to freedom of expression considerations,
the blockage of YouTube raises serious issues for the
Information Technology and Telecommunications sectors, and
for the broader climate for business and investment in
Turkey. At a time when the Telecoms sector is growing
rapidly but still relatively underdeveloped, the YouTube
blockage sends a very negative signal on unimpeded access to
the Internet. For businesses trying to decide where to
locate, the decision is bound to raise questions about
whether Turkey can be relied on not to interfere with
international data flows on which virtually all companies now
depend.

8.(SBU) Comment: The Turkish public has until now remained
relatively detached from freedom of expression debates, such
as whether to abolish or amend Article 301. Most Turks view
such issues as the bailiwick of ivory tower officials from
diplomatic, academic, and human rights circles. The YouTube
controversy hits much closer to home. Internet use is
widespread in Turkey and growing in popularity, especially
among youth. While these adolescents may not care whether
Orhan Pamuk or other Turkish writers are prosecuted for
"insulting Turkishness," they cannot live without access to
streaming video, music, and chat rooms. A ban on YouTube may
be the spark needed to motivate the 30 percent of Turkey's
population that is between 15 and 30 years old to actively
encourage broader freedom of expression in line with western
norms. End comment.

Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/ankara/

WILSON