IPI condemns increasing use of arbitrary court orders to censor independent journalism

15.06.2026

In a recent case, Turkish courts issued three successive blocking orders in three days. The first censored news articles relating to an investigative case; the second order then banned reporting about the court order; while the third then finally blocked even basic coverage of the previous censorship measures.

IPI said the triple access-blocking orders were a glaring example of the high levels of the judicial censorship of independent journalism in Turkey, which has continued to worsen in recent years. With little transparency and inadequate justification, court orders rely on alleged violations of “national security” or “public order” to suppress critical reporting on matters of clear public interest.

The three blocking orders concerned an investigative series titled “Visa Empire”, published by Kısa Dalga journalist Canan Coşkun earlier this month. Part of a collaborative investigation with the international outlet Lighthouse Reports, the series scrutinized visa application practices in Turkey.

Delays in applications, fees charged, and the difficulties in visa processes had long been on the public agenda in Turkey. “Our research clearly revealed the irregularities committed, the arbitrary practices involved and the connections between visa companies and public figures,” Kemal Göktaş, editor-in-chief of Kısa Dalga, told IPI.

Despite clear public interest, the articles were blocked by the 9th Istanbul Criminal Court of Peace on June 1. But that was not the only measure taken. The following day, Istanbul’s 5th Criminal Court of Peace issued a second order blocking news coverage and social media posts about the series and its censorship. And on June 3, a third court, the 7th Istanbul Criminal Court of Peace, issued yet another order, this time blocking coverage of the two preceding blocking orders. All three decisions cited Article 8/A of the law on Publications on the Internet (No. 5651) and grounded their decision on “national security” and “public order” violations.

Göktaş said Kısa Dalga anticipated that their well-documented investigation would generate a strong public reaction — and that this would bring pressure from the Turkish government. “The pressure we are facing is not new,” he continued, “but the reaction against the blocking orders has been more visible than ever before, and this will be important for the fight for press freedom.”

Commenting on the response to the articles, Şebnem Arsu, one of the journalists who contributed to Lighthouse Reports’ investigation and a member of the IPI Turkey National Committee, said: “The attention this investigation has received — as have the restrictions imposed on it — is evidence of how timely and relevant this work is.”

This is not Kısa Dalga’s first encounter with censorship. In January 2026, courts blocked a significant number of the outlet’s articles on corruption allegations and political commentary. Turkey’s Information Technologies and Communication Authority (BTK) — the public authority responsible for regulating and supervising internet and telecommunications — notified the outlet of the orders without providing the full court decisions, making any meaningful legal challenge impossible.

The escalating trend of media blockades

Kısa Dalga is not the only outlet to have been targeted recently. In late April 2026, the Elazığ 2nd Criminal Court of Peace issued an order to block Cumhuriyet Newspaper’s official X account — a decision that went unreported until early June, when it was published by EngelliWeb and picked up by the outlet itself. Founded in 1924, Cumhuriyet is Turkey’s oldest continuously published newspaper. Nevertheless, the court justified the decision on national security and public order grounds. Following the announcement of the order, Cumhuriyet’s X account, which had over 3.5 million followers, was renamed in an attempt to remain accessible to its audience. A separate account that registered Cumhuriyet’s previous username was swiftly suspended by X.

Kurdish media outlets have also faced the same pattern of targeting by Turkish authorities. In late May 2026, BTK blocked access to the X accounts of Mezopotamya Ajansı and JINNEWS — the latest in a series of restrictions imposed on both outlets. As Yaman Akdeniz, co-founder of the Freedom of Expression Association (İFÖD), noted in a recent interview, the targeting of Kurdish journalists and outlets has been among the most consistent features of Turkey’s internet censorship infrastructure, predating and outlasting individual news cycles.

As the examples above illustrate, the legal basis most frequently invoked in these decisions is Article 8/A of Law No. 5651, which allows for swift content removal and access blocking on national security grounds. But in practice, courts applying it rarely assess the context or public interest value of the content at issue, relying on vaguely-worded justifications instead.

Turkey’s Constitutional Court has previously annulled Article 9 of the same law, which had allowed courts to order the removal of content and block access to websites on the grounds of personal rights violations. Yet the pattern continues through other provisions.

According to lawyer Gökhan Tekşen, the vague concepts used to justify access blocking, combined with the absence of effective judicial review over criminal courts of peace, constitute a clear violation of the principles of legal certainty and the rule of law. “Many courts effectively apply a dual legal standard, deciding based on the perceived sensitivity of the case,” Tekşen told IPI. Tekşen said this selective compliance is part of a broader trend: the de-constitutionalisation of Turkey’s legal order, in which Constitutional Court rulings are increasingly disregarded in practice.

This legal ambiguity also has a cost in public trust. Arsu further noted that “bans introduced on vague grounds are perceived by the public as attempts to prevent access to information,” adding that “given the current state of technology and cross-border journalism, such a barrier is simply not possible.”

IPI stands in solidarity with all journalists and media organisations in Turkey that continue to pursue independent journalism in the face of systematic pressure.

We call on Turkish authorities to:

• Immediately lift the access-blocking orders against news articles of public interest, and to halt the use of court orders against independent journalism,
• Make all access-blocking decisions publicly available in full to allow affected parties to mount an effective legal defence,
• Reform Law No. 5651, particularly Article 8/A, to eliminate vague and overbroad formulations that allow courts to suppress journalism.

The public interest value of independent journalism, including investigative reporting that touches on politically sensitive matters and holds government officials accountable, must be recognised and protected, instead of being treated as grounds for censorship.

This statement was coordinated by IPI as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries.