That's right Pete. I'm sure the EU will consider the banning of YouTube when they vote on Turkey's entry. Why do so many people think Web 2.0 is that important?
Pete Cashmore
· 2 years ago
Jordan,
Have you read the European newspapers? The accusation is that Turkey is has failed to uphold free speech.
Jack
· 2 years ago
This is really childish. You'd expect this sort of argument in a playground, not between countries!
Emre Sokullu
· 2 years ago
Just to let you know; the law that caused this unfortunate event is in progress to change. And apparently no one in Turkey was happy with the decision of the court.
Emre Sokullu
· 2 years ago
@Jack, this dispute was actually flamed by 2 fanatics, Stavraetos (Greek) and Garagargagakdedi (Turkish) - local media companies were irresponsible and pumped up the tension - then YouTube became the playground of fanboys from both sides. Now there are conspiracy theories saying that local media companies did that to destruct YouTube in local markets and promote their own video sharing sites. After all, as you might guess, not wise Greeks and/or Turks participated in these childish disputes. Fanatics are everywhere...
Aral Balkan
· 2 years ago
Hi Pete,
It's "Turkishness" not "Turkiness" (they're not turkeys, they're Turkish.) Anyway, the whole thing is ridiculous, as is the law against insulting Ataturk or "Turkishness", etc. All of these are unjust limitations on free speech. But we do it here too. The UK still has a blasphemy law. France has a law against denying the holocaust, etc.
Pete Cashmore
· 2 years ago
Aral,
Hehe. Fixed typo - first post of the day usually has a few of them, especially when I only managed 4 hours sleep. ;)
It's not unique to Turkey, you're right: all countries have laws that stifle free speech, often in the name of religion or some other highly emotive topic.
krf
· 2 years ago
do you really think this turkish law is equivalent to the ones you mentioned? (holocaust denial law in particular?)
One is designed to prevent the denial of a proven historical fact, and the other is a facist, ultranationalistic law created to suppress decent and criticism against their own nation and the truth of its own bloody history. (go look at who have been targeted with 'insulting turkishness'!)
Yes there are some similarities between those two laws superficially, except in who the laws are designed to prevent from exercising that speech.
Does anyone think Neo-nazi holocaust deniers are getting a bum rap?
commonsense
· 2 years ago
And now YouTube is full of videos about gay Greeks. Only solution? Ban all videos int the whole world!!!
pesevenk-ataturk
· 2 years ago
best man in the word
deusdiabolus
· 2 years ago
Everyone is a little gay.
EKR
· 2 years ago
I am gay!
Ataturk
· 2 years ago
I guess I was a little Metro Sexual for my days. God forbid my countrymen accept the truth about me. Ataturk.
Richard Dey
· 2 years ago
Well, if the present Turkish government denies it -- but Ataturk's own biographers admit it, then Ataturk was gay and all the horrified Turks can lump it.
The same could be said regarding Ranjit Singh. If the Sikhs deny it -- and long-since declassified British military intelligence confirms it, Ranjit Singh was gay too.
Such matters are not to be determined by homophobic governments but by solid research in homophilics.
EKR
· 2 years ago
GAY or NOT! He was the one of the best leaders in the world and he has done a lot to create a new nation and educate his people. He loved his country and I am sure he would not be offended for being called as GAY if he was alive, as being GAY should not be used to offend people, this is a think to do by small minded people. I think it is time to grow up and use the internet for good and positive things.
Erdinc Acar
· 2 years ago
God damn you.
oops
· 1 year ago
here is a typical turkish. i guess no god can help you to make the wish you wished.
All Comments
Have you read the European newspapers? The accusation is that Turkey is has failed to uphold free speech.
It's "Turkishness" not "Turkiness" (they're not turkeys, they're Turkish.) Anyway, the whole thing is ridiculous, as is the law against insulting Ataturk or "Turkishness", etc. All of these are unjust limitations on free speech. But we do it here too. The UK still has a blasphemy law. France has a law against denying the holocaust, etc.
Hehe. Fixed typo - first post of the day usually has a few of them, especially when I only managed 4 hours sleep. ;)
It's not unique to Turkey, you're right: all countries have laws that stifle free speech, often in the name of religion or some other highly emotive topic.
One is designed to prevent the denial of a proven historical fact, and the other is a facist, ultranationalistic law created to suppress decent and criticism against their own nation and the truth of its own bloody history. (go look at who have been targeted with 'insulting turkishness'!)
Yes there are some similarities between those two laws superficially, except in who the laws are designed to prevent from exercising that speech.
Does anyone think Neo-nazi holocaust deniers are getting a bum rap?
The same could be said regarding Ranjit Singh. If the Sikhs deny it -- and long-since declassified British military intelligence confirms it, Ranjit Singh was gay too.
Such matters are not to be determined by homophobic governments but by solid research in homophilics.