Constitutional Court rules 'rude and offensive' social media expressions are protected under freedom of expression

The Constitutional Court (AYM) has ruled that the right to freedom of expression was violated in the case of an individual who was convicted of defamation for using the terms 'noniş' and 'nonoş'. The court stated that imposing judicial fines in every instance of rude or offensive social media posts creates a chilling effect on freedom of expression, which is an indispensable element of a democratic society.

According to the Constitutional Court's ruling, the applicant, a contractor identified as K.K., had shared a post on social media containing the terms 'noniş' and 'nonoş' following a dispute during a construction project, for which he was sentenced to a judicial fine of 1,740 Turkish Lira for defamation. However, the Constitutional Court overturned the decision, stating that this penalty constituted an interference with freedom of expression.

The court's decision emphasized that freedom of expression must allow for a certain degree of exaggeration and that it should not be expected that every social media post be met with criminal penalties. The court highlighted that in an environment where rude and offensive language is commonly used, individuals using such expressions toward one another should be viewed as a normal occurrence, ruling that the interference with freedom of expression was unacceptable in a democratic society.

The ruling noted that the lower court's conclusion that only the word 'noniş' constituted defamation was an 'over-interpretation' when considering the context of the incident. The decision included the following assessment:

"The court's assessment that the words 'noniş' and 'nonoş' used by the applicant have the same meaning and are used for homosexual men, and its acceptance that the applicant's primary intent was to belittle the complainant, was only possible by attributing meanings to the words used by the applicant beyond those he intended. As the Constitutional Court has underlined, meanings beyond those intended by the applicant should not be attributed to the disputed expressions. It has been evaluated that the reasoning of the court was not relevant or sufficient regarding the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression.

For the reasons explained, it must be decided that the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution has been violated."