Lawyer Ersöz on the detention of 'Soğuk Savaş' host and guest: Vague and unpredictable
Lawyer Hüseyin Ersöz evaluated the increasing judicial pressure on freedom of expression, particularly in recent years, stating, "Abandoning these judicial practices would pave the way for the protection of democratic principles and the development of freedom of thought. An opposing approach serves to strengthen a totalitarian structure."
12punto
A detention order has been issued for Boğaç Soydemir, the host of the YouTube program titled Soğuk Savaş, and the program's guest, Enes Akgündüz.
The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office took action due to statements made in a video shared on social media under the name "Soğuk Savaş." The Prosecutor's Office launched an ex officio investigation on the grounds that the statements in the content in question could constitute the crime of "Inciting the Public to Hatred and Hostility or Insulting."
"ADOPTS A RESTRICTIVE APPROACH"
In an assessment made on his social media account, lawyer Hüseyin Ersöz stated that while such investigation and arrest decisions have been frequently encountered in recent years, this situation stems from legal professionals adopting a "freedom-restricting" approach.
"For the last 2 years, we have been encountering such investigation, detention, and arrest decisions very frequently. This situation stems from legal professionals adopting a 'freedom-restricting' rather than a 'freedom-expanding' approach.
However, criticism protects social bonds, strengthens respect between individuals, and creates a strong state structure. Such interventions, especially in the field of humor artists, constitute a disproportionate interference with Freedom of Expression.
Unfortunately, the Crime of Inciting the Public to Hatred and Hostility creates a vague and unpredictable area. Prosecution authorities often interpret this crime 'very broadly,' applying it in a way that includes harsh criticism, rude language, disturbing statements, and humor.
Judicial authorities intervene even in subjects of humor that we would otherwise laugh off, and with the 'reflection of the issue to the public,' they cause events that no one was aware of (like me) to spread even further. Abandoning these judicial practices would pave the way for the protection of democratic principles and the development of freedom of thought. An opposing approach serves to strengthen a totalitarian structure.
The justice system must always be in favor of expanding freedoms and aim to protect the individual against the totalitarian practices of the state. Otherwise, it will continue to present an image that contradicts its reason for existence."