Supreme Court ruling on 'be a man, be brave' remarks
The 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation has overturned a prison sentence handed down to a defendant for the crime of insult after he told a municipal police chief to "be a man" and "be brave" during an argument, ruling that the words used constituted "disturbing language" rather than insult.
AA
According to the Supreme Court's ruling, an individual living in Mersin sent a message to a municipal police chief with whom he was arguing, stating, "If anything happens to one of my staff, you are my only point of contact; be a man, be a man, do your job," and also shared a post on a website saying, "If you cannot fulfill the requirements of your position, leave it to someone brave enough to do it; be brave."
Following a complaint, a public lawsuit was filed against the author of these statements for the crime of "insult."
The Mersin 5th Criminal Court of First Instance, which conducted the trial, sentenced the defendant to 1 year, 2 months, and 17 days in prison in accordance with Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code.
The defendant, who argued that the expressions he used did not contain insults, appealed the local court's decision.
The 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which reviewed the appeal, overturned the conviction on the grounds that the expressions used by the defendant did not constitute "insult."
FROM THE RATIONALE OF THE DECISION
In the chamber's decision, it was stated that the legal values protected regarding the crime of insult are the "honor, dignity, and reputation of individuals."
The decision noted that the words used by the defendant toward the complainant "did not reach the level of offending honor, dignity, and reputation," and included the assessment that "not every type of harsh criticism or disturbing word directed at individuals should be evaluated within the context of the crime of insult; the words must clearly constitute an imputation of a concrete act or fact, or an act of swearing, that could offend honor, dignity, and reputation."
The decision stated, "The words used by the defendant are of a disturbing, rude, and impolite nature; therefore, the elements of the crime of insult were not met. The judgment was found to be contrary to the law because the defendant was convicted instead of being acquitted."