I'm not telling any person on this website that they are wrong (at least not on this topic).

I am just trying to point out that every country that claims to have free speech, have taboo subjects that do apply.

In Turkey, this subject is Ataturk. And for a foreigner, unless you have educated yourself on the end of the Osmans, WWI, the War of Independence, and then on Mustafa Kemal himself as a man and a leader before he became Ataturk, I can see why it might be difficult to understand the strong feelings the nation has for this man.

But again, I can find instances in other countries where free speech is not absolute.
In the US, flag burning raises anger as much as any issue I can think of.
In Germany, it is against the law to display the swastika.
In all of Europe, it is against the law to minimize the holocaust.
These are all actions that take away from ones right of absolute free speech. But, maybe sometimes, in certain circumstances, these exceptions from free speech are justified.
In Turkey, I believe this to be the case with Ataturk.

One should be cautious when talking about other's sensitive feelings, or about some issues unless s/he is well informed concerning an issues other than having some hearsay things. For istance:

Some years ago a Greek cypriot was shot dead by a Turkish soldier while he was trying to remove the Turkish flag from its post. The flag post was, of course, on the Turkish side. Some said that it wasnt worth for just a piece of cloth without knowing what the national flag means to the Turkish. The people who said it wasnt worth have their flags' design on their panties or shorts (we dont look down to them. It is their flag in the end). We have our flag above our heads or on our hearts. Every single Turkish soldier does the same thing if anyone dare to touch our flag with ill-intention.

After the independence of İzmir some tried to burn the Greek flag, but Atatürk prevented them from doing that and told them they were wrong. We respect other nations's flags as much as we respect ours.

Another example: we believe Hz İsa (Jesus Christ)in a diffrent way any Christian does (Believing the prophets is one of the pillars of faith in Islam). But we don't discuss the way s/he believes, or never say,or let anyone say anyting unacceptable about Jesus Christ.

One more example: when you are in India you can't touch a cow lying on your way. You can't tell any Indian it is just an animal.

I don't think it is not that true for anyone to talk about some sensitive feelings of others as s/he wishes unless s/he has any idea about them. And it shouldn't be called freedom of speech. One's freedom ends where the other's starts.

PS I am not refering to the article 301, which is the subject of the thread.

Qdemir, so I'm curious what is - according to you - an appropriate way to share opinions or to express negative criticism about issues that are controversial? Because I was thinking that it's really impossible for 100% of the population to have exactly the same opinion on a topic and those differences should also be respected and not repressed and punished.

I respect your values and religion, but when things that are universally considered to be wrong, come out of your religion or love for your country, then I think you need to get off your pedestal and lower your sensitivity level and accept that something is wrong with the things you sanction.

So this person who wrote the book about Ataturk, was also Turkish, she just happened to have a different opinion on some topics. My question is - why can't you respect HER opinions although you request respect for yours? The moment someone doesn't agree with you, he/she is insensitive and disrespectful?
Yes, Ataturk is a big thing in Turkey, after all his face is practically everywhere. He did some amazing things, but he wasn't perfect either. Why is it wrong according you to admit that? Why is it so bad to say that he did some great things and some bad things? (which is the truth). Things aren't always black or white, good or bad, but people sometimes need to get rid of their pride to realize that.

I dont wanna join this discussion because I have no information about it all and Im tired of being unable to discuss. KeithL made a great point and Catwoman's reply reflects my meaning too. If we have a certain point of view due to backgrounds, this point of view may be wrong in a situtation that is not like ours. This is exactly why we need to discuss, not just to critisize other points of view and other systems, also to learn about our own system better.

Anyway, as I dont really know anything about it this might sound rude and I dont mean it that way, Im trying to learn something here so please dont get me wrong.. but after I read the article.. I wonder what bad was said about Atatürk? The article gives the following reason

'The passage that landed Çalışlar in court quotes a witness as saying how Atatürk, facing an armed attack by political opponent Topal Osman put on a chador to disguise himself as a woman to flee the presidential palace in Ankara'


If you ask me that is very smart?

i will start to topic with asking a question...

how many of you here talking knows about the law 301?
if you havent read it before now i am posting it here:

"Türklüğü, Cumhuriyeti, Devletin kurum ve organlarını aşağılama

MADDE 301. - (1) Türklüğü, Cumhuriyeti veya Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisini alenen aşağılayan kişi, altı aydan üç yıla kadar hapis cezası ile cezalandırılır.

The person who insults being Turk, The Republic or the Turkish Grand National Assembly directly/clearly/openly, is senteced to imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years

(2) Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Hükûmetini, Devletin yargı organlarını, askerî veya emniyet teşkilatını alenen aşağılayan kişi, altı aydan iki yıla kadar hapis cezası ile cezalandırılır.

the person who insults government of Turkish Republic, the justice branches of governmet, military or the police orginzation openly/directly/clearly is sentenced to imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years

(3) Türklüğü aşağılamanın yabancı bir ülkede bir Türk vatandaşı tarafından işlenmesi hâlinde, verilecek ceza üçte bir oranında artırılır.

"here it says if it is done in abroad by a Turkish citizen that person gets ban 3 times more"

(4) Eleştiri amacıyla yapılan düşÃ¼nce açıklamaları suç oluşturmaz.

the thought expressions done with the mean of critisim doesnt mean a crime or sth like that...
"

now sueing somebody because of the things he or she write on somewhere doesnt mean that Turkey doesnt have a freedom of speech...

i hope this clear sth in your minds...

and i will congragulate KeithL here even if he is a foreigner his mentioning the impression he gives to the army about an "Independence War"...