|
Banning YouTube is not as easy as banning headscarves.
It has been four days since access to popular video-sharing Web site YouTube was blocked in Turkey because of clips that allegedly insulted the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. This was not the first time such a ban had been put into place in Turkey; the same Web site was blocked last year for similar reasons. The YouTube bans in Turkey, which is already under heavy pressure from the EU to expand the scope of freedoms and abolish a notorious article in its penal code that the EU deems violates free speech, has once again highlighted the country’s troubled record on free expression and raised concerns about it losing prestige because such bans are only imposed by backward states.
Sabah’s Emre Aköz thinks that just like all the bans, the YouTube ban also serves for the opposite goal. He explains why: Those who block access to the Web site think that they will protect youth with such bans and stand up for the memory of Atatürk and the Turkish identity. But just the opposite thing happens. As more people heard of the ban, they sought other ways to see the Web site and watch the anti-Atatürk clips in question, something they would probably ignore if there was no ban. According to Aköz, this ban also demoted Turkey to the ranks of undemocratic regimes which frequently resort to such bans and gave ammunition to the opponents of Turkey’s EU bid, who can now say: “We told you these guys are pro-ban. They lack tolerance. They cannot bear hearing criticism. Here is the evidence.†And one ridiculous aspect of the ban, says Aköz, is the fact that those who complain that Turkey is slowly being turned into Iran, an Islamic country, and defend the YouTube ban at the same time, are actually themselves turning Turkey into a country like Iran. “Because Iran is among the several countries where YouTube access is banned,†he quips.
Saying “Banning YouTube is not as easy as banning headscarves†in the headline of his article, Posta’s Mehmet Barlas also touches upon ongoing headscarf ban debates while expressing his discontent over the YouTube ban. The reason he thinks banning YouTube is more difficult than banning those who wear a headscarf from attending universities is the inability to control the virtual world. “Can we now say that we have taken the virtual world under our control by banning YouTube? No. The virtual world is incredibly large, it is both close and far away and a digital world,†he explains. Just like Aköz, Barlas also notes that there are thousands of ways to access YouTube even though it has been banned by court decision. “Blocking full access to a Web site, although possible to block only those controversial videos in this information era, is like blocking access to a school due to an unruly student or banning civil aviation due to an accident,†he argues.
Star columnist Ahmet Kekeç likens the YouTube ban to bans imposed on some books that were found to be “dangerous†by the perpetrators of the 1980 coup in Turkey. “Actually there has not been much of a mentality change since then although the objects of the bans have changed. They banned books yesterday and ban Web sites today,†he says. Voicing his respect for the court’s decision, he does not avoid criticizing it, either. “Will the state decide which Web sites we should follow or not? It is none of anyone’s business. And yet, the Internet provides a space of freedom that cannot be publicized,†Kekeç remarks. Fearing the continuation of such bans he calls on opinion leaders to raise their voices about such prohibitions while also teasing defenders of the ban. “While we expected it from political parties who allegedly have a ‘secret agenda’ to turn Turkey into a backward state, it has happened through the hands of a ‘modern’ institution,†he contends.
|
You should be the Turkish press officer 
