[gkya]

Erdogan is not an idiot for trying to censor German press. He does know that that won't ever happen because he wanted. But most the voters of his party will be excited to see him shouting at the Germany, the US, etc. This is not that obvious to the opposition. I came to know some supporters only recently, and boy, they have arousals when the guy acts like this. I'm a Turkish citizen BTW.

And see, criticism of Erdogan is not really forbidden. Criticism in its every form is forbidden, if you're powerful enough. Criticise Ataturk, and what happens? Lawsuits, and you'll probably be jailed (1). Say that the Armenian Genocide happened, you'll be jailed. Criticise the party leaders, and they sack half of the party, e.g. the recent MHP situation.

Erdogan does not like criticism, but it's our culture that allows him to actually enforce a surpression thereof. There was a guy who reported his own wife because she spoke pejoratively about Erdogan. Here there still is a godly ruling class, the class of devlet buyukleri. Until they become merely the citizens with the duty to decide for us for a limited time and with full responsabilities, the status quo will go on.

(1) A very recent example is the havoc against a documentary that criticised him.

[usrusr]

> most the voters of his party will be excited to see him shouting at the Germany, the US, etc.

It's even "better" than that, because it is so easy for a leader to re-spin outside criticism from "attack against me" to "attack against us", strengthening his position internally. And this pattern is not even limited to dictators and the like: when Americans made fun of Bush junior, it was perfectly fine application of of free speech. If Europeans did the same, it was antiamericanism making Americans rally around the flag to protect him.

So in the interplay between international and domestic opinion, there seems to be some kind of inverse Streisand effect. Can we please have a word for that? It would make the whole world easier to understand... (german has "Burgfriedensmentalität“, but that is the resulting state, not the mechanism that causes it)

[studentrob]

> Erdogan is not an idiot for trying to censor German press

It hurts your country's ability to leverage foreign minds when you begin to censor the outside world. Plus, with the internet, censorship becomes really impractical. China and North Korea don't do this completely successfully and they spend a lot of effort to keep their citizens on some form of lock down. So not only do you end up missing out on the collective conscience of foreigners, but you also lose some portion of your own population's trust and creativity.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is working together to solve problems in an open, concerted manner. I'm not saying our world is perfect but I think it's fairly obvious that censorship, in the days of the internet, is not the right way to the future.

We need to get over ourselves, stop being so sensitive, and recognize that even when governments make laws to protect people's feelings, people will still say mean and negative things. I don't want to read those garbage comments here on HN because it fills up the thread, but I can tolerate them in the real world because I know I can just walk away. The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence, and I'm sorry to all the extremist Muslims, but drawing a picture is not viewed as inciting violence by most of the world, including most of the people who follow similar forms of that faith.

[gkya]

Take Erdogan as a businessman instead of a political figure. Because that's what he does. Since when he started his political career, even before the AKP days, he and his family prospered to an incredible level. That's all the care, and the support comes from the businessmen trying to get some benefit out of the business. So the case of Turkey is the case of a group that fruits the state's resources for enrichment of theirs, and nobody cares if Turkey remains respectable or not. It's business.

> The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence [...]

Speech should not be regulated in any ways, or we will have millions of who decides questions. A picture of Mohammad is annoying to each and every muslim, because the religion expressly forbids the likeness of the holy figures. Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks. This does not in any way justify the violence, but does not help either. Have you seen the latest cover of Hebdo, Papa où t'es? That's within freedom of speech too, but freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning. It is possible to criticise, or even attack in a civil, graceful way. In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?

[stale2002]

The whole inciting violence question is pretty clear.

If someone says "everybody, let's go kill this person or group of people on Saturday at Noon". THAT, is inciting violence.

[splintercell]

It isn't actually. What happens in other countries is, nobody ever says "Everybody, lets go kill this person", rather "Everybody, the other community must pay".

If the courts and police starts prosecuting that kind of euphemism laden language, then they shift further.

On the other hand, keep everything open and people tend to learn and build filters for stuff like this.

[jeroen]

No, it isn't clear. Just because you can come up with one obvious example does not mean there aren't many situations that are less obvious.

[studentrob]

> Take Erdogan as a businessman instead of a political figure

The US is strong in the business world because they endure differing opinions!

Astute businessmen can see how limiting free speech limits their own success. Good businessmen do not surround themselves with yes-men.

When you limit free speech of a country, you cut off most of your people from certain intelligence. You could argue the intelligence agency has access to everything, however, at some point, the original guys will retire. They will be replaced with people who grew up without consistent access to the entire world picture. They will thus be disadvantaged when engaging in international politics and trade deals.

I guess it comes down to, do you think current and former leaders of the likes of China and North Korea are more or less happy or successful than current and former leaders of the likes of the US and France.

> Speech should not be regulated in any ways

You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. Governments set limits to every right in order to balance public safety. If you think that's wrong, that's your choice. I'd just point out that you grew up in a society that benefited from this increased safety while sacrificing some portion of its people's rights. Unless you were raised in the jungle :-D.

[TDL]

"You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater..."

Yes, you are. Look at "Trope Two" in the link below. The post linked is written by Ken White who specializes in the 1st amendment.

https://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-cens...

[studentrob]

Interesting, thanks for the correction. Maybe instead we can say, you're not allowed to threaten someone's life. The point is there are limits to free speech, even in America, though there are less limits there than in Europe where hate speech laws have been introduced.

[TDL]

Certainly, credible threats of violence are certainly a line.

[gkya]

> You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater.

Come on mate, I thought we're talking about political speech :)

With regards to Erdogan as a businessman, the thing is, he is using his position to prosper as a rich man. I repeat, he has no care about what happens to the country. There are no ideologies, no nothing here. He uses the state as a means to cash in what he can. And he has his circle of assistants etc., what he wants is to be able to steer the politics and ultimately the state the way he wants w/o any friction.

[studentrob]

> he is using his position to prosper as a rich man

I just said he would prosper more by accepting the diversity that exists in his region and the world. You're not even reading my comment, you're just repeating the same thing you said before.

[jessaustin]

So he's basically a Ba'athist? That's parsimonious. I think this is the ground state for modern governments. To get anything more than Ba'athism takes a lot of work by a lot of people.

[nl]

It's probably worth noting that I don't think @gkya is supporting Erdogan. He is merely pointing out that his actions in attempting to censor foreign media have motives which aren't obvious.

When one looks at his actions in the light of those motives his actions make a lot of sense. Without those motives his actions appear stupid.

[studentrob]

> It's probably worth noting that I don't think @gkya is supporting Erdogan

Thanks, I see that now. Some of @gkya's words sounded like they take the opposite viewpoint, such as,

>> Speech should not be regulated in any ways

>> Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks.

>> freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning.

It reads like it was unedited and is very hard to follow

> When one looks at his actions in the light of those motives his actions make a lot of sense. Without those motives his actions appear stupid.

I disagree, see my comments about astute businessmen not using yes-men above. No worries if we don't agree here. Countries are most certainly businesses. They're in the business of acquiring people who generate money.

[nl]

>> When one looks at his actions in the light of those motives his actions make a lot of sense. Without those motives his actions appear stupid.

> I disagree, see my comments about astute businessmen not using yes-men above. No worries if we don't agree here. Countries are most certainly businesses. They're in the business of acquiring people who generate money.

Right, but that is assuming that Erdogan is trying to do what is best for the country in the long term. Many would argue his primary concern is Erdogan's interests in the short term.

[gkya]

I'm sorry if I've been unclear. I do not in any ways support Erdogan. Though I insist that freedom of speech does not mean that one can be irresponsible of what he says.

[hartator]

> Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks.

Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't.

For example, France, which seems freer than Turkey, actually just fined a comedian that have insulted the prime minister of half retarded Musolinni. That's not okay and it's not fundamentaly different of what's happening in Turkey.

[adrianm]

So according to this binary definition of free speech, what countries actually have it?

It seems like many countries have limitations on free speech, which according to this definition would mean they do not actually have free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

[gkya]

Quoting my grandparent comment:

> In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?

So to this I agree:

> Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't.

What I say is, the individuals should be considerate when using their freedom to speech. Freedoms bear responsabilities. One cannot say anything and go by. If what you say is lies, or pure insults, or if it's provocative, there will be consequences, or else it conflicts with the right to human dignity of the one(s) at the receiving end of your speech. One should be responsible and mindful of what he says.

[stale2002]

"One cannot say anything and go by."

Yes you CAN. Nobody has a right not to be offended. You don't have to be mindful of what you say. That's not freedom of speech.

[Silfen]

GP isn't talking about taking legal action against offensive speech. If you're offensive, it is entirely reasonable for people to take social action against you - like branding you an asshole - but you should never be arrested or punished by the state.

[gkya]

You have to be mindful of what you say, that is, you mustn't say things you can't prove. You mustn't lie. Or else, you'll be disproved, and announced publicly as a liar. I don't say that you are not free to lie, though, what I say is, in this case, by lying, you accept such consequences. By saying something, you're responsible to its truth.

You're free to insult, but you don't have to. If you do so, people will get offended, and you'll be excluded, ignored, or insulted back at. Again, you're free to insult, but there will be consequences, and by insulting you take the responsibility, and accept being excluded, or insulted at.

And everybody has a right to not be offended, which has to protect them from bullying, demeaning, racism, etc., called the "right to human dignity":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120...

> Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected. (Article 1)

> Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. (Article 3/1)

> The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right. (Article 10/2)

> Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. (Article 11)

> Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. (Article 21/1)

> Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. (Article 21/2)

[Tomte]

That's the predominant American view, which is pretty... extremist.

Sure, "free speech exactly like in the US" is a binary issue.

Free speech, as sensibly construed, is a whole spectrum.

[xorcist]

The US has a higher tolerance for hate speech, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to say anything. The bar is comparably low to sue for defamation and libel, for example. Pretty much only the UK (perhaps France?) is less free in that particular aspect for comparable countries.

And free speech is not very useful unless you have access to ways to practice it. In a country where mass media practice active censorship voluntarily (against "wardrobe malfunctions" and swear words) in order to avoid state sanctions, that absolutist view gets a bit problematic.

[jessaustin]

We have lots of problems, but "extremist" speech ain't one of them.

[studentrob]

Lol. According to some, speech justifies mass killings. And the world keeps spinning..

[nkoren]

Thanks for explaining this. I was struggling to understand Erdogan's tactics. On the surface they seem simply idiotic: the Streisand effect is hardly news, so the result of protesting this video is utterly, utterly predictable whose been paying attention to the world at any point over the past 20 years.

But however much I might disagree with Erdogan, I know that he probably isn't actually be an idiot: people who can grab and hold that much power rarely are. Your explanation of how he's manufacturing this kerfuffle for a domestic audience makes a lot more sense.

[Grishnakh]

>There was a guy who reported his own wife because she spoke pejoratively about Erdogan.

What are divorce laws like in Turkey? I'm betting this guy just wanted to get rid of his wife, and found this to be a convenient way to do so.

[gkya]

Sound and modern. No need to pull a divorce italian style.

[tremon]

criticism of Erdogan is not really forbidden. Criticism in its every form is forbidden, if you're powerful enough

So it really is forbidden, just not enforced until you actually start making an impact?

[gkya]

The figure of Ataturk and the Turkish national identitiy are immune to any pejorative terms de jure. The rest is forbidden de facto, that is, if you are strong enough, you can try to silence the opposition with lawsuits for hate speech, public insulting, and treason, and laws for detention can be abused to keep them at lenght in prison. See the recent Can Dundar-Ekrem Gul case for treason and publication of statal secrets.

So it's mostly an abuse of the law via installed judges and misuse of the constitution. The parliamenters are immune to lawsuits during their duty, so it's easier for them to act so.

[madaxe_again]

It's almost like an Ottoman revival, except less inclusive.

I wonder, will Erdogan bring back Janissaries? Or has he already through his full control of the security forces?

[gkya]

Ottoman? Janissaries, for a time, were so active in deciding who would be the sultan that, they were abolished by, IIRC, sultan Mahmud II. Erdogan has subjugated the police and the army, which were in the past very active in the political scene (frequent coups d'état, many parliamenters from veterans).

And I guess if we preserved the ruling house like the Brits and the spaniards did, and also some form of the Caliphate that acted like Vatican, maybe the things would be easier (I'm a secular agnostic, and I'm completely anti-nationalist). Nowadays there is no entity that is respected as a unifier of the Muslim world.

And further, maybe the Empire was better for middle-east. Here, the nation failed, for the bindings among people are mostly based on kinship, belonging to the same mahalle and memleket, and ultimately religion. But in Turkey you'll find many adjacent mosques and churches, for, AFAIK, it wasn't until nationalism took on that the major conflicts started. Under the Ottomans, yes, the muslim were a bit more advantageous, but not less subject to the sultanate than the christian subjects.

[steve19]

"Under the Ottomans, yes, the muslim were a bit more advantageous, but not less subject to the sultanate than the christian subjects."

Only if you ignore the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians and other minority Christian groups.

Think before you write.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

[gkya]

Put your reading glasses on. And mind your language. There are many armenian citizens of turkey, maybe I'm one of them? Where do I say that I'm ethnically turkish? Think before you write.

I say this, in the sentence before the one you quote:

> AFAIK, it wasn't until nationalism took on that the major conflicts started.

The genocide happened during the late nineteenth-early twentieth century. Armenians were under Ottoman rule since long before, so were Greeks.

[jimbokun]

A preview of what's in store if the U.S. somehow manages to elect Trump.

[gkya]

Rather, a thumbnail. The US actually does have the power to f*ck the world up, unlike our guy, who can only aspire to do so.

[flatline]

Trump is primarily playing off a base of xenophobia and isolationism, for which Americans have always had a certain luxury due to our geographic isolation from the rest of the world. For our one neighbor to the South, he wants to build a wall. I see nothing that would indicate a stifling of the press, individual rights to free expression and assembly, rigged elections, and all the other problems facing Turkey today.

[untothebreach]

I disagree, I believe there would definitely be effects to freedom of the press and free expression. Trump's opinion of the press is well-documented[1], as well as his opinion on free speech[2][3].

1: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/27/trump-freedom-press-n...

2: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-...

3: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/business/media/25trump.htm...

[6stringmerc]

Thank you for listing these; one of the most shocking observations I've had is how absolutely up-front Trump is about saying he'd basically gut the First Amendment because he doesn't like journalists. Having sources like you've provided is quite helpful. Why 'the press' hasn't savagely been aggressive and hostile toward him the way he has to them doesn't inspire confidence in me unfortunately.

[untothebreach]

My cynical opinion is that, unfortunately, "trump stories" == "clicks/viewers" == "more ad revenue", to the point where no news organization can afford to _not_ cover every ridiculous story about Trump.

[6stringmerc]

No disagreement, I'm familiar enough with media revenue streams and what-not that I understand the "appeal" of coverage. It does kind of remind me a bit of the way media members 'covered' for Tiger Woods for all those years. As in, if you wanted access to him for interviews, content, etc, you'd better keep certain things out of print (so to speak). Skewering Trump would "curtail" access, or, more than likely, result in a lawsuit threat.

[soundwave106]

Donald Trump reminds me more of Silvio Berlusconi than Erdogan, personally.

Berlusconi was nowhere near Erdogan's style of strongman politics, but unfortunately, during his term, Berlusconi did stifle press freedom somewhat in Italy... primarily via questionable libel lawsuits against any critical outlet if I recall.

It's easy for me to see Donald Trump following a similar pattern, of attempting to sue any critical outlet into silence.

[6stringmerc]

Absolutely; he's stated as much flat out. "I want to make it easier to sue the press." As Trump so clearly shows, it's very easy to sue somebody in the US (or use it as an empty threat) - there's lots of avenues for recourse.

Unfortunately for Trump, the courts have consistently sided with the press when they report accurate and factual statements, even if they may be unflattering. This doesn't seem to register with Trump. If asked to define what "treating me fairly" actually, genuinely means, I'm pretty sure he couldn't.

[gukov]

So let him sue and let the courts deal with it.

Do you think the media needs to be a little more accountable or the hysteria is good?

[soundwave106]

Accountability for accuracy is desirable. But with strongmen leaders, "accountability in media" tends to be "toe the party line", regardless of accuracy.

Practically I don't think Trump would get very far with any sort of libel lawsuits. Even in Italy, Berlusconi's "sue into silence" strategy was not 100% effective -- and Berlusconi is a much more dominant player in comparative national medias than Trump is.

Even so, my gut feeling is that Trump would be perfectly okay with a Putin / Erdogan style strongman media takeover if he could get away with it.

[6stringmerc]

To answer your question, yes, I do think the media needs to be a little more accountable, and to clarify, I fully believe it should be to a person or entity of character and with a steadfast reaspect for truth - qualities of which Donald Trump's behavior and statements certainly do not reflect.

[supremeanger]

Its not Trump that you should be so concerned with but rather the current safe-space culture of colleges. That will be a greater threat to free speech in the coming years than anything you will see from Trump