Turkish Court Blocks Digital Access to Independent Publisher T24 Over LGBTQ+ Reporting

An Istanbul criminal judgeship ordered a comprehensive access ban against T24, one of Turkey’s most prominent independent digital news portals, directing telecommunications authorities to block access to its website and social media profiles. The decision, rendered on September 30, 2026, by the Istanbul 1st Penal Judgeship of Peace, cited 118 separate news articles and multimedia reports published over the past year that the court determined constituted unlawful "LGBTI+ propaganda".

The order marks an escalation in the state’s nationwide "My Family Is Safe" operation, launched earlier in September. While the initial phase of the operation focused on rights organizations and civil society activists, this ruling directly targets a major independent media house, triggering fresh domestic and international scrutiny regarding press freedom and digital expression in Turkey.

Legal Topic

Area of Law: Media & Constitutional Law

Sub-topic: Press Freedom, Digital Censorship & Internet Governance

Core Legal Issue

The primary legal issue is whether judicial authorities may order a blanket, wholesale access ban against an established independent news portal and its digital dissemination networks under the guise of preventing "LGBT propaganda," consistent with domestic constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations.

The case presents the question of whether standard journalistic coverage of civil society, political developments, and minority rights can legitimately be classified as illicit propaganda or obscenity, and whether shutting down an entire publication passes constitutional muster under the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality.

What Did the Court / Authority Decide?

The Istanbul 1st Penal Judgeship of Peace granted an application submitted by authorities, ruling that 118 publications hosted on T24’s domain breached statutory standards regarding public order and morality. Consequently, the court ordered a total block on the news portal’s primary domain and affiliated social media accounts.

The decision was remitted to the Cyber Security Presidency and the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) for execution. The judgeship applied a platform-wide blocking measure rather than confining its order to the deletion or URL-level restriction of individual disputed items. The order is an interim judicial restriction subject to appeal, and T24 has confirmed that it will initiate formal legal challenges once service of the official decree is completed.

Key Legal Points

• Wholesale Domain Blocking versus Granular Moderation: The judgeship instituted a blanket ban across the portal’s entire digital presence rather than ordering content-specific URL takedowns, running counter to established digital proportionality principles.

• Broadening of Moral and Public Order Thresholds: The decision broadens the statutory scope of obscenity and public order by categorizing independent journalistic coverage of LGBTQ+ affairs as prohibited propaganda.

• Procedural and Ex-Parte Deficiencies: The summary mechanism employed under Turkey’s internet governance regime deprived the media house of pre-deprivation notice and an adversarial hearing prior to technical blocking.

• Tension with Higher Court Precedent: The order sharply contrasts with jurisprudence from the Constitutional Court of Turkey, which has repeatedly held that structural, sweeping access bans on news media infringe constitutional speech and press protections.

Relevant Law

• Constitution of the Republic of Turkey:

  • Article 26: Guarantees freedom of expression and the right to disseminate thoughts through written, oral, or electronic media.

  • Article 28: Mandates that "the press is free, and shall not be censored," barring state interventions that suppress lawful news operations.

• Law No. 5651 (Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publication):

  • Article 8 & Article 8/A: Empowers penal judgeships of peace to issue content removal and domain blocking orders on grounds concerning public morality, obscenity, and public order.

• Turkish Penal Code (Law No. 5237):

  • Article 226: Regulates obscenity offenses, increasingly referenced in administrative and judicial crackdowns on LGBTQ+-related expressions.

• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

  • Article 10: Guarantees the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information without unjustified state interference.

  • Article 14: Prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of guaranteed Convention rights.

• Constitutional Court Precedents:

  • The Constitutional Court’s landmark pilot decisions (such as the Yaman Akdeniz and Others rulings), which found systemic rights violations arising from sweeping digital access blocks executed by penal judgeships under Law No. 5651.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner / Affected Media Outlet (T24)

• T24 contended that the access block amounts to unconstitutional press censorship designed to stifle independent and critical journalism.

• The newsroom maintained that reporting on community groups, social movements, and civil rights questions constitutes legitimate, public-interest journalism, not criminal propaganda.

• The outlet raised due process concerns, stating it had received no official notification prior to the issuance of the ban and was denied the opportunity to present an editorial defense before the order was sent for technical enforcement.

Respondent / State & Judicial Authorities

• State authorities, through cybercrime investigators and prosecutors, submitted that the 118 identified news items violated statutory safeguards governing public morality and child welfare.

• The State argued that the measure is an essential component of the "My Family Is Safe" initiative, aimed at preserving traditional family institutions and countering illicit propaganda.

• Authorities maintained that the penal judgeship exercised lawful jurisdiction under Law No. 5651 to prevent the ongoing dissemination of unlawful digital materials.

Why Does It Matter?

This ruling signals an expansion of Turkey’s regulatory reach into the independent press. While the initial wave of the "My Family Is Safe" campaign primarily targeted rights advocacy organizations and community associations, applying those exact legal mechanisms against a mainstream digital news platform demonstrates how morality statutes can be mobilized against broader investigative journalism.

For digital publishers and media companies operating in the country, the decision sharpens regulatory and legal risk, demonstrating that news coverage of sensitive topics can result in an immediate operational shutdown rather than a targeted request to amend individual articles. The case also deepens the divide between local lower courts and the Turkish Constitutional Court, which has consistently determined that indiscriminate domain-wide bans violate foundational press and speech guarantees.

Legal Takeaway

The court's action illustrates how public order and morality provisions under internet regulations can be utilized to execute wholesale digital bans against news organizations without prior adversarial proceedings. For media entities operating in tightly regulated digital environments, it reinforces that editorial coverage of civil rights issues remains susceptible to summary judicial suppression under broad statutory interpretations.

Sources

Primary Source:

• Order of the Istanbul 1st Penal Judgeship of Peace (1. Sulh Ceza Hakimliği), September 30, 2026; transmitted to the Cyber Security Presidency and the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK).

Additional Sources:

• Reuters: "Turkish court orders access ban on popular news portal over 'LGBTQ+ propaganda'" (September 30, 2026).

• BIA News Desk / Bianet: "Turkish independent news outlet’s website, social media accounts blocked over ‘LGBTI+ propaganda’" (September 30, 2026).

• Freedom of Expression Association (İFÖD) / EngelliWeb monitoring reports and case records on Law No. 5651.