14/07/2026 | Writer: Oğulcan Özgenç
A new bill before the Turkish Parliament would transfer key internet oversight powers from the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) to the Cybersecurity Directorate (SGB), allowing it to impose content removals and access restrictions on its own initiative.
The draft law, submitted to parliament on 3 July and expected to be discussed this week, envisages transferring a significant portion of internet oversight and censorship powers from the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) to the Cybersecurity Directorate (SGB), an institution established by Presidential Decree in 2025.
If the proposal becomes law, the SGB will be able to impose measures concerning social media platforms, gaming services, and electronic communications infrastructure without waiting for requests from any other institution, and will be empowered to enforce content removals and access restrictions.
According to the Freedom of Expression Association (İFÖD), the regulation grants the SGB the authority to determine, based solely on its own assessment, the “necessary measures” to be taken without requiring a request from another authority. These decisions could be communicated directly to content providers, hosting providers, data centers, and electronic communications operators, who would be required to comply within two hours of notification.
The proposal would also transfer administrative responsibility for obligations relating to age verification on social media, parental controls, content removal, preventing re-uploading of content, and bandwidth throttling from the BTK to the Cybersecurity Directorate. Judicial review would only come into play after these decisions have already been implemented.
So how might the transfer of internet oversight and intervention powers to a security-focused institution affect LGBTI+ organizations and content creators, many of whom have recently faced access restrictions?
“It could increase pressure on LGBTI+ organizations”
According to lawyer Furkan Yurt, while the regulation will affect all internet users, its impact will not be equal across all social groups when past practices are taken into account.
Recalling the access-blocking orders imposed on the social media accounts of numerous LGBTI+ organizations, women's organizations, and rights defenders in June, Yurt warned that the new model, which grants broad discretionary powers and weakens judicial oversight, poses specific risks for LGBTI+ organizations.
Yurt stressed that the regulation could increase pressure on the visibility of LGBTI+ organizations, the freedom of association of rights defenders, online solidarity networks, and participation in digital public spaces:
“Particularly in light of the recent access restrictions imposed on LGBTI+ organizations and human rights defenders, the risk that the new model will make the exercise of rights in the digital sphere even more fragile should not be overlooked. For this reason, the regulation should be assessed not only from a cybersecurity perspective, but also in terms of freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the prohibition of discrimination.”
“The main issue is not which institution receives the powers”
Yurt argued that the regulation concerning the Cybersecurity Directorate goes beyond a merely technical transfer of responsibilities between institutions.
According to Yurt, the proposal consolidates powers to interfere with fundamental rights in the field of electronic communications and the internet under a new security-oriented institutional structure, fundamentally changing the nature of interventions into freedom of expression and freedom of communication.
“Therefore, the issue under discussion is not simply which institution these powers are being transferred to, but rather the fact that powers to interfere with freedom of expression and communication are being placed within a security bureaucracy with broad discretionary authority and weakened legal safeguards.”
Yurt emphasized that the core problem is the increasing ambiguity surrounding the limits of these intervention powers.
“The limits of the concept of ‘measures’ are unclear”
According to Yurt, one of the most significant problems with the proposal is that the scope of the term “measures,” introduced in Article 60/A of the Electronic Communications Law No. 5809, is not clearly defined.
Yurt pointed out that under the Constitution, it is not enough for restrictions on fundamental rights merely to have a legal basis; the law must also be foreseeable, precise, and contain safeguards against arbitrariness.
Referring to the established case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Yurt said:
“The ECtHR interprets the requirement that restrictions be ‘prescribed by law’ not merely as the existence of a legal basis for an interference, but also as requiring that the scope, limits, and consequences of that interference be reasonably foreseeable for those affected.”
Yurt continued:
“However, the term ‘measures’ here is introduced without specifying which instruments it covers. As a result, it is impossible to predict in advance what kinds of measures may be imposed and under what circumstances, granting the administration an extremely broad margin of discretion and undermining the principle of legal certainty.”
“Intervention first, judicial review later”
Yurt noted that the proposal requires immediate implementation of measures, while judicial review would only occur after the interference has already taken place.
“Effective judicial oversight only has meaning if it has the capacity to prevent an interference or review it in a timely manner.”
Recalling that Law No. 5651, commonly known as the “Internet Censorship Law,” follows a similar model, Yurt added:
“As demonstrated by the access-blocking decisions imposed on the social media accounts of numerous LGBTI+ organizations, women’s organizations, and rights defenders in June 2026, the inability of affected parties to effectively access judicial review shows that this model falls far short of providing meaningful protection for fundamental rights in practice. The regulation under discussion reproduces the same approach with even broader and more ambiguous powers.”
Tags: human rights, media, life, lgbti
