13/01/2026 | Writer: Kaos GL
After the non-prosecution decision issued over articles published on Akasyam Haber targeting LGBTI+ people, the case was taken to the Constitutional Court. The Ministry of Justice argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, while assessing the hate filled expressions as falling within the scope of freedom of the press.
A criminal complaint filed over a 2021 opinion column published on Akasyam Haber, which advocated for the “deportation” of LGBTI+ people to Europe and targeted Kaos GL with hate speech using expressions such as “degenerate spawn”, “perverts” and “demons of the people of Lut” was dismissed by the prosecutor’s office on the grounds of “freedom of expression.”
Kaos GL appealed the decision.
Case taken to the Constitutional Court after non-prosecution decision
After the appeals were rejected, the association took the process to the Constitutional Court. In its application, Kaos GL argued that the language used in the articles published on Akasyam Haber should be assessed under the offense of “inciting hatred or hostility among the public or degrading a segment of the population” and that the decision not to pursue prosecution violated the right to the protection of honor and reputation.
Following the acceptance of the application by a Constitutional Court commission, the file was forwarded to the Ministry of Justice. In its opinion submitted to the Court, the Ministry argued that the fact that the association had lodged an individual application without first filing a claim for compensation should be taken into account, requested a ruling of “inadmissibility,” and assessed the hate speech published on Akasyam Haber as freedom of the press:
“The Constitutional Court has previously stated many times that freedom of expression, as set out in Article 26 of the Constitution, and freedom of the press, its specially protected form set out in Article 28, are among the essential foundations of a democratic society and constitute one of the basic conditions necessary for the progress of society and the development of every individual. In this context, freedom of expression and freedom of the press apply to everyone and are vital to the functioning of democracy. It is clear that freedom of the press provides one of the best means for conveying various ideas and attitudes to the public and for forming opinions about them.”
Award of damages have no deterrent effect
In its response to the Ministry of Justice’s opinion, the association emphasized that there is no effective administrative mechanism in Turkey to which LGBTI+ people can turn against hate speech directed at them. The response recalled that Kaos GL has previously been subjected to similar hate speech and has filed compensation lawsuits in civil courts.
The association stated that the award of damages issued as a result of these cases did not have a deterrent effect on those engaging in hate speech, arguing that existing remedies have proven ineffective.
Legal remedies do not function when it comes to LGBTI+ people
In its response, the association argued that legal remedies do not function in practice when hate speech targets LGBTI+ people. It noted that claim for damages either yield no results or that the decisions issued fail to create any deterrent effect on those who produce hate speech, emphasizing that these remedies are ineffective from the perspective of Kaos GL. The association stated that, for this reason, the approach of disregarding an individual application on the grounds that no compensation lawsuit was filed in civil courts is unacceptable.
Statements amount to calls for actions such as “deportation”
The association further stated that mechanisms such as the right of reply and correction are also ineffective in combating hate speech. It argued that, in the face of severe and degrading expressions targeting LGBTI+ people, these mechanisms both impose an excessive burden on applicants and fail to produce practical results. Such expectations, the association maintained, render hate speech invisible rather than preventing it in domestic practice and lack a basis in human rights law.
The association emphasized that the expressions at issue constitute hate speech under international human rights law, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Constitutional Court, and Council of Europe standards. The application stated that the articles in question not only contain hate speech but also amount to calls for actions such as “deportation.”
Tags: human rights, media, life, family, trans, lgbti
