THE Turkey block access to Instagram, the infotech regulator announced on Friday, without specifying the reason or duration of the ban. Users cannot access from the mobile app either. However, the Constitutional Court annulled the regulation with the presidential decree, considering it contrary to freedom of expression, and then they received the answer… A few minutes later, access to the court’s official website was also impossible.

More specifically, on Wednesday the director of communication of the Turkish presidency Fahrettin Altun criticized the platform for its decision to block posts of condolences for assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniya.

“This is pure censorship,” Altun told X, adding that Instagram has not cited policy violations for its decision.

There was no immediate comment from Instagram parent Meta on either the ban or Altun’s comments.

The Information and Communications Technology Authority of Turkey (BTK) published the August 2 decision on its website.

However, the Constitutional Court (ACC) annulled the regulation by presidential decree regarding the Department of Strategic Communication and Crisis Management, which was established in the Directorate of Communications under the Presidency to “combat manipulation and disinformation”. The decision, published today in the Government Gazette, ruled that the Communications Directorate’s mandate to “work against any kind of manipulation and misinformation” is contrary to freedom of expression. It is noteworthy that the reasoning behind the decision was announced after the Information and Communications Technology Authority (BTK) blocked access to the social networking platform Instagram. The announcement, made on AUM’s social media account, was deleted a few minutes later.

The Constitutional Court struck down two articles, which “could allow the Directorate of Communications to interfere with freedom of the press and freedom of expression”, on the grounds that they were unconstitutional.

The court emphasized in its decision that “Article 104 of the Constitution states that the fundamental rights, the individual rights and obligations in the first and second parts of the second part of the Constitution and the political rights and obligations in the fourth part cannot be regulated by Presidential Decrees ».

The Constitutional Court held that it was clear that the measures to be taken and the activities to be carried out in accordance with the said rules would constitute an interference with the Constitution’s “freedom of expression and dissemination of thought” and “freedom of the press”. .

“In this context, it has been observed that the rules contain provisions relating to the rights and obligations of persons included in the Second Section of the Constitution as to their scope,” the judgment said.

Therefore, it was found that the rules contained provisions on the prohibited point which could not be regulated by the Presidential Decree, that the rules were unconstitutional as to subject matter power and that they were void.

It was then noticed that the announcement regarding the decision was deleted from the Constitutional Court’s social media account and a few minutes later the court’s official website could not be accessed.