The Clear and Present Danger Test in Turkish Penal Law

Abstract

The concept of clear and present danger originates from American law has become a phenomenon in different legal systems, particularly in connection with freedom of expression. The Turkish legal system uses the criterion of clear and imminent danger and has more than one regulation involving this criterion. Pursuant to Articles 215 and 216 of the Turkish Penal Code, in order for punishment to be possible, a clear and imminent danger must exist in terms of public order and public security. In addition to these provisions, Articles 17 and 19 of the Code on Meetings and Demonstrations (Toplantı ve Gösteri Yürüyüşleri Kanunu) state that, if a clear and imminent danger is present that a crime will be committed, meetings may be banned for a certain period. This study aims to examine how the clear and imminent danger test is applied in Turkish judicial decisions in the context of the aforementioned provisions and to reveal the criteria for determination of clear and imminent danger.

Keywords

• Clear and present danger
• freedom of expression
• public safety
• public order
• danger crime

References

1. Antieau CJ, ‘The Rule of Clear and Present Danger: Scope of Its Applicability’ (1950) Michigan Law Review, 48(6), 811. google scholar
2. Apiş Ö, Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Alenen Tahrik veya Aşağılama Suçları (TCK md. 216) (Adalet Yayınevi 2017). google scholar
3. Arslan Z, ABD Yüksek Mahkemesi Kararlarında İfade Özgürlüğü (Liberal Düşünce Topluluğu 2003). google scholar
4. Artuk ME, Gökcen A, Alşahin ME & Çakır K, Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler (20th edn, Adalet Yayınevi 2022) google scholar
5. Aydın ÖD ‘YTCK Açısından Salt İfade Suç Tiplerine Eleştirel Bir Bakış’ (2006) Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi, 6, 119. google scholar
6. Carroll TF, ‘Freedom of Speech and of the Press in War Time: The Espionage Act’ (1919) Michigan Law Review, 17, 621. google scholar
7. Ceyhan M, ‘Türk Milletini, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devletini, Devletin Kurum ve Organlarını Aşağılama Suçu (TCK m. 301)’ (2013) Prof. Dr. google scholar
8. Nur Centel’e Armağan MÜHF-HAD, 19(2), 1781. google scholar

9. Demirtaş S, Tehlike Suçları (Adalet Yayınevi 2023). google scholar
10. DeWitt P, ‘“ Clear and Present Danger” The Legacy of 1917 Espionage Act in the United States’ (2016) Historical Reflections, 42(2), 115. google scholar
11. Dow DR, ‘The Moral Failure of the Clear and Present Danger Test’ (1998) William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 6(3), 733. google scholar
12. Dülger İ & Cin S, ‘Suçu ve Suçluyu Övme Suçu (TCK md. 215)’ 2019 D.E.Ü. Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Prof. Dr. Durmuş TEZCAN’a Armağan, 21, 2865. google scholar
13. Ergüne E, ‘Tehlike Suçları Bağlamında Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Tahrik veya Aşağılama Suçları (TCK m 216)’ İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 78(3), 1675. google scholar
14. Ersan A, ‘Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Tahrik veya Aşağılama’ (2014) TBB Dergisi, 111, 77. google scholar
15. Gökcan HT & Artuç M, Yorumlu Uygulamalı Türk Ceza Kanunu Şerhi (Adalet Yayınevi 2021) Vol 5. google scholar
16. Gökcen A, Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Açıkça Tahrik Cürmü (TCK md. 312/2) (Liberal Düşünce Topluluğu 2001). google scholar
17. Hart, FB, ‘Power of Government over Speech and Press’ (1920) Yale Law Journal, 29, 410. google scholar
18. Kalabalık H, İdare Hukuku Dersleri C. II (Seçkin Yayıncılık 2021). google scholar
19. Kocasakal Ü, Aksoy EE & Memiş P, ‘Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararlarında İfade Özgürlüğü’ in İfade Özgürlüğü ve Ceza Hukuku (Ceza Hukuku Derneği Yayınları 2003) 25. google scholar
20. Kuyucu N, ‘Yargının Siyasallaşması Çerçevesinde Suçu ve Suçluyu Övme Suçu: Yeni Düzenlemenin Anlamı’ (2014) Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 69(4), 807. google scholar
21. Salihpaşaoğlu Y, ‘Açık ve Mevcut Tehlike Kriteri ve Türk Hukuk Sistemine Yansımaları’ 2008 Liberal Düşünce Dergisi 52, 231. google scholar
22. Sözüer A, ‘İfade Özgürlüğü’, Yuvarlak Masa Toplantısı (2006) Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi, 6, 100. google scholar
23. Taft HW, ‘Freedom of Speech and Espionage Act’ (1921) American Law Review, 55, 695. google scholar
24. Tunç H & Erdoğan M, ‘Yargıtay ve Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarında Demokratik Toplum Düzeninde Gereklilik ile Açık ve Yakın Tehlike Kavramları’ (2020) Antalya Bilim Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(16), 1295. google scholar
25. Türay A, Nefret Söylemi Bağlamında Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Tahrik Suçu (Seçkin Yayıncılık 2016). google scholar
26. Ustabulut B, ‘İfade Özgürlüğünde Açık ve Mevcut Tehlike’ (2017) Kocaeli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 16, 27. google scholar
27. Yalçın Sancar T, ‘Türk Ceza Kanunu’nun 159. ve 312. Maddelerinde Yapılan Değişikliklerin Anlamı’ (2003) Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 52(1), 89. google scholar
28. Yalçın Sancar T, Alenen Tahkir ve Tezyif Suçları (2nd edn, Seçkin 2006). google scholar
29. Yılmaz AE, ‘İfade Özgürlüğü Bağlamında Tehlike Suçlarının Düzenlenişine İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme’ (2020) Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 17 (Special Issue), 155. google scholar
30. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 1919. google scholar
31. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 1925. google scholar
32. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 1927. google scholar
33. Terminello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 1949. google scholar
34. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 1951. google scholar
35. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 1957. google scholar
36. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 1969. google scholar
37. Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 1973. google scholar
38. The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 19.7.1995, C. 1993/4, D. 1995/1. google scholar
39. The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 16.1.1998, C. 1997/1, D. 1998/1. google scholar
40. The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 26.2.1999, C. 1997/2, D. 1999/1. google scholar
41. The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 22.6.2001, C. 1999/2, D. 2001/2. google scholar
42. The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 29.1.2008, C. 2002/1, D. 2008/1. google scholar
43. Case of Meki Katar, A. 2015/4916, 3.10.2019. google scholar
44. Case of Sırrı Süreyya Önder, A. 2018/38143, 3.10.2019. google scholar
45. Case of Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu, A. 2019/10634, 1.7.2021 google scholar
46. Case of Hacı Boğatekin, A. 2020/3630, 19.10.2022. google scholar
47. Case of Filiz Kerestecioğlu Demir (3), A. 2020/11218, 19.10.2022. google scholar
48. Court of Cassation ACC, 20.04.1999, C.1999/58, D. 1999/69. google scholar
49. Court of Cassation ACC, 23.11.2004, C. 2004/130, D. 2004/206. google scholar
50. Court of Cassation ACC, 15.03.2005, C. 2004/201, D. 2005/30. google scholar
51. Court of Cassation ACC, 29.4.2008, C. 2007/244, D. 2008/92. google scholar
52. Court of Cassation 8th CC., 12.10.2015, C. 2014/35434, D. 2015/22535. google scholar
53. Court of Cassation 8th CC., 17.2.2015, C. 2014/27832, D. 2015/9649. google scholar
54. Court of Cassation 8th CC., 24.5.2018, C. 2017/12669, D. 2018/5877. google scholar
55. Court of Cassation16th CC., 10.12.2018, C. 2018/3738, D. 2018/5019. google scholar
56. Court of Cassation16th CC., 25.4.2018, C. 2016/2510, D. 2018/1384. google scholar
57. Court of Cassation16th CC., 17.3.2016, C. 2015/2276, D. 2016/1947. google scholar
58. Court of Cassation 3rd CC., 7.2.2023, C. 2022/39452, D. 2023/382. google scholar
59. Court of Cassation 3rd CC., 14.6.2022, C. 2021/5646, D. 2022/3521 google scholar
60. Court of Cassation ACC., 4.10.2022, C. 2018/236, D. 2022/598. google scholar
61. Court of Cassation 3rd CC., 7.2.2023, C. 2022/39452, D. 2023/382. google scholar
62. İstanbul RCA 2nd CC., 1.2.2017, C. 2017/101, D. 2017/144. google scholar
63. İstanbul RCA 2nd CC., 5.1.2017, C. 2016/181, D. 2017/8. google scholar
64. AnkaraRCA4th CC., 3.6.2020, C. 2018/993, D. 2020/414. google scholar
65. Samsun RCA 8th CC., 8.10.2019, C. 2019/1100, D. 2019/866. google scholar
66. AnkaraRCA4th CC., 28.2.2017, C. 2017/17, D. 2017/46. google scholar
67. AnkaraRCA4th CC., 30.1.2019, C. 2017/1568, D. 2019/62. google scholar
68. Bergens Tidende v. Norway, App no 26132/95 (ECHR, 2 May 2000). google scholar
69. Sürek v. Turkey, App no 24735/94 (ECHR, 8 June 1999). google scholar
70. Zana v. Turkey, App no 18954/91 (ECHR, 25 November 1997). google scholar
71. Karataş v. Turkey, App no 23168/94 (ECHR, 8 June 1999). google scholar
72. News Verlag v. Austria, App no 31457/96 (ECHR, 11 January 2000). google scholar
73. https://www.lexpera.com.tr/. google scholar
74. https://sozluk.gov.tr/. google scholar
75. https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/. google scholar