İngiliz Modern Çağda: Haksız Fiiller Hakaret ve Özel Bilgilerin Kötüye Kullanılması Kapsamında İnternet Ortamında Gerçekleşen İtibarı Zedeleme Örnekleri

Öz

İnternet; gazete, radyo ve televizyon gibi “geleneksel” kitle iletişim araçlarının yanı sıra, modern bir iletişim aracıdır. Özellikle COVİD-19 pandemisi ile birlikte, internet kullanıcı sayılarındaki artış, çevrimiçi olarak gerçekleştirilen kişilik hakkı ihlallerini de beraberinde getiriyor. Nisan 2020'de yapılan bir araştırmaya göre, dünya çapında 4.57 milyar kişi, interneti kullanıyor ve bu rakam, Nisan 2019'dan bu yana %7'lik bir artış anlamına geliyor. Sosyal medya kullanıcı sayılarına gelince, rakamımız 3.81 milyar olmakla birlikte, Nisan 2019'dan Nisan 2020 tarihine kadar %8'den fazla bir artış sunuyor. İnternet ve sosyal medya kullanıcı sayılarındaki artış, özellikle bir kişinin itibarına zarar veren çevrimiçi saldırıların artmasına da neden olabilir. Çalışmamız, kişilik hakların önemini ve bu hakların internet üzerinden ihlal edilebileceğini göz önünde bulundurarak, söz konusu hakların internet ortamında bazı hallerde korunup, bazı hallerde ise korunamayacağını inceleyecektir. Çalışmamız, iki bölümden oluşmaktadır. İlk bölümde; kişilik hakları ve haksız fiiller kapsamında itibarın zedelenmesi hususunda internetin oynadığı rol dikkate alınacaktır. Çalışmamızın ikinci bölümü ise; özel bilgilerin kötüye kullanılması haksız fiiline ilişkin olarak, internetin kişinin itibarının zarar görmesindeki rolünü dikkate alacak ve kişinin itibarının her zaman çevrimiçi olarak korunamayacağını gösteren örnek davalara yer verecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kişilik Hakları
• İtibar
• İhlal
• İnternet
• Hakaret
• Bilişim Teknolojisi
• Özel Bilgilerin Kötüye Kullanılması.

IN THE ENGLISH MODERN AGE: EXAMPLES OF DAMAGE TO REPUTATION ON THE INTERNET UNDER THE TORTS OF DEFAMATION AND MISUSE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION

Öz

The internet is a modern means of communication, alongside “traditional” mass media such as newspapers, radio and television. Especially with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the increase in the number of internet users brings with it the violations of personal rights to reputation that take place online. According to a study conducted in April 2020, 4.57 billion people across the world wereusing the internet, which amounts to a 7% increase since April 2019. As to social media users, the figure is 3.81 billion, which again presents an increase of more than 8% since April 2019.2 The increase in the number of internet users can lead to a rise in the attacks that take place online, particularly those that damage a person’s reputation. This paper aims to consider the importance of personal rights and the violation of such rights through the internet, giving case examples to illustrate how sometimes these rights can be protected, yet at other times they cannot. This paper consists of two parts; in the first part of our study, personal rights and the role of the internet in damaging a person’s reputation under the tort of defamation will be examined. Thereafter; part two will take into account the role of the internet in damaging reputation under the tort of misuse of private information, thus giving case examples to illustrate how a person’s reputation cannot always be protected online.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Personal Rights
• Reputation
• Violation
• Internet
• Defamation
• Information Technology
• Misuse of Private Information.

Kaynakça

1. Adeane A, ‘Blue Whale- What is the truth behind an online ‘suicide challenge?’ (BBC News, 13 January 2019) https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-46505722 (Date of Access: 23 June 2021).
2. Alıcı B, ‘Movie Watching Culture Changing By The New Media And Children’ (2019) 5(47) International Social Sciences Studies Journal 5945-5959. Baier M, Social and Legal Norms: Towards a Socio-legal Understanding of Normativity, (Routledge 2016).
3. Baykan M, Basın Özgürlüğü (Adalet Yayınevi 2011).
4. Black J and White T, The Doctor’s Handbook: Part.2. Understanding the NHS, (4th Edition, Radcliffe Publishing 2010).
5. Blackstone W, Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1893). Vol. 1 – Book I: The Rights of Persons, Chapter 1: Of The Absolute Rights of Individuals, 123. Available to view online, at: https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/blackstone/william/comment /complete.html#book1.1 and https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/blackstone-on-the-absoluterights-of-individuals-1753 (Date of Access 28 December 2021).
6. Bosland JJ, ‘Republication of Defamation under the Doctrine of Reportage - The Evolution of Common Law Qualified Privilege in England and Wales’ (2011) 31(1) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 89-110 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1619735 #:~:text=The%20doctrine%20of%20reportage%20provides,or %20controversy%20of%20public%20interest. (Date of Access: 25 March 2022).
7. Chan G.K.Y, ‘Reputation and Defamatory Meaning on the Internet’ (2015) 27 Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 694-730.
8. ‘Coronavirus Guidance for Clinicians and NHS Managers’ (NHS England, 12 January 2021) https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/ (Date of Access: 22 September 2021).

9. Crilly R, ‘Airline apologises for Staff who mocked five-year old Abcde’s name’ (The Telegraph, 30 November 2018) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/30/airlineapologises-staff-mocked-five-year-old-abcdes-name/ (Date of Access: 23 December 2021). Elliott C and Quinn F, Tort Law (10th edition, Pearson 2015).
10. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf (Date of Access: 25 March 2022).
11. Abraham F, Paula LR, Lakshmi S and Rajeev S.P, Social Work Practice in Mental Health, Cross Cultural Perspectives (Volume 1 of 1st Edition, Allied Publishers 2014).
12. ‘Freedom of Expression, Media Law and Defamation’ (International Press Institute and Media Legal Defence Initiative, February 2015) https://www.mediadefence.org/sites/default/files/resources/fil es/MLDI.IPI%20defamation%20manual.English.pdf (Date of Access: 23 June 2021) and https://ipi.media/freedom-ofexpression-media-law-and-defamation/ (Date of Access: 23 June 2021).
13. Gülseren FŞ, ‘İnternet Ortamında İşlenen Hakaret Suçları’ (2013) 4(1) EUL Journal of Social Sciences/ Lefke Avrupa Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15-33.
14. Günaydın B, İnternet Yayıncılığı ve İfade Özgürlüğü, (Adalet Yayınevi 2010).
15. Herring J and Wall J, ‘The Nature and Significance of the Right to Bodily Integrity’ (2017) 76(3) The Cambridge Law Journal, 566-588, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-lawjournal/article/nature-and-significance-of-the-right-to-bodily-integrity/79703F3BE9C5C21BB76338C050E951BC/core-reader (Date of Access: 23 January 2022).
16. Kahn R and Dennis MA, ‘Internet: Computer Network’ Encyclopaedia Britannica (2020)
17. https://www.britannica.com/technology/Internet (Date of Access: 22 January 2022).
18. Kantar Özkes D, Kantar B, Koç F and Özkoçak V, ‘The Effects of CrimeEncouraging Digital Games on Children and Prevention of These Effects’ (2019) 7(4) Social Science Studies 215-226.
19. Kaya M, Elektronik Ortamda (Elektronik Haberleşme- İnternet- Sosyal Medya) Kişilik Hakkının Korunması (Seçkin 2015). Kemp S, ‘Special Reports- Digital Around the World in April 2020’ (We Are Social, 23 April 2020)
20. https://wearesocial.com/us/blog/2020/04/digital-around-theworld-in-april-2020/ (Date of Access: 15 March 2022).
21. ‘Law Student Wins £10,000 after being branded a paedophile on Facebook’ (The Telegraph, 28 July 2010)
22. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/7912731/Law-student-wins-10000-after-being-branded-a-paedophile-onFacebook.html (Date of Access: 25 June 2021).
23. LexisNexis Defamation Practice Note (produced in partnership with 5RB) https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/defamation (Date of Access: 02 February 2022).
24. LexisNexis Defamation and Social Media Practice Note (produced in partnership with 5RB) https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/defamation-andsocial-media (Date of Access: 02 February 2022).
25. NHS England and NHS Improvement Coronavirus Specialty Guides https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/secondarycare/other-resources/specialty-guides/#coronavirus-treatment (Date of Access: 22 September 2021).
26. Ordu A, Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti’nde İnternette Kişilik Hakkının Hakaret ve Sövme (Zem ve Kadih) Yoluyla İhlaline Karşı Korunması” (Onikilevha 2020)(Kişilik Hakkı).
27. Ordu A, The General Principles of Neglience in the Context of Doctor’s Medical Practice (Yakın Doğu Yayınları, 2016) (Negligence). Patchin J, ‘Blue Whale Challenge’ (Cyberbullying Research Center, 16 May 2017) https://cyberbullying.org/blue-whale-challenge (Date of Access: 23 June 2021).
28. ‘Press Freedom: Why is it Important?’ (News Media Association) http://www.newsmediauk.org/Current-Topics/Press-Freedom (Date of Access: 23 June 2021).
29. Quinn F, Tort Law (Pearson 2012).
30. Scaife L, Handbook of Social Media and the Law (Informa Law from Routledge 2014).
31. Turner C, Unlocking Torts (4th Edition, Routledge 2014).
32. Rogers, W V H, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (16th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell 2002)
33. ‘70 Years of the NHS: The Story of Our Lives’ (NHS at 70) https://www.nhs70.org.uk/story/70-years-nhs-story-our-lives (Date of Access: 05 September 2021).
34. CASELAW:
35. Al-Fagih v HH Saudi Research & Marketing (UK) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1634 (5 November 2001)
36. Bryce v Barber (unreported case), 26 July 2010, (HC)
37. Elliot v Joicey [1935] SC (HL) 57, [1935] UKHL 3, [1935] AC 209
38. Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [1995] 1WLR 804, [1995] 4 All ER 473
39. James Rhodes (Appellant) v OPO (by his litigation friend BHM) and another (Respondents) Easter Term [2015] UKSC 3 (On appeal from: [2014] EWCA Civ 1277) Morgan v Odhams Press [1971] 1 WLR 1239, [1971] 2 All ER 1156
40. Newstead v London Express Newspaper [1940] 1 KB 377 (Court of Appeal) OPO v MLA & Anor [2014] EWHC 2468 (QB) (18 July 2014)
41. Paton v British Pregnancy Advisory Service [1979] QB 276, [1978] 2 All ER 987, [1978] 3 WLR 687, 142 JP 497
42. PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26 (19 May 2016)
43. Re F (In Utero) [1988] (Fam) 122 (4 February 1988) The Author of A Blog v Times Newspapers Ltd [2009] EWHC 1358 (QB) (16 June 2009)
44. Tilbrook v Parr [2012] EWHC 1946 (QB)
45. Vo v. France (Application no. 53924/00) 17 BHRC 1, (2004) 79 BMLR 71, (2005) 40 EHRR 12, [2005] Inquest LR 129, 79 BMLR 71, [2004] ECHR 326, [2004] 2 FCR 577,
46. Wilkinson v Downton [1897] EWHC 1 (QB) (08 May 1897)