The Constitutional Invisibility of Individual Freedom of Expression in the Face of Digital Platforms

Öz

The factual effects of digital platforms on individuals’ freedom of expression and the reasons why these effects have not been rendered visible at the constitutional level in national and international law constitute the subject of this article. Although platforms have become the primary regulators of the digital public sphere and their practices of content removal and account suspension effectively determine the conditions under which individuals exercise their freedom of expression, such interventions do not, in most legal systems, constitute a direct subject of constitutional review. It is argued that freedom of expression in the digital sphere can no longer be understood solely through a binary relationship between the individual and the state; rather, it operates within a tripartite structure composed of the individual, the state, and digital platforms. In this context, it is maintained that the classical state-centered understanding of freedom of expression is insufficient to explain the structural power exercised by platforms over public discourse. Within this framework, an analysis is conducted through the concept of normative invisibility, examining the indirect effect model prevailing in United States law, European Union regulations, and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. By contrast, the jurisprudence of the German Federal Constitutional Court is addressed as an exceptional approach that recognizes the structural effects of digital platforms on public debate at the constitutional level. The aim is not to propose a normative solution, but rather to render visible the structural gap concerning the constitutional status of the individual vis-à-vis digital platforms in the digital sphere.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Freedom of Expression
• Digital Platforms
• Digital Public Sphere
• Normative Invisibility
• Constitutional Law
• Indirect Effect (Drittwirkung).

Dijital Platformlar Karşısında Bireyin İfade Özgürlüğünün Anayasal Görünmezliği

Öz

Dijital platformların bireylerin ifade özgürlüğü üzerindeki fiilî etkileri ve bu etkilerin ulusal ve uluslararası hukukta neden anayasal düzeyde görünür kılınamadığı, bu makalenin inceleme konusunu oluşturmaktadır. Dijital kamusal alanın başlıca düzenleyicileri hâline gelen platformların içerik kaldırma ve hesap askıya alma uygulamaları, bireyin ifade özgürlüğünün kullanım koşullarını fiilen belirlemesine rağmen, çoğu hukuk düzeninde bu müdahaleler doğrudan bir anayasal denetim konusu hâline gelmemektedir. Dijital alanda ifade özgürlüğünün artık yalnızca birey ile devlet arasındaki ikili ilişki üzerinden kavranamayacağı; birey, devlet ve dijital platformlardan oluşan üç aktörlü bir yapı içinde işlediği ileri sürülmektedir. Bu bağlamda, klasik devlet-merkezli ifade özgürlüğü anlayışının, platformların kamusal söylem üzerindeki yapısal gücünü açıklamakta yetersiz kaldığı savunulmaktadır. Bu çerçevede normatif görünmezlik kavramı üzerinden bir analiz yapılmakta; ABD hukuku, Avrupa Birliği düzenlemeleri ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi içtihadında hâkim olan dolaylı etki modeli incelenmektedir. Buna karşılık Alman Federal Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin içtihadı, dijital platformların kamusal tartışma üzerindeki yapısal etkilerini anayasal düzlemde tanıyan istisnai bir yaklaşım olarak ele alınmaktadır. Amaç, normatif bir çözüm önermekten ziyade, dijital alanda bireyin platformlar karşısındaki anayasal statüsüne ilişkin yapısal boşluğu görünür kılmaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İfade Özgürlüğü; Dijital Platformlar
• Dijital Kamusal Alan
• Normatif Görünmezlik
• Anayasa Hukuku
• Dolaylı Etki (Drittwirkung)

Kaynakça

1. 1. Alexander, Robert. Theory of Fundamental Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
2. 2. Armijo, Enrique. “Reasonableness as Censorship: Section 230 Reform, Content Moderation, and the First Amendment.” Florida Law Review, 73/6 (2001): 1209-1245.
3. 3. Balkin, Jack M. “Free Speech Is a Triangle.” Columbia Law Review 118 (2018): 2011–2055.
4. 4. Balkin, Jack M. “Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation” UC Davis Law Review 51 (2018): 1149-1210.
5. 5. Balkin, Jack M. The System of Freedom of Expression. New York: Random House, 1970.
6. 6. Clapham, Andrew. Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
7. 7. Cohen, Julie E. “Law for the Platform Economy.” UC Davis Law Review 51 (2017): 133–204.
8. 8. Eley, Geoff. “Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century.” içinde Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by Craig Calhoun, 289–339. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.

9. 9. Emerson, Thomas I. The System of Freedom of Expression. New York: Random House, 1970.
10. 10. Erdoğan, Mustafa. Liberal Toplum Liberal Siyaset, Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi, 1993.
11. 11. Gillespie, Tarleton. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media, London: Yale University Press, 2018.
12. 12. Grimmelmann, James. “The Virtues of Moderation.” Yale Journal of Law & Technology 17 (2015): 42–109.
13. 13. Keller, Daphne. “Who Do You Sue? State and Platform Hybrid Power over Online Speech.” Aegis Series Paper No. 1902 (2019).
14. 14. Kleinlein, Thomas. “Positive Obligations and the Freedom of Expression.” German Law Journal 14 (2013): 1537–1562.
15. 15. Klonick, Kate. “The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech.” Harvard Law Review 131 (2018): 1598–1670.
16. 16. Laidlaw, Emily B. Regulating Speech in Cyberspace: Gatekeepers, Human Rights and Corporate Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
17. 17. Marsden, Chris, Meyer, Trisha, Brown, Ian, Platform Values and Democratic Elections: How Can The Law Regulate Digital Disinformation?, Computer Law and Security Review, 36 (2020), 1-18.
18. 18. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Kitchener: Batoche Books, 2001.
19. 19. Milton, John. Areopagitica. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894.
20. 20. Meiklejohn, Alexander. Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948.
21. 21. Oliva, Thiago Dias “Content Moderation Technologies: Applying Human Rights Standards to Protect Freedom of Expression”, Human Rights Law Review, 20/4 (2020): 607-640.
22. 22. Post, Robert. “Democracy and Equality.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 603 (2006): 24–36.
23. 23. Sunay, Reyhan. İfade Özgürlüğünün Muhtevası ve Sınırları, Ankara:Liberal Düşünce Topluluğu, 2001.
24. 24. Suzor, Nicolas P, Lawless: The Secret Rules That Govern Our Digital Lives, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
25. 25. Tanör, Bülent. Siyasi Düşünce Hürriyeti ve 1961 Türk Anayasası, İstanbul: Öncü Kitabevi 1969.
26. 26. Yurukova, Mariya, Why Freedom of Speech in the EU is not Equivalent to the Freedom of Online Platforms to be Irresponsible and Unaccountable, 12 (2025): 186-209.
27. 27. Zúñiga, Homero Gil de, Brigitte Huber, and Nadine Strauß. “Social Media and Democracy.” El Profesional de la Información 27/6 (2018): 1175–1186.
28. 28. Wróblewska, Iwona. “Do We Need the Concept of Drittwirkung to Protect Fundamental Rights in Private Relations? A Lesson from Germany.” German Law Journal (2025):1-22.
29. 29. Anayasa Mahkemesi. Twitter Erişiminin Engellenmesi Kararı. Başvuru No. 2014/5565, 2.04.2014.
30. 30. Anayasa Mahkemesi. YouTube Erişiminin Engellenmesi Kararı. Başvuru No. 2010/125, 29.05.2014.
31. 31. Anayasa Mahkemesi. Wikipedia Erişiminin Engellenmesi Kararı. Başvuru No. 2017/287, 26.12.2019.
32. 32. AİHM. Handyside v. the United Kingdom. App. No. 5493/72, 7.12.1976.
33. 33. AİHM. The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (No. 1). App. No. 6538/74, 26.04.1979.
34. 34. AİHM. Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom. App. No. 5947/72, 25.03.1983.
35. 35. AİHM (BD). Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria. App. No. 30985/96, 26.10.2000.
36. 36. AİHM. Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom. App. No. 44306/98, 6.05.2003.
37. 37. AİHM. Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey. App. No. 3111/10, 18.12. 2012.
38. 38. AİHM. Delfi AS v. Estonia. App. No. 64569/09, 16.06. 2015.
39. 39. AİHM. Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary. App. No. 22947/13, 2.02.2016.
40. 40. AİHM. Sánchez v. Spain. App. No. 25203/13, 2.03.2017.
41. 41. AİHM, Lingens v. Austria, 8.07.1986, Application No. 9815/82.
42. 42. U.S. Supreme Court, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 15.10.1883.
43. 43. Bundesverfassungsgericht. Lüth Kararı (BVerfGE 7, 198), 15.06.1958.
44. 44. Bundesverfassungsgericht. Beschluss vom 22. Mai 2019 - 1 BvR 3080/09.
45. 45. Bundesverfassungsgericht. Beschluss vom 11. April 2018 - 1 BvR 16/13