Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

The Clear and Present Danger Test in Turkish Penal Law

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 186 - 197, 23.02.2024

Büşra Demiral Bakırman

https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2023-1407593

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

Kaynakça

  • Antieau CJ, ‘The Rule of Clear and Present Danger: Scope of Its Applicability’ (1950) Michigan Law Review, 48(6), 811. google scholar
  • Apiş Ö, Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Alenen Tahrik veya Aşağılama Suçları (TCK md. 216) (Adalet Yayınevi 2017). google scholar
  • Arslan Z, ABD Yüksek Mahkemesi Kararlarında İfade Özgürlüğü (Liberal Düşünce Topluluğu 2003). google scholar
  • Artuk ME, Gökcen A, Alşahin ME & Çakır K, Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler (20th edn, Adalet Yayınevi 2022) google scholar
  • Aydın ÖD ‘YTCK Açısından Salt İfade Suç Tiplerine Eleştirel Bir Bakış’ (2006) Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi, 6, 119. google scholar
  • Carroll TF, ‘Freedom of Speech and of the Press in War Time: The Espionage Act’ (1919) Michigan Law Review, 17, 621. google scholar
  • Ceyhan M, ‘Türk Milletini, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devletini, Devletin Kurum ve Organlarını Aşağılama Suçu (TCK m. 301)’ (2013) Prof. Dr. google scholar
  • Nur Centel’e Armağan MÜHF-HAD, 19(2), 1781. google scholar
  • Demirtaş S, Tehlike Suçları (Adalet Yayınevi 2023). google scholar
  • DeWitt P, ‘“ Clear and Present Danger” The Legacy of 1917 Espionage Act in the United States’ (2016) Historical Reflections, 42(2), 115. google scholar
  • Dow DR, ‘The Moral Failure of the Clear and Present Danger Test’ (1998) William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 6(3), 733. google scholar
  • 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
  • Ergüne E, ‘Tehlike Suçları Bağlamında Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Tahrik veya Aşağılama Suçları (TCK m 216)’ İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 78(3), 1675. google scholar
  • Ersan A, ‘Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Tahrik veya Aşağılama’ (2014) TBB Dergisi, 111, 77. google scholar
  • Gökcan HT & Artuç M, Yorumlu Uygulamalı Türk Ceza Kanunu Şerhi (Adalet Yayınevi 2021) Vol 5. google scholar
  • Gökcen A, Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Açıkça Tahrik Cürmü (TCK md. 312/2) (Liberal Düşünce Topluluğu 2001). google scholar
  • Hart, FB, ‘Power of Government over Speech and Press’ (1920) Yale Law Journal, 29, 410. google scholar
  • Kalabalık H, İdare Hukuku Dersleri C. II (Seçkin Yayıncılık 2021). google scholar
  • 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
  • Kuyucu N, ‘Yargının Siyasallaşması Çerçevesinde Suçu ve Suçluyu Övme Suçu: Yeni Düzenlemenin Anlamı’ (2014) Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 69(4), 807. google scholar
  • Salihpaşaoğlu Y, ‘Açık ve Mevcut Tehlike Kriteri ve Türk Hukuk Sistemine Yansımaları’ 2008 Liberal Düşünce Dergisi 52, 231. google scholar
  • Sözüer A, ‘İfade Özgürlüğü’, Yuvarlak Masa Toplantısı (2006) Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi, 6, 100. google scholar
  • Taft HW, ‘Freedom of Speech and Espionage Act’ (1921) American Law Review, 55, 695. google scholar
  • 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
  • Türay A, Nefret Söylemi Bağlamında Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Tahrik Suçu (Seçkin Yayıncılık 2016). google scholar
  • Ustabulut B, ‘İfade Özgürlüğünde Açık ve Mevcut Tehlike’ (2017) Kocaeli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 16, 27. google scholar
  • 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
  • Yalçın Sancar T, Alenen Tahkir ve Tezyif Suçları (2nd edn, Seçkin 2006). google scholar
  • Yılmaz AE, ‘İfade Özgürlüğü Bağlamında Tehlike Suçlarının Düzenlenişine İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme’ (2020) Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 17 (Special Issue), 155. google scholar
  • Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 1919. google scholar
  • Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 1925. google scholar
  • Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 1927. google scholar
  • Terminello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 1949. google scholar
  • Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 1951. google scholar
  • Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 1957. google scholar
  • Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 1969. google scholar
  • Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 1973. google scholar
  • The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 19.7.1995, C. 1993/4, D. 1995/1. google scholar
  • The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 16.1.1998, C. 1997/1, D. 1998/1. google scholar
  • The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 26.2.1999, C. 1997/2, D. 1999/1. google scholar
  • The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 22.6.2001, C. 1999/2, D. 2001/2. google scholar
  • The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 29.1.2008, C. 2002/1, D. 2008/1. google scholar
  • Case of Meki Katar, A. 2015/4916, 3.10.2019. google scholar
  • Case of Sırrı Süreyya Önder, A. 2018/38143, 3.10.2019. google scholar
  • Case of Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu, A. 2019/10634, 1.7.2021 google scholar
  • Case of Hacı Boğatekin, A. 2020/3630, 19.10.2022. google scholar
  • Case of Filiz Kerestecioğlu Demir (3), A. 2020/11218, 19.10.2022. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation ACC, 20.04.1999, C.1999/58, D. 1999/69. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation ACC, 23.11.2004, C. 2004/130, D. 2004/206. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation ACC, 15.03.2005, C. 2004/201, D. 2005/30. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation ACC, 29.4.2008, C. 2007/244, D. 2008/92. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation 8th CC., 12.10.2015, C. 2014/35434, D. 2015/22535. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation 8th CC., 17.2.2015, C. 2014/27832, D. 2015/9649. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation 8th CC., 24.5.2018, C. 2017/12669, D. 2018/5877. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation16th CC., 10.12.2018, C. 2018/3738, D. 2018/5019. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation16th CC., 25.4.2018, C. 2016/2510, D. 2018/1384. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation16th CC., 17.3.2016, C. 2015/2276, D. 2016/1947. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation 3rd CC., 7.2.2023, C. 2022/39452, D. 2023/382. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation 3rd CC., 14.6.2022, C. 2021/5646, D. 2022/3521 google scholar
  • Court of Cassation ACC., 4.10.2022, C. 2018/236, D. 2022/598. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation 3rd CC., 7.2.2023, C. 2022/39452, D. 2023/382. google scholar
  • İstanbul RCA 2nd CC., 1.2.2017, C. 2017/101, D. 2017/144. google scholar
  • İstanbul RCA 2nd CC., 5.1.2017, C. 2016/181, D. 2017/8. google scholar
  • AnkaraRCA4th CC., 3.6.2020, C. 2018/993, D. 2020/414. google scholar
  • Samsun RCA 8th CC., 8.10.2019, C. 2019/1100, D. 2019/866. google scholar
  • AnkaraRCA4th CC., 28.2.2017, C. 2017/17, D. 2017/46. google scholar
  • AnkaraRCA4th CC., 30.1.2019, C. 2017/1568, D. 2019/62. google scholar
  • Bergens Tidende v. Norway, App no 26132/95 (ECHR, 2 May 2000). google scholar
  • Sürek v. Turkey, App no 24735/94 (ECHR, 8 June 1999). google scholar
  • Zana v. Turkey, App no 18954/91 (ECHR, 25 November 1997). google scholar
  • Karataş v. Turkey, App no 23168/94 (ECHR, 8 June 1999). google scholar
  • News Verlag v. Austria, App no 31457/96 (ECHR, 11 January 2000). google scholar
  • https://www.lexpera.com.tr/. google scholar
  • https://sozluk.gov.tr/. google scholar
  • https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/. google scholar

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 186 - 197, 23.02.2024

Büşra Demiral Bakırman

https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2023-1407593

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Antieau CJ, ‘The Rule of Clear and Present Danger: Scope of Its Applicability’ (1950) Michigan Law Review, 48(6), 811. google scholar
  • Apiş Ö, Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Alenen Tahrik veya Aşağılama Suçları (TCK md. 216) (Adalet Yayınevi 2017). google scholar
  • Arslan Z, ABD Yüksek Mahkemesi Kararlarında İfade Özgürlüğü (Liberal Düşünce Topluluğu 2003). google scholar
  • Artuk ME, Gökcen A, Alşahin ME & Çakır K, Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler (20th edn, Adalet Yayınevi 2022) google scholar
  • Aydın ÖD ‘YTCK Açısından Salt İfade Suç Tiplerine Eleştirel Bir Bakış’ (2006) Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi, 6, 119. google scholar
  • Carroll TF, ‘Freedom of Speech and of the Press in War Time: The Espionage Act’ (1919) Michigan Law Review, 17, 621. google scholar
  • Ceyhan M, ‘Türk Milletini, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devletini, Devletin Kurum ve Organlarını Aşağılama Suçu (TCK m. 301)’ (2013) Prof. Dr. google scholar
  • Nur Centel’e Armağan MÜHF-HAD, 19(2), 1781. google scholar
  • Demirtaş S, Tehlike Suçları (Adalet Yayınevi 2023). google scholar
  • DeWitt P, ‘“ Clear and Present Danger” The Legacy of 1917 Espionage Act in the United States’ (2016) Historical Reflections, 42(2), 115. google scholar
  • Dow DR, ‘The Moral Failure of the Clear and Present Danger Test’ (1998) William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 6(3), 733. google scholar
  • 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
  • Ergüne E, ‘Tehlike Suçları Bağlamında Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Tahrik veya Aşağılama Suçları (TCK m 216)’ İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 78(3), 1675. google scholar
  • Ersan A, ‘Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Tahrik veya Aşağılama’ (2014) TBB Dergisi, 111, 77. google scholar
  • Gökcan HT & Artuç M, Yorumlu Uygulamalı Türk Ceza Kanunu Şerhi (Adalet Yayınevi 2021) Vol 5. google scholar
  • Gökcen A, Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Açıkça Tahrik Cürmü (TCK md. 312/2) (Liberal Düşünce Topluluğu 2001). google scholar
  • Hart, FB, ‘Power of Government over Speech and Press’ (1920) Yale Law Journal, 29, 410. google scholar
  • Kalabalık H, İdare Hukuku Dersleri C. II (Seçkin Yayıncılık 2021). google scholar
  • 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
  • Kuyucu N, ‘Yargının Siyasallaşması Çerçevesinde Suçu ve Suçluyu Övme Suçu: Yeni Düzenlemenin Anlamı’ (2014) Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 69(4), 807. google scholar
  • Salihpaşaoğlu Y, ‘Açık ve Mevcut Tehlike Kriteri ve Türk Hukuk Sistemine Yansımaları’ 2008 Liberal Düşünce Dergisi 52, 231. google scholar
  • Sözüer A, ‘İfade Özgürlüğü’, Yuvarlak Masa Toplantısı (2006) Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi, 6, 100. google scholar
  • Taft HW, ‘Freedom of Speech and Espionage Act’ (1921) American Law Review, 55, 695. google scholar
  • 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
  • Türay A, Nefret Söylemi Bağlamında Halkı Kin ve Düşmanlığa Tahrik Suçu (Seçkin Yayıncılık 2016). google scholar
  • Ustabulut B, ‘İfade Özgürlüğünde Açık ve Mevcut Tehlike’ (2017) Kocaeli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 16, 27. google scholar
  • 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
  • Yalçın Sancar T, Alenen Tahkir ve Tezyif Suçları (2nd edn, Seçkin 2006). google scholar
  • Yılmaz AE, ‘İfade Özgürlüğü Bağlamında Tehlike Suçlarının Düzenlenişine İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme’ (2020) Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 17 (Special Issue), 155. google scholar
  • Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 1919. google scholar
  • Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 1925. google scholar
  • Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 1927. google scholar
  • Terminello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 1949. google scholar
  • Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 1951. google scholar
  • Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 1957. google scholar
  • Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 1969. google scholar
  • Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 1973. google scholar
  • The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 19.7.1995, C. 1993/4, D. 1995/1. google scholar
  • The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 16.1.1998, C. 1997/1, D. 1998/1. google scholar
  • The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 26.2.1999, C. 1997/2, D. 1999/1. google scholar
  • The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 22.6.2001, C. 1999/2, D. 2001/2. google scholar
  • The Turkish Constitutional Court, Dissolution of Political Parties, 29.1.2008, C. 2002/1, D. 2008/1. google scholar
  • Case of Meki Katar, A. 2015/4916, 3.10.2019. google scholar
  • Case of Sırrı Süreyya Önder, A. 2018/38143, 3.10.2019. google scholar
  • Case of Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu, A. 2019/10634, 1.7.2021 google scholar
  • Case of Hacı Boğatekin, A. 2020/3630, 19.10.2022. google scholar
  • Case of Filiz Kerestecioğlu Demir (3), A. 2020/11218, 19.10.2022. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation ACC, 20.04.1999, C.1999/58, D. 1999/69. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation ACC, 23.11.2004, C. 2004/130, D. 2004/206. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation ACC, 15.03.2005, C. 2004/201, D. 2005/30. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation ACC, 29.4.2008, C. 2007/244, D. 2008/92. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation 8th CC., 12.10.2015, C. 2014/35434, D. 2015/22535. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation 8th CC., 17.2.2015, C. 2014/27832, D. 2015/9649. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation 8th CC., 24.5.2018, C. 2017/12669, D. 2018/5877. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation16th CC., 10.12.2018, C. 2018/3738, D. 2018/5019. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation16th CC., 25.4.2018, C. 2016/2510, D. 2018/1384. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation16th CC., 17.3.2016, C. 2015/2276, D. 2016/1947. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation 3rd CC., 7.2.2023, C. 2022/39452, D. 2023/382. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation 3rd CC., 14.6.2022, C. 2021/5646, D. 2022/3521 google scholar
  • Court of Cassation ACC., 4.10.2022, C. 2018/236, D. 2022/598. google scholar
  • Court of Cassation 3rd CC., 7.2.2023, C. 2022/39452, D. 2023/382. google scholar
  • İstanbul RCA 2nd CC., 1.2.2017, C. 2017/101, D. 2017/144. google scholar
  • İstanbul RCA 2nd CC., 5.1.2017, C. 2016/181, D. 2017/8. google scholar
  • AnkaraRCA4th CC., 3.6.2020, C. 2018/993, D. 2020/414. google scholar
  • Samsun RCA 8th CC., 8.10.2019, C. 2019/1100, D. 2019/866. google scholar
  • AnkaraRCA4th CC., 28.2.2017, C. 2017/17, D. 2017/46. google scholar
  • AnkaraRCA4th CC., 30.1.2019, C. 2017/1568, D. 2019/62. google scholar
  • Bergens Tidende v. Norway, App no 26132/95 (ECHR, 2 May 2000). google scholar
  • Sürek v. Turkey, App no 24735/94 (ECHR, 8 June 1999). google scholar
  • Zana v. Turkey, App no 18954/91 (ECHR, 25 November 1997). google scholar
  • Karataş v. Turkey, App no 23168/94 (ECHR, 8 June 1999). google scholar
  • News Verlag v. Austria, App no 31457/96 (ECHR, 11 January 2000). google scholar
  • https://www.lexpera.com.tr/. google scholar
  • https://sozluk.gov.tr/. google scholar
  • https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/. google scholar
Toplam 75 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Kriminoloji (Diğer)
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Büşra Demiral Bakırman 0000-0002-5851-4755

Yayımlanma Tarihi 23 Şubat 2024
Gönderilme Tarihi 20 Aralık 2023
Kabul Tarihi 16 Ocak 2024
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2023 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Demiral Bakırman, B. (2024). The Clear and Present Danger Test in Turkish Penal Law. Ceza Hukuku Ve Kriminoloji Dergisi, 11(2), 186-197. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2023-1407593
AMA Demiral Bakırman B. The Clear and Present Danger Test in Turkish Penal Law. Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi. Şubat 2024;11(2):186-197. doi:10.26650/JPLC2023-1407593
Chicago Demiral Bakırman, Büşra. “The Clear and Present Danger Test in Turkish Penal Law”. Ceza Hukuku Ve Kriminoloji Dergisi 11, sy. 2 (Şubat 2024): 186-97. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2023-1407593.
EndNote Demiral Bakırman B (01 Şubat 2024) The Clear and Present Danger Test in Turkish Penal Law. Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi 11 2 186–197.
IEEE B. Demiral Bakırman, “The Clear and Present Danger Test in Turkish Penal Law”, Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi, c. 11, sy. 2, ss. 186–197, 2024, doi: 10.26650/JPLC2023-1407593.
ISNAD Demiral Bakırman, Büşra. “The Clear and Present Danger Test in Turkish Penal Law”. Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi 11/2 (Şubat 2024), 186-197. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2023-1407593.
JAMA Demiral Bakırman B. The Clear and Present Danger Test in Turkish Penal Law. Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi. 2024;11:186–197.
MLA Demiral Bakırman, Büşra. “The Clear and Present Danger Test in Turkish Penal Law”. Ceza Hukuku Ve Kriminoloji Dergisi, c. 11, sy. 2, 2024, ss. 186-97, doi:10.26650/JPLC2023-1407593.
Vancouver Demiral Bakırman B. The Clear and Present Danger Test in Turkish Penal Law. Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi. 2024;11(2):186-97.
 Kapak Resmi İndir