When a page in Turkey greets you with "access to this site has been blocked," that message rests on a single legal framework: Law No. 5651. Access blocking is not arbitrary. The law spells out who may order it, on what grounds, and through which authority. This guide explains, in practical terms, what a block is based on, who issues the order, and how it is applied technically.
What Law No. 5651 Regulates
Its full title is the Law on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publications. Enacted in 2007, it does two things at once: it defines the duties of internet actors (content, hosting and access providers) and it sets out the measures of content removal and access blocking for specific unlawful content.
One distinction is central: an access block is not a penalty, it is a preventive measure. Its purpose is to stop access to unlawful content; punishing a person is the subject of a separate trial. That is why blocking orders are often issued quickly and later corrected through appeal or removal.
The Four Actors in the Law
To see who a blocking order is served on and who does what, you first separate the actors. These roles also explain the division of labour between internet service providers and hosting companies.
| Actor | Who | Relation to a block |
|---|---|---|
| Content provider | The person who creates/uploads the content (publisher, news site, user) | Responsible for the content itself; a removal order targets them or the host |
| Hosting provider | The hosting/server service that stores the content | Must take down content it is notified of |
| Access provider | The operator (ISP) that connects the user to the internet | The party that actually enforces the block |
| Mass-use provider | Internet cafes, hotels, workplaces offering shared access | Carries specific duties and filtering responsibility |
What Legal Grounds Can a Block Rest On?
The answer to "what is a block based on?" lives in different articles of the law. Each has its own rationale, its own deciding authority and its own procedure. There are broadly four grounds:
| Ground | Article | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Catalogue crimes | Art. 8 | Serious offences listed one by one in the law |
| Cases where delay is harmful | Art. 8/A | Urgent grounds such as the right to life, personal/property safety, national security, public order |
| Violation of personal rights | Art. 9 | Defamation and other violations of personality rights |
| Violation of privacy | Art. 9/A | Breach of the confidentiality of private life |
Removal of Content or Blocking of Access?
The law recognises two distinct measures that are often confused. Removal of content deletes the unlawful material at its source (through the hosting provider/server); the problem is solved at the root and the content is no longer reachable. Blocking of access leaves the content in place and only stops the user from reaching it. In practice a judge can often order both together: removal is requested first, and if removal is not possible or the server sits abroad, an access block steps in.
Catalogue Crimes (Article 8)
Article 8 is the classic basis for a block. If content constitutes one of the listed offences, access blocking is on the table. The prominent headings are the following crimes under the Turkish Penal Code (No. 5237):
- Encouraging suicide
- Sexual abuse of children
- Facilitating the use of narcotic or stimulant substances
- Supplying substances dangerous to health
- Obscenity
- Prostitution
- Providing a place and means for gambling
In addition, content under Law No. 5816 on Crimes Committed Against Atatürk falls within the catalogue. Certain offences in special laws, such as illegal betting, are subject to a comparable blocking regime.
Violation of Personal Rights (Article 9)
This is the civil blocking route people meet most often. A person whose personality rights are violated by content can apply directly to a criminal judgeship of peace and request removal of the content and/or blocking of access. No criminal investigation is required here; the test is simply whether a personality right has been violated.
The guiding principle of this route is proportionality: wherever possible the judge blocks the single address (URL) that constitutes the violation rather than the whole site. For a news outlet, that is the difference between blocking one article page and blocking the entire domain.
Violation of Privacy (Article 9/A)
A person whose privacy is breached can apply directly to BTK to have access blocked and prevent the harm that delay would cause. On this urgent track the measure is applied quickly, but it is then submitted for a judge's approval within a short time. If the judge does not approve, the measure is lifted. Speed and judicial oversight are thus balanced.
Who Issues the Order?
Who may order a block depends on the ground and the stage of the process. The general framework is:
| Stage / ground | Deciding authority |
|---|---|
| Investigation stage (catalogue crime) | Judge |
| Prosecution stage | Court |
| Cases where delay is harmful | BTK President on the request of the relevant authority, then judicial approval |
| Violation of personal rights | Criminal judgeship of peace |
| Violation of privacy | Application to BTK, then judicial approval |
How a Block Is Applied Technically
The order is legal; the enforcement is purely technical and runs on IP addresses and domain name resolution. There are three core methods:
| Method | How it works | Side effect |
|---|---|---|
| DNS-based | Domain resolution is blocked; the user is redirected to a warning page | Easiest to apply, easiest to bypass |
| IP-based | Traffic to the server's IP is stopped | Innocent sites sharing the same IP can be affected |
| URL-based | Only the specific address/page is blocked | The most targeted method; best fits proportionality |
A DNS-based block shows up in practice as a redirect to a warning page. A simple resolution query reveals it:
# Under a DNS-based block, the domain resolves to the operator's warning server
$ nslookup blocked-example-site.example
Name: blocked-example-site.example
Address: 195.175.254.2 # operator's information/warning page
# A URL-based block targets only a single page:
# https://example-site.example/news/123 -> blocked
# https://example-site.example/ -> reachableThe spread of HTTPS has made URL-based blocking technically harder: because traffic is encrypted, the operator can often see only the domain (the SNI), not the full path. In practice this can push blocks toward the domain level. The legal principle does not change, though; proportionality still requires the narrowest block that is technically feasible.
Appeal and Removal: Is a Block Permanent?
An access block is usually a temporary measure and can be reversed. A publisher has two main routes:
- Appeal: An order can be challenged before the relevant criminal judgeship of peace within the period set by law, counted from service of the order.
- Lifting the block: Once the offending content is removed or corrected, lifting of the block can be requested; when the cause is gone, there is no ground for the measure to continue.
- Judicial review: In urgent cases, measures ordered by the administration go to a judge for approval within a short time; if not approved, they lapse automatically.
A blocking order is therefore the beginning of a process, not its end. With the right, timely steps, most measures can be narrowed or lifted.
The Role of the Access Providers Union
To coordinate the delivery and enforcement of blocking orders through a single channel, the Access Providers Union was established. Certain types of blocking orders are notified to the Union, which then passes them to member access providers for enforcement. This structure removes the burden of serving the same order on dozens of operators separately and keeps enforcement uniform.
What Should You Do as a News Site?
Managing the risk of a block comes down to a few concrete field habits:
- Run a legal check before publishing: watch the limits of personality rights, the presumption of innocence and privacy.
- Process reply-and-correction requests quickly; an early correction makes many blocking applications unnecessary.
- Keep content individually addressable; a targeted (URL) block does far less harm than closing the whole site.
- Keep your contact and registered electronic mail address current so you do not miss service of an order.
- If an order arrives, use the appeal or removal routes within the time limit; measures can be reversed.
Commonly Confused Points
| The confusion | The reality |
|---|---|
| A block = a penalty | A block is a measure; criminal liability is a separate trial |
| All sites are blocked the same way | The ground (Art. 8, 9, 9/A...) and the deciding authority differ |
| Copyright infringement is a 5651 catalogue ground | Copyright-based blocking follows the procedure of Law No. 5846 (FSEK), not the 5651 catalogue |
| A block is always permanent | Most measures can be reversed by appeal, removal or judicial review |
Conclusion
In Turkey, access blocking is not an arbitrary practice; it is a measure tied to specific grounds, specific deciding authorities and specific techniques set out in Law No. 5651. The answer to "what is it based on?" lies in which article the content is linked to: a catalogue crime, personality rights, privacy, or an urgent case. For a publisher, the strongest protection is legal discipline before publishing and a timely appeal when an order arrives.