The short answer is no. Placing a protective symbol does not legitimise content aired at an unsuitable hour. This is one of the most important sentences amended in Law No. 6112 in 2017, and it is still widely remembered in its old form.
Before and after the amendment
| Period | Wording of Article 8/2 | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Before 2017 | “…during those time slots and without using a protective symbol” | Place a symbol and you may broadcast |
| After 2017 | “…during those time slots and even if a protective symbol is used” | Even with a symbol you may not broadcast |
The change was made by Article 60 of Decree Law No. 690 of 17 April 2017 and enacted as it stood by Article 50 of Law No. 7077 of 1 February 2018. A one-word change reversed the logic of the provision.
The paragraph as it now stands
Article 8/2: “In radio and television broadcasting services, programmes containing content that may harm the physical, mental or moral development of children and young people shall not be broadcast during time slots when they may watch them, even if a protective symbol is used.”
There are two variables and they are assessed together: the nature of the content and the time slot. The symbol changes neither.
So what is the symbol for?
Its function has not disappeared; its place has moved. Under Article 24/1 the symbol exists to inform viewers about the content of the programme service. That means:
- In an appropriate time slot, the symbol informs the viewer and is compulsory.
- In an unsuitable time slot it resolves nothing; the broadcast may not be made at all.
- Absence of a symbol is one breach (Art. 24); airing harmful content at an unsuitable hour is another (Art. 8/2). Both can occur in the same broadcast.
Which time slot is appropriate?
The Law gives no hours. The phrase “time slots when children and young people may watch them” leaves the boundary to RTUK’s secondary regulation and to assessment on the facts. Article 24/2 and Article 37/1(ğ) confer the power to determine the procedures and principles of the protective symbol system on RTUK. Scheduling should therefore be planned against the regulation in force, not against the bare text of the statute.
On-demand: access control, not scheduling
Article 8/3 applies a different test to on-demand providers: harmful content must be offered so that children and young people “would not normally hear or see” such services. There is no time slot, because on-demand has no clock. What is expected is that the content does not appear in front of a child by itself — profile separation, access locks, catalogue segregation.
| Service type | Test | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Radio and television | Time slot plus protective symbol (the symbol does not lift the ban) | Art. 8/2, Art. 24 |
| On-demand broadcasting service | Offered so that it would not normally be heard or seen | Art. 8/3 |
Sanctions
A breach of Article 8/2 falls under Article 32/2: an administrative fine of one to three per cent of gross commercial communication revenue, with the floor of TRY 1,000 for radio and TRY 10,000 for television and on-demand services. Under the second track of Article 32/5, provisions other than Article 8/1 (a), (b) and (d) — including Article 8/2 — breached more than twenty times within a year lead to suspension of up to five days, rising on repetition and ending in licence revocation on a second repetition.
If the content also falls within Article 8/1(ğ) (exploitation of children) or Article 8/1(n) (obscenity), the picture changes: those sub-paragraphs sit in the grave group under Article 32/1 and the band rises to two to five per cent.
The place of the symbol system in the Law is covered in the protective symbols guide and the scheduling ban in the watershed guide.