What Does URL-Based Blocking Mean?

The definition in the Law: methods of blocking

The Law does not define blocking of access as a single method; it defines it as an umbrella notion covering more than one method. Article 2(1)(o) and Article 2(1)(p) read as follows:

LAW No. 5651, ARTICLE 2, first paragraph
(verbatim quotation, unofficial translation):

"o) (Added: 6/2/2014-6518/85) Blocking of access: the blocking of access
   by using methods such as blocking access from the domain name,
   blocking access from the IP address, blocking access to the content
   (URL) and similar methods,

p) (Added: 6/2/2014-6518/85) URL address: the full internet address at
   which the content concerned is located on the internet,

shall mean."

The Law therefore names three methods — blocking from the domain name, from the IP address and to the content (URL) — and leaves the list open by adding "and similar methods". That definition alone does not say which method is to be applied; the provisions that do say so are Article 8(17), Article 8/A(3) and Article 9/A(4).

Article 9/A(4) — the URL rule, with no exception

For blocking decisions issued on grounds of the privacy of private life, the Law provides for a single method and admits no exception to it. The full text of the paragraph is:

LAW No. 5651, ARTICLE 9/A, fourth paragraph
(verbatim quotation, unofficial translation):

"(4) Blocking of access shall be applied by way of blocking access to
the content (in the form of a URL) in respect of the publication, part,
section, image or video that violates the privacy of private life."

The most striking feature of this paragraph is what it does not contain. The exception sentence found in Article 8(17) and Article 8/A(3), under which a decision blocking the whole internet site may be issued where blocking is technically impossible, does not appear in Article 9/A(4). The text provides for URL-based blocking only.

Article 8(17) — URL as the rule, the whole site as the exception

For catalogue offence decisions, by contrast, the Law establishes a rule and an exception subject to two conditions. The paragraph, added by Article 36 of Law No. 7188 of 17/10/2019, reads:

LAW No. 5651, ARTICLE 8, seventeenth paragraph
(verbatim quotation, unofficial translation):

"(17) (Added: 17/10/2019-7188/36) Decisions on blocking of access issued
under the second, fourth and fourteenth paragraphs of this Article shall
be issued by the method of blocking access to the content (in the form
of a URL etc.) in respect of the publication, part or section in which
the infringement occurred. However, where it is technically impossible
to block access to the content relating to the infringement, or where
the infringement cannot be prevented by way of blocking access to the
content concerned, a decision blocking access to the whole of the
internet site may be issued."

The structure of the sentence matters. The main sentence is mandatory: decisions shall be issued on a URL basis. The sentence that follows, beginning "However", is an exception, and it is tied to two alternative conditions: (i) that it is technically impossible to block access to the content relating to the infringement, or (ii) that the infringement cannot be prevented by way of URL-based blocking. Outside those two situations, there is no basis in the text for a decision blocking the whole site.

Article 8/A(3) repeats the same formula word for word; only its scope differs: decisions issued in urgent cases. On the fast route, too, the rule is therefore URL-based blocking.

What became of the URL principle in Article 9?

In practice the URL-based blocking principle was for a long time explained through Article 9 of Law No. 5651. That article no longer exists. By the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 11/10/2023, E.: 2020/76, K.: 2023/172, Article 9 was annulled in its entirety, the annulment taking effect on 10/10/2024; and no new provision has been enacted in its place. For the URL principle the consequence is this: the principle has not disappeared, because it is laid down separately and independently in Article 8(17), Article 8/A(3) and Article 9/A(4). What has been lost is the procedure that operated within the scope of Article 9 itself.

How it differs from domain-based blocking

The difference lies in the layer at which the blocking is applied. URL-based blocking targets a single address; domain- or IP-based blocking covers everything under that address. For a news site the practical consequence is this: in the first case one report becomes unreachable and the site stays up; in the second everything closes, including the archive, the home page, the imprint and the contact page.

How proportionality is reflected in the Law

The Law does not use the word proportionality; but the rule-and-exception structure built by Article 8(17) and Article 8/A(3) is its concrete counterpart. The measure is confined to the publication, part or section in which the infringement occurred; for that limit to be exceeded, one of two technical conditions must be shown to be met. The same approach is visible in Article 8(2): A decision blocking access may also be issued for a limited period, where this is considered capable of achieving the objective.

For the publisher this is the central axis of an objection. If the scope of the decision goes beyond the URL, what you will be arguing about in your objection is not the content of the report but the scope of the measure. The last sentence of Article 8(2) points to the route for that objection: an objection may be lodged, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271, against a decision on removal of content and/or blocking of access issued as a protective measure.

OBJECTION AS TO SCOPE - SKELETON PETITION
(the parts resting on the text of the Law)

SUBJECT : Our objection, as to the SCOPE, against the access blocking
          decision dated ....../....../.......... and numbered ..........

1. The decision has been issued in respect of THE WHOLE of the internet
   site with the domain name ................ belonging to our company.

2. However, under the seventeenth paragraph of Article 8 of Law No. 5651
   (or, for decisions under Article 8/A, under the third paragraph of
   Article 8/A), decisions on blocking of access SHALL BE ISSUED "by the
   method of blocking access to the content (in the form of a URL etc.)
   in respect of the publication, part or section in which the
   infringement occurred".

3. Under the same paragraph, blocking of the whole site is possible only
   where
   (i)  it is TECHNICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to block access to the content
        relating to the infringement, or
   (ii) the infringement CANNOT BE PREVENTED by way of URL-based blocking.
   In the present case neither of those two conditions is met, in that:
   ................................

4. The content complained of is at the address ................ and that
   address is technically capable of being closed to access on its own.
   (A technical explanation and, where available, an expert opinion are
   annexed.)

CONCLUSION : We request that the decision be converted into URL-based
             blocking limited solely to the address ................ .

NOTE: The authority to which the objection is to be made, the period and
the procedure are regulated not in Law No. 5651 but in the Code of
Criminal Procedure No. 5271. Always confirm the procedure and the period
with your lawyer before filing the petition.

The technical side: how URL blocking is applied

The Law does not determine the technical method by which blocking is to be carried out; it describes only the result. Implementation lies at the access provider layer. Article 6/A(6), verbatim: Access blocking decisions shall be carried out by access providers. All hardware and software necessary for the implementation of the decisions shall be supplied by the access providers themselves. In addition, under Article 6(1)(ç) the access provider is obliged to take measures preventing alternative routes of access in relation to publications in respect of which an access blocking decision has been issued.

Technically, an address can be blocked at different layers: at the level of domain name resolution (DNS), at the routing level (IP), or at the level of the full address the request is aimed at. The third of these — genuinely URL-based blocking — requires that the path part of the request be visible. That is a technical necessity; the Law itself imposes no method.

The effect of HTTPS

Today almost all news sites publish over HTTPS. On an HTTPS connection the request is encrypted; an intermediate layer on the network can as a rule see which server is being reached, but not which page is being requested on that server. The practical consequence is that distinguishing at the level of the full address is technically harder than distinguishing at the level of the domain name.

What it means from the publisher's point of view

• One report is blocked and the site stays up. Under a URL-based decision your archive, your home page, your imprint and your contact page keep working — and it is to that contact address that notifications are sent under Article 6/A(11).
• Your commercial activity does not stop. Advertising impressions, subscriptions and reader traffic are interrupted only in respect of the page concerned.
• Evidence and the archive are preserved. When the whole site is closed, access to your own archive also becomes difficult in practice.
• The subject of your objection becomes clear. An objection as to scope is separate from, and more concrete than, an argument about the lawfulness of the content.
• Taking the content down has an effect. Under Article 9/A(7), if the content has been removed from publication the judge's decision becomes automatically void; under Article 8(9), if catalogue offence content is removed from publication the blocking decision is lifted.

Keep your URL structure blockable

Whether a request for URL-based blocking can be met depends on your site's address structure being suited to it. This is not a legal but a purely operational preparation:

• Give every report a single, permanent canonical address; do not publish the same content at more than one address.
• Either remove or redirect to the canonical address any second addresses leading to the same content, such as a print page, an AMP copy or a mobile subdomain.
• Keep category and tag pages on path patterns separate from those of report pages.
• When you close a report to access, make sure the direct addresses of the associated image and video files are closed as well.
• Verify that the act of removal from publication is entered in the system record with a time stamp.

If the scope of the decision nonetheless extends to the site, we have covered what to do in what to do if the whole site is blocked, all the deadlines in the access blocking timetable, and the consequences of failing to comply with a decision in what happens if you refuse.