KÜHEYLAN HUKUK
How to Remove News and Content from the Internet (Blocking Access)? Personality Rights, Privacy, and the Right to Be Forgotten Under Law No. 5651, Articles 9 and 9/A. This guide has been updated as of 2026, based on Law No. 5651 and high court precedents.
Summary: Content removal is the permanent deletion of infringing data from the server, and the legislator considers this the primary method over blocking access. Applications can be made to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace on grounds of infringement of personality rights, privacy, or the right to be forgotten; the judgeship decides within 24 hours at the latest, and positive decisions are implemented via the Association of Access Providers within 4 hours at the latest. A blocking decision may be directed only at the specific link where the infringement occurred, not the entire site.
Is It Enough to Say "They Are Lying" to Have a News Story Deleted?
Everyone who sees negative content about themselves on the internet assumes they can have it removed; however, the law does not make this request limitless. Which content can be removed, which authority to apply to, and how quickly the decision will be implemented are subject to clear rules. A petition prepared without knowing these rules risks both rejection and the possibility of the grievance becoming more visible due to an allegation of "censorship" (Streisand effect).
This guide addresses the difference between blocking access and content removal, the grounds for removal, the right to be forgotten, and the application process.
Blocking access is the restriction of access to the infringing website or relevant URL address only from IP addresses within Turkey; the content is not deleted from the server and can still be viewed with a VPN. Content removal, on the other hand, is the permanent deletion of infringing data from the server and database of the site where it is located. The legislator prioritizes content removal as the method that least harms freedom of expression and press; judgeships primarily decide on content deletion, and if this is not technically possible, they order access blocking.
The cases of unlawfulness required by law are grouped under three main headings.
Infringement of Personality Rights This includes unsubstantiated, defamatory, or false internet publications that damage the honor, dignity, commercial reputation, or integrity of real or legal persons, and is based on Article 9 of Law No. 5651. It is the most frequently used legal remedy. For example, an unsubstantiated news story titled "committing qualified fraud" published about a person who has no ongoing investigation can be the subject of a content removal lawsuit based on the infringement of personality rights.
Violation of Privacy The sharing of intimate photos, home addresses, phone numbers, or confidential call recordings without the person's consent, even if taken in a public area, falls under Article 9/A of Law No. 5651, and the process is expedited in such cases.
Public Order and Catalog Crimes In cases such as encouraging suicide, child sexual abuse, facilitating drug use, or providing a place for gambling, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority has the power to block access ex officio, without the need for an individual application.
The Right to Be Forgotten: Can a Correct but Old News Story Also Be Deleted?
A news story may have been perfectly true and lawful at the time of its publication. However, years later, its continued appearance at the top of search engine results can subject an individual to a constant digital burden due to a past event. According to high court precedents, for content to be removed under the right to be forgotten, the following conditions must be met: a reasonable and long period must have passed since its publication, the news must have lost its topicality and public interest, the person must not be a socially recognized figure, and if the news is based on a judicial case, the person must have been acquitted or completed their sentence.
Having been involved in a fight as a university student in 2014 and reported in the press, Melis was acquitted as a result of the trial. Twelve years have passed, Melis has married and become a manager in a company. However, when her name is searched, her business partners still see that old news story.
Legal Assessment Although the news was true at the time of publication, it has lost its topicality and public interest due to the long time that has passed; Melis has also been acquitted. Considering these conditions together, Melis can request the removal of the news and its deletion from search engine indexes under the right to be forgotten.
Two main paths can be followed. The first non-compulsory path is to apply via email or notary public notice through the contact section of the infringing site before resorting to legal action (notice-and-take-down method); the hosting provider is obliged to fulfill legitimate requests. If no result is achieved or the situation is urgent, the aggrieved party applies to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace in their place of residence or where the publication was made, with a petition containing the full URL address of the infringing content and justifications supported by screenshots.
An important technical rule: Criminal Judgeships of Peace, due to freedom of press and expression, cannot issue a wholesale access blocking decision for the main domain name of a news site. The blocking and deletion decision can only be directed at the specific link where the infringement directly occurred.
The Criminal Judgeship of Peace examines the application without a hearing, based on documents, and renders a decision within 24 hours at the latest. If the decision is affirmative, the clerk of the judgeship sends the decision to the Association of Access Providers (ESB) for execution. ESB is the umbrella organization to which all internet service providers in Turkey are affiliated and immediately notifies its member service providers and the relevant site of the decision received. Under the law, these decisions must be technically implemented within 4 hours at the latest; severe administrative and judicial sanctions are applied to providers who fail to comply with the deadline.
If the Criminal Judgeship of Peace rejects the request, the aggrieved party has the right to object, and if the content is accepted and deleted, the publisher has the right to object. The objection period is 7 days from the notification of the decision; the objection is examined by the next Criminal Judgeship of Peace in number after the one that made the decision, and the decision rendered is final.
Infringement of personality rights Law No. 5651, Art. 9 Criminal Judgeship of Peace or site administration Within 4 hours via ESB after judge's decision
Violation of privacy Law No. 5651, Art. 9/A Directly to BTK, presented to judge within 24 hours Immediately with BTK notification
Right to be forgotten High court jurisprudence Criminal Judgeship of Peace and search engines With judge's decision and search engine action
Catalog crimes Law No. 5651, Art. 8 BTK / Public Prosecutor (ex officio) Immediately and ex officio
Is it mandatory to send a warning to the site publishing the news first? No, it is not mandatory. However, it is a practical first step for aggrieved parties who want quick results and believe the site will act in good faith. If no result is achieved, an application can be made directly to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace.
Can an entire site be blocked? As a rule, no. Due to freedom of press and expression, a blocking decision can only be directed at the specific page where the infringement occurred; wholesale blocking of the main domain name occurs only in exceptional and very limited cases.
Incomplete or incorrect URL address: If the full link of the infringing content is not clearly indicated in the petition, the judgeship may reject the request without examination. Applications with abstract justifications: Justifications such as "It bothers me" are not accepted because they do not show the concrete elements of personality rights infringement (unsubstantiated, defamatory, privacy violation).
Content removal and access blocking processes from the internet are dynamic processes where even seconds matter for reputation management. Justifying the petition in accordance with legal and constitutional criteria, correctly classifying URL addresses, and following up on the enforcement process directly determine the success of the application.
Important Legal Disclaimer: The legal explanations and case examples contained in this guide have been prepared by Küheylan Law Office for general informational purposes and do not constitute legal advice. Since every case has unique circumstances that can change the outcome, it is recommended that the process be carried out with the support of an IT and press law attorney. © 2026 Küheylan Law Office. All Rights Reserved.
Küheylan Law Office — Burhaniye Mh. Neşetbey Sk. No:12/5 Kat:5 Daire:3 Üsküdar/İstanbul — info@kuheylan.av.tr — kuheylanhukuk.com
KÜHEYLAN HUKUK