Last modified: 2017-06-28
Abstract
Abstract
Similar to various disciplines, there have been significant changes and developments in the communication domain within the first quarter of 21st century. The use of internet, which is considered as a vital communication tool during the millennium and following years called as “digital information communication era/digital era” has become popular and gone through development and change. Such change has led a change in the concept of “new media” and extended its scope in the way to cover the concept of social media; and thus the internet has become essential due to its features of information access and socialisation.
Consequently, in addition to its benefits, the “harms” also has turned into an issue that is subject to the analysis as much as the legal responsibility dimension of the concept has become significant. Within this perspective, various countries around the world have started to use different practices in the access and use in terms of political and legal aspects. Particularly, “the internet censorship” is very vital in the determination of limits since crossing the lines might damage the fundamental principles in the disciplines of human rights and democracy. An American origin, The Freedom House organisation, which conducts regular studies to identify the status of relevant limitations as well as the internet freedoms, and publishes reports accordingly, is a leading supervisory organisation when it comes to “the freedoms” worldwide.
Based on the independency of analysis conducted in various countries by the Freedom House on the practices of the countries from the international political and economic perception and channelling at the bottom of political rights and human rights; at the specific level, this study assesses the analysis of Freedom House conducted for the USA in different periods within the framework of decisions of American courts and statements of politicians; and in general, this study would discuss the possibility of maintaining its activities in an independent structure. This study has a multi-disciplinary nature with the educational sciences due to using fundamental principles under the human rights and democracy education; with the jurisprudence due to the assessment of legal arrangements used for the internet censorship as given in other geographical examples and particularly USA example and the analysis of related court decisions; with the political sciences due to regulating the subject and the preparation of related laws by the parliament and interpretation of the issue by the politicians frequently and with the communication science as the internet concept is a basic communication tool. Additionally, pursuant to the data collected in relation with all disciplines, the status of internet freedom in the USA, which is indicated in the reports of Freedom House as one of the most free countries, and the objectivity analysis of the Freedom House would be performed with the content analysis method.
Keywords: Human Rights, Democracy, Internet Freedom, Censorship, Freedom House, USA.
References[1]
ABD’nin Özgür İnternete Verdiği Destek Hakkında Bilmeniz Gereken 10 Şey. (2004, May 29), Retrieved from http://photos.state.gov/libraries/istanbul/231771/PDFs/ScottBusby-USSupportforInternetFredom_TR.pdf
Akıncı, Z. B. & Vural, B. (2010). Social Media As A New Communicatıon Environment: A Research On Ege University Faculty Of Communication. Journal of Yasar University, 20(5): 3348‐3382.
Akman, T. K. (2011). Genel İletişim. İzmir: İlya.
Aryan, S. & Aryan, H. & Halderman, A. J. (2013). Internet Censorship in Iran: A First Look, aper presented at the 3rd USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/iran-foci13.pdf
Avşar, B. Z. & Öngören, G. (2010). Bilişim Hukuku, İstanbul: Pasifik Ofset.
Başaran, F. (1998). Yeni Bir İletişim Ortamı: İnternet, Birikim, 110, 46-69.
Baştürk, E. (2011). Demokratik Devletlerin Gerekleri ve Türkiye, Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, 61-62(16), 49-60.
Bayzan, Ş. (2009). Türkiye ve Dünyada İnternet Yasakları ve Sansür Kavramı ile Zararlı İçeriğe Karşı Yaptırım ve Uygulamalara Genel Bir Bakış, Akademik Bilişim, 9, 383-338.
Bgiggs, A. & Burke, P. (2004). Medyanın Toplumsal Tarihi (Trans. ŞENER, İbrahim), İstanbul: Kırmızı.
Big Brother? US Linked To New Wave Of Censorship, Surveillance On Web. (2013, February 27). Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/02/27/special-report-surveillance-and-censorship-america.html
Bozkurt, E. & Dost, S. (2002). Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararlarında İfade Özgürlüğü ve Türkiye, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 47-74.
Bulut, A. E. (2009). Türkiye’de İnternet Yasakları, Bilgi Dünyası, 10 (2), 163-185.
Child Online Protection Act Overturned. (2008, July 29). Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/story?id=5428228&page=1
Chomsky, N. (1989). Necessary Illusions: Thought Control In Democratic Society. Boston: South End Press.
Cooper, M. (2003). Open Communications Platforms: The Physical Infrastructure As The Bedrock of Innovation And Democratic Discourse In The Internet Age, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 2, 177-244.
Crowley, D. & Heyer P. (2014). İletişim Tarihi, Tekonoloji - Kültür – Toplum. (Trans. Berkay Ersöz). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
Çildan, C. Et. all. (2012). Sosyal Medyanın Politik Katılım ve Hareketlerdeki Rolü, Akademik Birikim Congress. Retrieved from http://ab.org.tr/ab12/bildiri/205.pdf
Erdoğan, M. (n.d.). Demokratik Toplumlarda İfade Özgürlüğü -Özgürlükçü Bir Perspektif-. Retrieved from http://ozgurtoplumundegerleri.com/res/Mustafa_Erdogan_Demokratik_Toplumda_Ifade_Ozgurlugu_Ozgurlukcu_Bir_Perspektif.pdf
Freedom On The Net, 2015. (2015, October). Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTN%202015%20Full%20Report.pdf
Freedom On The Net, 2016. (2016, October). Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTN_2016_Full_Report.pdf
Geray, H. (2002). İletişim ve Teknoloji. Ankara: Ütopya.
Gönenç, Ö. E. (2003). İnternet ve Türkiye’deki Gelişimi, İstanbul Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16, 87-98.
Gören, Z. İnternet Özgürlüğünün Kırua Alanı ve Sınırları, İstanbul Ticaret Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(26), 9-25.
Hamoğlu, D. & Ceylan, Ç. & Aydın, M. B. (2013). İfade Özgürlüğü Açısından Ağ Tarafsızlığı Kavramı ve Türkiye’deki Hukuki Düzenlemeler ve Pratik Uygulamaları, Mülkiye Dergisi 37(3), 37-59.
İnterneti Kapatma Yetkisi Kimde?. (2014, Marc 26). Retrieved from http://www.dw.com/tr/interneti-kapatma-yetkisi-kimde/a-17520108
İnternetin Kontrolü Amkerika’dan Çıkıyor. (2016, August 20). Retrieved from http://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/teknoloji/2016/08/20/internetin-kontrolu-amerikadan-cikiyor/
Kelly, S. & Cook, S. (2011). Evolving Tactics Of Internet Control And The Push For Greater Freedom. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net-2012/evolving-tactics-internet-control-and-push-greater-freedom
Kelly, S. & Cook, S. (2011). New Technologies, Innovative Repression: Growing Threats to Internet Freedom. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Overview%20essay%20FINAL%204%2014%202011.pdf
Köse, G. & Özen, K. (2016). İnternet’te Sansür Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme, Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 30(2), 113-122.
Net Neutrality, President Obama's Plan for a Free and Open Internet. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality
Nunziato, C. D. (2003). Freedom of Expression, Democratic Norms, and Internet Governance, Emory L.J., 52(187), 1-119.
Nunziato, C. D. (2009). Virtual Freedom: Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age. California: Stanford University Press.
Oskay, Ü. (2001). İletişimin A B C’si. İstanbul: Der.
Özbey, Ö. (2013). Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Işığında İfade Özgürlüğü Kısıtlamaları, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 106, 41-82.
Peters, J. & Johnson, B. (2016). Conceptualizing Private Governance In A Networked Society, North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 18(1), 15-68.
Powell, K. M. (2004). Preserving Interner Freedom: Guiding Priciples For The Indurstry, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 3, 5-22.
Remarks on Internet Freedom. (2010). Retrieved from https://m.state.gov/md135519.htm
Timisi, N (2003). Yeni İletişim Teknolojileri ve Demokrasi. Ankara: Dost.
Tully, S. (2014). People You Might Know: Social Media in the Conflict Between Law and Democracy, Law and Democracy: Contemporary Questions (Ed. Rubenstein, K.), 153-172. Australia: Anu Press.
Türkiye’de İnternet ‘Kısmen Özgür’. (2015, October 29). Retrieved from http://www.dunya.com/gundem/turkiye039de-internet-039kismen-ozgur039-haberi-296402
U.S. Moves to Privatize Oversight of Internet Domain Name System. (2016, June 10). Retrieved from <<https://freedomhouse.org/article/us-moves-privatize-oversight-internet-domain-name-system>>
Uçkan, Ö. (2002). E-Devlet, E-Demokrasi ve E-Yönetişim Modeli: Bir İlkesel Öncelik Olarak Bilgiye Erişim Özgürlüğü, Aylık Strateji ve Analiz E-Dergisi, 5, 1-19.
United States. (2015, October) Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2015/united-states
Ural, Ş. (1999). Demokrasi Kavramı, Toplumsal Değerler ve Birey, Ankara Üniversitesi İF Dergisi, 40(1), 451-459.
Vural-Akıncı, B. (2006). Bilgi İletişim Teknolojileri ve Yansımaları. Ankara: Nobel.
Warf, B. (2011). Geographies of Global Internet cencoship, GeoJournal, 76, 1(23), 1-23.
Wu, T. (2003). Network Neutrality, Brodband Discrimination, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 2, 141-176.
Yoo, S. C. (2005). Beyond Network Neutrality, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 19(1), 1-77.
[1] This is the references list for the full text.