- In the trial with 21 defendants, including actor Cem Yiğit Üzümoğlu, the lawyers’ requests for immediate acquittal were rejected by the court.
- The defendants described that they were subjected to ill-treatment during the detention process and that their right to defense was restricted; the court also rejected the requests to file a criminal complaint based on these statements.
- Üzümoğlu’s words, “The President also has boycott calls in the same way. Then how can this be a crime?” stood out in the defense statements of the other defendants as well.
- During the hearing, the SEGBİS recording became a matter of debate; the case was adjourned to June 17.
MLSA – The second hearing of the case filed against 21 defendants, including actor Cem Yiğit Üzümoğlu and social media users, was held at the Istanbul 39th Criminal Court of First Instance, within the scope of the investigation launched due to posts related to “boycott calls” made following the operation targeting CHP-affiliated mayors, including Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu.
The hearing was held in the courtroom of the Istanbul 10th High Criminal Court due to insufficient capacity in the regular courtroom.
For the defendants, prison sentences of up to 7 years and 6 months are sought separately on charges of “preventing a person from engaging in an ordinary economic activity by making discrimination between persons” and “publicly inciting hatred and hostility among the public through press and publication.”
The hearing began with tension
At the beginning of the hearing, the lawyers requested that the hearing be recorded via SEGBİS (Audio and Visual Information System) in order for the trial to proceed properly. The judge rejected this request. The lawyers also requested immediate acquittal for all defendants. The judge refused to even enter the request into the record, saying, “There is no need for you to present it because I will not accept it.”
Upon the lawyers’ objection, the request was entered into the record, however, the court rejected the request for immediate acquittal on the grounds that “its legal conditions were not met.”
Üzümoğlu: “How can this be a crime?”
In his defense statement, Cem Yiğit Üzümoğlu said, “I was both a witness and a victim of the violations experienced. I do not think my posts constitute a crime. The President also has boycott calls in the same way. Then how can this be a crime? I am innocent, I request my acquittal.”
In response to the judge’s question, “What did you mean when you said ‘let’s raid the set of the TV series Teşkilat’?”, Üzümoğlu said that this expression was slang, that it was intended as solidarity with his colleagues, and that it did not turn into any action.
Defendants described ill-treatment
One of the defendants, Aslı Yirsutimur, said that during detention she was “subjected to unjust interventions,” was kept in poor conditions in the holding cell, could not reach her lawyer, and fainted because she could not take her medication. For this reason, she said “I could not express myself,” adding that her right to defense was restricted.
Rejecting the accusations, Yirsutimur stated that her posts did not carry a “motive of hatred” and did not target any person or institution. Emphasizing that boycott posts were made by millions of people, Yirsutimur said that these calls did not aim to prevent anyone from engaging in economic activity. Referring to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court, Yirsutimur recalled that boycott falls within the scope of freedom of expression and said, “President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also has boycott calls. These statements have appeared in the press and on social media. Since the President also made boycott calls, I did not think this was a crime. Also, recently the boycott action carried out for Migros workers was successful.”
Bekir Aslan, known as “Basel” on social media, said, “Boycotting and calling for a boycott is not a crime,” adding that some posts included in the indictment were directly statements of President Erdoğan. Stating that their rights were violated in detention, Aslan said they were not allowed to meet with their lawyers and were forcibly removed.
Another defendant, Deniz Bulutsuz, said, “I repeat my statement at the prosecutor’s office. I had no intention of targeting any person, institution, or organization. I never had any intention of committing a crime in an organized manner,” rejecting the accusations and requesting acquittal.
Psychiatrist Muhammet Enes Özel said in his defense statement, “My posts did not include any expressions containing hate speech targeting any religion, language, race, group, person, or institution. Due to my profession, it would not be possible for me to adopt such an attitude,” and requested acquittal.
Academic Seyda Murat Germen emphasized that she has fought against discrimination throughout her life, saying, “I neither received nor gave any instructions for these posts. If calling for a boycott is a crime, then all previous calls should also have been considered crimes,” and requested acquittal.
Publisher Zeynep Ocak stated that the X account subject to the case belonged to her and that she shared her publications through this account, adding that her content was accessible from open sources. Ocak said that her posts contained evaluations regarding the implementation of law and did not accept the accusations of hate and discrimination.
SEGBİS debate
A dispute broke out between the lawyers and the judge during the hearing. The lawyers objected, stating that their statements were recorded incompletely in the minutes, and requested that the statements be recorded via SEGBİS. The judge said that SEGBİS solutions were “troublesome.”
After the lawyers continued their objections, the court accepted the request for SEGBİS recording. After a break in the hearing, the trial continued with SEGBİS recording.
At the end of the hearing, which lasted more than six hours with breaks, the court rejected the lawyers’ requests for separation of the case files and the requests to file a criminal complaint regarding the allegations of ill-treatment. A decision was made to forcibly bring some defendants who did not attend the hearing. The case was adjourned to June 17 at 10:00 a.m.
