A smear campaign against LGBTI+ people and organization and their culture had been being cooked in Turkey for a while. It concluded with police assaults on several LGBTI+ associations and dozens of arrests last September. Censorship on social media accounts and websites was a part of this campaign. According to Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA), during the first phase of restriction pertaining to LGBTI+ organizations and individuals between September 12-16, 319 social media accounts, websites and content sharing were blocked by “court” orders. These included not only LGBTI+ organizations but also journalists, media platforms, human rights defenders, student associations which wrote and posted about the matter. Amnesty Turkey’s X account was among the blocked accounts.
Censorship expands
The wave of oppression and censorship has quickly expanded beyond LGBTI+ circles as a second, much larger wave took place between September 21-30. This second wave was mostly, but not exclusively, related to a financial fraud scandal in which some names from the ruling party, Justice and Development Party-AKP, are involved. Freedom of Expression Association (İFÖD - İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği) states that the number of social media accounts that were blocked in this second wave has exceeded 500. They included economists, academics, financial analysts, traders, investors and lawyers as well as political activists and journalists.
As a result, at least 1,270 X accounts in total were subjected to blocking decisions during September 2026, and actually X made almost 90% of these accounts invisible in Turkey. Lastly, as an irony, they have blocked Freedom of Expression Association’s X account, Engelli Web, which follows and regularly announces the number of accounts blocked on social media!
Mainstream media also targeted
On the last days of September another important step that should be noted took place. On 29 September, Istanbul's 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace (Sulh Ceza Hakimliği) ordered the blocking of both T24's entire website and its social-media accounts, which is one of the mainstream media outlets followed by millions. T24 says it had not been formally notified of the decision and planned to appeal. The stated justification was that T24 had published 118 pieces of content during the preceding year that authorities classified as LGBTI+ “propaganda.” The significance of this ruling is that it is not simply removal of a particular article. The intervention encompasses the entire news organization’s web presence.
International reaction
This wave of censorship has brought about a broad international reaction. On 18 September, the EU's External Action Service expressed concern about the arrests, prosecutions and blocking of websites and social media accounts, calling on Turkey to respect freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly and media freedom. The EU also specifically warned that targeting international donors and civil society organizations could threaten pluralism and civic space. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe treated the matter as an urgent issue. Its September 29 report described the developments since 12 September as an “immediate, coordinated and escalating campaign” and called for the blocking of websites and social-media accounts belonging to human-rights defenders to be lifted. Amnesty International characterized the operation as a major attack on LGBTI+ rights and said the blocking of hundreds of accounts and websites was part of the same broader crackdown. Lastly, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists have focused particularly on the treatment of journalists.
Legality of rulings
Although these decisions were made by judges, their legality is in question. The official name of these judgeships is Criminal Judgeship of Peace (Sulh Ceza Hakimliği) consisted of a single judge without a prosecutor and defense. So, they are not proper courts. Moreover, these decisions about blocking social media accounts and websites are made on the case file without any prior notification given to the related parties. Therefore, account holders and media outlets do not have the chance to defend themselves in the face of claims. In other words, they are actually punished without any opportunity of defense. They are only able to submit their initial defense when they appeal the decision, but by then, the block is already in effect, and the damage has already occurred.
Compliance by X
High level of compliance on the side of X administration with this wave of censorship should be also underscored. Under Turkey's internet regulations, tech platforms operating in the country are required to appoint local legal representatives and respond to court removal orders. If a platform refuses to comply with court directives, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) holds the legal power to throttle the platform's bandwidth by up to 90%, rendering the website and app unusable in the country. Additionally, Turkish authorities may impose an advertising ban on X which they have done before. However, this cannot be presented as a simple case of X’s helplessness as if it is a weak or vulnerable entity. Considering its power and potential leverage, and the position of Elon Musk as its owner, high compliance with censorship instead of joining the fight for freedom of speech seems as a willing choice rather than an obligation.
