OnlyFans, the popular platform where users producing adult content generate income with a paid subscription model, was blocked in Turkey this week. However, the reason for the decision is neither obscene content nor income from these contents.
Many popular websites and platforms with adult content have been inaccessible in Turkey for many years. However, users are not connected to the platform, but to the content that produces the content. “obscene phenomena” The OnlyFans they subscribed to was an exception. During the pandemic period, when internet usage and such platforms broke records in the number of users, Turkey has become a place where OnlyFans has become more and more popular.
However, this popularity brought with it the decision to block OnlyFans after allegedly a citizen complained to CIMER. While some social media users are banned from other platforms, this decision for OnlyFans received late they argued.
It has been understood that the reason for the blocking of the platform is not obscene content or the right to generate income by producing such content, but “personal rights violations”…
The decision to block access taken by the Istanbul Criminal Judgeship of Peace based on the 9th article of the law numbered 5651, researcher author Yaman Mediterranean commented. Mediterranean, according to this law “There is no need to violate the personal rights of real and legal persons and institutions and organizations” made a statement. This shows that OnlyFans was not blocked from access due to sexuality, obscenity or the income of those who produce content through these means.
Instead, the platform is a citizen’s “Has an effect that weakens the moral values of Turkish society” And “causing negative behaviors on young people” After the complaint, the decision to be blocked is taken. However, according to Akdeniz, this complaint does not contain any content regarding the violation of personal rights. In other words, while the complaint requires a different legal ground, the law, which is the reason for the blocking decision, does not reflect the reason for the complaint.
On the other hand, the judge’s decision to block “Sharing content that is not suitable for public morals and Turkish family structure” cites as reasons. However, according to Akdeniz, it is not explained in the text of the published decision which content, profiles violate personal rights and freedoms based on Article 9 of Law No. 5651.