Article 301 (Turkish Penal Code)

It took effect on June 1, 2005, and was introduced as part of a package of penal law reform in the process preceding the opening of negotiations for Turkish membership of the European Union (EU).[3] On April 30, 2008 a series of changes were made to Article 301, including a new amendment which makes it obligatory to receive the approval of the Minister of Justice to file a case.[17] Another high-profile case to result from this legislation involved the writer and journalist Perihan Mağden, who was prosecuted for penning an article originally published in the December 26, 2005 issue of Yeni Aktuel, titled "Conscientious Objection is a Human Right".In July 2006 the Istanbul public prosecutor's office prepared an indictment alleging that the statements in the book Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman constituted a breach of the article.In his speech he commented on the Şemdinli incident and criticized the Turkish military for seeking to maintain its political influence through the continuous guerrilla war with the PKK.[32] In 2007, Members of the Strong Turkey Party organized a campaign of civil disobedience against the law, which they named Judge me too 301 (Turkish: Beni de yargıla 301).[34] A criticism heard in Turkey, and also voiced by some outside, is that it has turned into a tool of the nationalist "old guard", who, so is claimed, use it to press charges against people of international renown, not to stifle dissenting opinions but with the aim of thwarting the admission process to the EU."[39] On April 30, 2008, article 301 was amended by the Parliament of Turkey, with the following changes:[40] Permission was refused by the justice ministry in the July 2008 case against İbrahim Tığ, the editor of the daily Bölge Haber.[44] In 2011, the European Court of Human Rights decided that "the scope of the terms under Article 301 of the Criminal Code, as interpreted by the judiciary, is too wide and vague and thus the provision constitutes a continuing threat to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression" and "that Article 301 of the Criminal Code does not meet the "quality of law" required by the Court’s settled case-law, since its unacceptably broad terms result in a lack of foreseeability as to its effects".