Is Turkey A Free Country

In the past, freedom was not being persecuted for having different opinions and it was a new start, where everyone is equal. Freedom wasn’t in most parts of the world; in fact Freedom House showed the statistic of the freedom of the press from 1987 and 2014 and in 1987 fifty-seven percent of the worlds freedom of the press wasn’t free and in 2014 only thirty-two percent of the press wasn’t free. This show that people are learning the importance of freedom

Thus it can be seen that governmental freedom has limitations just as it has privileges. Everyone is allowed freedom of speech, but if an individual were to yell fire in a public building they would be thrown in jail. Thus implying that freedom of speech has limitations. Despite this, governmental freedom is not the only form of freedom that exist. There lies an inherent freedom that allows citizens of these countries to revolt and overthrow their government at anytime they deem necessary because they have the freedom and knowledge to set up meetings and do

Censorship of free speech denies the individual democratic rights by silencing and filtering some important ideas in the favor of others. In this case the censored information defends the majority in power which often results in oligarchy. For democracy to work properly

The government can not censor the press, even if what is published is against the government. The free press helps to protect citizens’ rights and hold the government in check. Also in accordance to the First Amendment, people have the right to join any organization of their choosing and come together as a group, peaceably. The last right that the public has is the right to present the government with petitions or letters that tell of their unhappiness and complaints against the government. This is a right that our founding fathers did not have back in England. When they declared independence from the King, they laid out all of their grievances for the world to see. In contrast, our citizens today do no have to wait for a historical event to vent their frustrations.

Through Russia's history the government has taken away freedom of press to further strengthen their regime. After all according to Podrabinek “suppression of free speech is the trademark of dictatorship”.“In 1917, the Russian Bolsheviks moved to limit freedom of speech the very day after the October coup-d’état. They adopted the "Decree on the Press," which shut down any newspapers "sowing discord by libelous distortion of facts." (Podrabinek). Even today Russia continues to limit its citizens freedom of speech and the rate we're going Trump will too. Trump is already alienating news outlets claiming they are fake and crooked. In addition to all that his restricting the movement of those who would call him out on his dictatorial ways by banning them from

There are cases in which in some countries, the authorities may prevent media outlets from reporting

What has lead Turkey to dramatically shift its policy? How big of a role has the sense of identity play in this matter? This paper will argue that although the population of Turkey is predominantly Muslim, it also represents a secular state with western style democracy. It plays a critical geopolitical role since it is in the center of Europe and the Middle East. It is also the revival of an identity the Islamist feared had been overshadowed by the West and the Western culture. Therefore, in today’s globalized world, Turkey plays a vital role in complying both Islamic and western ideals to appeal to both of the civilizations.

Iran is one of the most repressive regimes, when it comes to freedom of expression. All television and radio channels are controlled by the government. The security apparatus also routinely harasses the family members of Iranian journalists working for foreign newspapers. The government prosecutes journalists with impunity for airing any anti-regime material. Warnings and threats of prosecution are often used to induce self-censorship. In October 2013, the government banned the reformist newspaper Bahar for publishing material not in line with the religious edicts.

So when Mustafa Kamal (Ataturk) began to form a Turkish nation state, it was not clear what constituted a Turk but soon, Kurds were considered as Turks and a policy aiming at the detribalization and assimilation of the Kurds was adopted… The Turkish government's pursuit of full assimilation has led to the proscription of publications of any book, newspaper, or other material in the Kurdish language. Moreover, there has also been an instance of arrests of entertainers for singing songs or performing in Kurdish.

Media censorship destroys the necessary objective journalism of a country and disturbs the freedom of expression of all citizens as well as the democracy of the country itself. There are many countries in the world whose governments impose such censorship in order to prevent information contrary to their beliefs to be known. The question is: how far would a government go to silence so many voices? Venezuela should be a democratic country with freedom of expression as its constitution states. The government should not violate the law by preventing the media from announcing news that all citizens and the rest of the world need to know regarding to what is happening in Venezuela everyday.

First of all, this is the definition of freedom of the press from lawbrain.com. Freedom of the press guarantees the rights, “to gather, publish, and distribute information and ideas without government restriction or restraint”. Also it is

Ataturk was a domineering, former general for the Ottoman Empire before its collapse following World War One.[iii]? He realized the only way to organize the new nation was to westernize it in an attempt to ward off initial criticism from European nations.[iv]? The 1920?s and 30?s were filled with widespread reforms, such as separating Islam from the government and literacy campaigns, in an effort to secularize Turkey and strengthen the Turkish government and people.[v]? Ataturk wanted to abolish religion as the cord that fastened all of society together, and instead chose to make Turkish nationalism the cornerstone on which he would build a country.[vi]? However, he also ushered in a lack of democracy, repression of the Kurds, and a heavy reliance on the military, and laid the foundation for similar patterns and human rights abuses to continue throughout the nation?s history.[vii]? Ataturk promised he would make Turkey a nation for all, explicitly including Kurds, but it would not take long before riots began over unjust treatment of Kurds throughout Turkey.? As a result, Kurdish culture was banned from Turkish society, and Kurdish leaders were executed one after another.? Moreover, ?The decades in between the 1930?s to the 1980?s, [were] covered by a blanket of silence? as troops, police, and prisons lined the southeast, Kurdish portion of Turkey where foreign travelers were prohibited.[viii]? In fact, the Turkish government even refused to admit

Throughout history, the middle east has often been the focus of news reporters. A middle eastern country that has not been exempt from this, is Turkey. Turkey has not only been a focus, but it also has had a very long, complicated history.

Over half of the countries in the world are considered democracies, one of which being Turkey. Turkey believes that they are a model of a true democracy while other countries believe that Turkey is very far from being considered a democracy. This has been an ongoing argument amongst many people. If we take in to consideration what it means to be a true democracy, then Turkey would only possess a few of those qualities. If we were to look at the basic structure and elements of a dictatorship, Turkey would fit into majority of them. This is what leads me to believe that Turkey should not be considered a democracy but instead a soft dictatorship. There is a lot of evidence that would prove as to why Turkey should not be considered a democracy including, lack of freedom in many different way, lack of suffrage rights, a long process of trying to become a member of the European Union, high levels of government control, and high military power.

Singapore suffers from several constraints regarding freedom of speech, which directly impacts the atmosphere of the country’s political and civil systems. Freedom House scores their civil liberties at a 32 out of 60. Domestic newspapers, radio stations and television channels are owner by companies linked to the government and it is rare that a newspaper publish critical content involving the government due to general support of state policies (FreedomHouse, 2015). Although the internet is widely accessible in Singapore, authorities monitor online material and block content through licensed service providers. The Sedition Act of the Statutes of Singapore aims to retain political stability along with racial and ethnic