Conditional Protection, Subject to Code of Ethics and Law

The Court stated that legal protection for journalists is not absolute protection. This protection is conditional and subject to compliance with the journalistic code of ethics and statutory regulations. As long as journalists carry out their duties legitimately, the state and society are obliged to ensure that there are no arbitrary actions, including repressive actions, pressure, or intimidation that hinder press freedom.

In addition, the MK affirms that the functions, rights, obligations, and roles of journalists as referred to in the Explanation of Article 8 of the Press Law must be understood in their entirety as an inseparable unit from Article 8 of the Press Law. Journalists carry out press and journalistic functions to provide information, education, entertainment, and carry out social control, with the obligation to uphold truth, accuracy, and journalistic ethics.

Press Law as Lex Specialis, Press Council as Main Forum

In the decision's considerations, the MK places the Press Law as lex specialis which regulates journalistic activities, including press dispute resolution mechanisms. Therefore, Article 8 of the Press Law is not interpreted as impunity, but rather as substantive and procedural protection from repressive actions, criminalization, and disproportionate restrictions.

The MK emphasizes that in the event of alleged violence, intimidation, or criminalization related to journalistic work, criminal or civil instruments should not be used directly without first taking the mechanisms provided by the Press Law. The mechanisms of right of reply, right of correction, and ethical assessment of journalism by the Press Council must be positioned as the main and first forum (primary remedy), and even seen as part of the restorative justice.

In that framework, the use of criminal or civil sanctions against journalists is affirmed as a last resort (ultimum remedium). Law enforcement that ignores this principle is considered potentially threatening due process of law, disrupting the constitutional rights of journalists, and harming the public's right to obtain valid, accurate, and balanced information.