WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS NOT CONSIDERED INSULT (CRIME)

July 3, 2025 Leave a comment

What is the Crime of Insult?

The crime of insult, as regulated in Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code, means that the perpetrator makes offensive statements about a person’s honor, dignity, and reputation, or attacks their honor, dignity, and reputation by insulting them. Accordingly, the crime of insult can be committed face-to-face as well as through messages, communications, or comments made in online environments. In this regard, the determination of which expressions constitute the crime of insult is made by the court and judge on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, in its decision dated 30.04.2019, numbered 2017/3992 (File) and 2019/8024 (Decision), the 18th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation clarified the scope of acts constituting the crime of insult by stating that:
“Not all severe criticisms or disturbing words directed at public officials or civilians are to be evaluated as the crime of insult. The words must clearly constitute a concrete act or fact attribution or an act of insult that can offend honor, dignity, and reputation.”

Words and Expressions Not Considered Insult (Crime)

The issue of words and expressions not considered as insult is shaped according to the precedents of the Court of Cassation. Below, examples of words and expressions not regarded as insult are listed along with the relevant Court of Cassation decisions:

  1. “May God curse you” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 08.09.2021, File No. 2021/20901, Decision No. 2021/21086),
  2. “May your eye be blind” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 12.04.2017, File No. 2016/5820, Decision No. 2017/11725),
  3. “Godless, faithless” (Court of Cassation 18th Criminal Chamber, dated 15.06.2017, File No. 2015/33137, Decision No. 2017/7985),
  4. “Rude, ill-mannered” (Court of Cassation 18th Criminal Chamber, dated 02.05.2017, File No. 2015/41771, Decision No. 2017/4861),
  5. “Do not be rude” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 11.03.2021, File No. 2020/11502, Decision No. 2021/8900),
  6. “Characterless” (Court of Cassation 18th Criminal Chamber, dated 16.10.2017, File No. 2015/42880, Decision No. 2017/11006),
  7. “You are not a man” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 24.05.2021, File No. 2020/19688, Decision No. 2021/15090),
  8. “You are sycophants” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 22.11.2021, File No. 2019/4890, Decision No. 2021/27093),
  9. “Damn” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 09.11.2021, File No. 2021/31536, Decision No. 2021/26608),
  10. “Who the hell are you?” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 25.05.2021, File No. 2020/14705, Decision No. 2021/15523),
  11. “Uneducated, inexperienced” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 14.01.2014, File No. 2012/31789, Decision No. 2014/354),
  12. “Immoral” (Court of Cassation 18th Criminal Chamber, dated 23.01.2020, File No. 2019/9065, Decision No. 2020/1934),
  13. “Ignorant” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 06.04.2023, File No. 2021/8577, Decision No. 2023/16952),
  14. “Fraudster” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 12.04.2023, File No. 2021/8598, Decision No. 2023/17156),
  15. “Fascist” (Court of Cassation General Criminal Assembly, dated 21.10.2021, File No. 2018/407, Decision No. 2021/492),
  16. “Dictator” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 29.05.2023, File No. 2023/2186, Decision No. 2023/19046),
  17. “Lavuk” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 18.03.2024, File No. 2021/24565, Decision No. 2024/3467),
  18. “Scabies” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 12.02.2024, File No. 2021/21845, Decision No. 2024/1556),
  19. “Zibidi” (Court of Cassation 18th Criminal Chamber, dated 03.04.2019, File No. 2017/1806, Decision No. 2019/6629),
  20. “Oh!” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 27.04.2023, File No. 2021/8716, Decision No. 2023/17684),
  21. “Sycophant” (Court of Cassation General Criminal Assembly, dated 22.03.2022, File No. 2020/428, Decision No. 2022/199),
  22. “Is he crazy or insane?” (Court of Cassation 18th Criminal Chamber, dated 06.12.2017, File No. 2016/897, Decision No. 2017/14472),
  23. “Hanzo” (Court of Cassation 18th Criminal Chamber, dated 05.11.2018, File No. 2016/13348, Decision No. 2018/14285),
  24. “Are you bandits?” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 06.04.2021, File No. 2021/8757, Decision No. 2021/11917),
  25. “Infidel” (Court of Cassation 18th Criminal Chamber, dated 27.03.2017, File No. 2017/1772, Decision No. 2017/3352),
  26. “Fraudster” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 12.04.2023, File No. 2021/8598, Decision No. 2023/17156),
  27. “A person with a disturbed personality” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 19.02.2024, File No. 2021/21750, Decision No. 2024/1887),
  28. “Don’t be stupid” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 20.03.2024, File No. 2021/29004, Decision No. 2024/3631),
  29. “A dog doesn’t bite another dog” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 24.12.2024, File No. 2022/2408, Decision No. 2024/17634),
  30. “Disrespectful, ugly duckling, helpless” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 14.02.2024, File No. 2021/23724, Decision No. 2024/1748),
  31. “Jackal” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 12.03.2024, File No. 2021/24594, Decision No. 2024/3125),
  32. “Hungry lawyer” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 02.05.2023, File No. 2021/11221, Decision No. 2023/17767),
  33. “Disgrace of doctors” (Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, dated 01.03.2023, File No. 2020/30293, Decision No. 2023/15562).

Words and Expressions Considered as Insult (Crime)

In contrast to the expressions mentioned above that are not considered insults, the words that are considered insults can be exemplified as: “dishonorable,” “mean,” “shameless,” “retarded,” “stupid,” “idiot,” “animal,” “filth,” “scoundrel,” “prostitute,” “thief,” “donkey,” “dog,” “mongrel,” and “ox.”

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the penalty for the crime of insult?

The penalty for the crime of insult, as regulated in Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code, is imprisonment from 3 months to 2 years or a judicial fine. However, if the offense is committed against a public official due to their duty, the offender is punished with imprisonment from 1 year to 2 years or a judicial fine.

2. How can I prove the crime of insult?

The crime of insult can be proven through legally admissible methods, which are considered evidence by the court. The main methods include: WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter, SMS, email, video and audio recordings, recordings of radio or television programs, and witness testimonies.

3. Which Court Has Jurisdiction and Authority in Insult Cases?

In insult cases, the court with jurisdiction is the criminal court of first instance. The authorized court, however, is the one located in the area where the visual or audio content was heard or seen, particularly where the victim resides or lives.

4. Does an Insult Case Appear on the Defendant’s Criminal Record?

Under the Criminal Record Law No. 5352, a prison sentence imposed as a result of an insult case is recorded in the defendant’s criminal record (GBT). In addition, prison sentences converted into judicial fines are also recorded in the criminal record once they are executed.

5. Does a Curse (Beddua) Constitute the Crime of Insult?

As mentioned, according to the precedents of the Court of Cassation, curse words (beddua) do not constitute the crime of insult. In this regard, in its decision numbered 2012/17017 (File), 2014/1282 (Decision), the 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation clarified this issue by stating:

“The words allegedly said by the defendant to the victim M.. B.., a law enforcement officer, during his complaint as a victim of assault — such as ‘…you are doing nothing, may God curse you…’ — do not rise to the level of harming the victim’s honor, dignity, or reputation, and are of the nature of a curse rather than an insult. The conviction issued based on an improper reasoning without considering this is against the law. Since the appeal reasons of the Public Prosecutor and the opinion in the notification are deemed valid, THE JUDGMENT IS OVERTURNED…”

Views: 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *