As the Future Free Speech project released its latest report, the findings on Turkey paint an interesting image. Turkish society seems to predominantly have a strong sense of support for freedom of expression, in principle. Yet experiences lived in the country deeply contradict this support, as the reality shows that freedom remains perilously fragile and in many cases unfeasible.
In the report, titled “Turkey: Who Supports Free Speech?” one can see widespread support for free expression values across the political spectrum. Yet, the report also reveals the contradiction from the government’s perspective, in an atmosphere of increasing authoritarianism that attempts to silence critical voices, independent media, and limit actions of the civil society. As a result, while the charts from the report may show a more optimistic view, the reality on the ground for journalists, media, and activist circles tells a completely different story.
Media Freedom Rapid Response’s (MFRR) annual Media Freedom Monitoring Report as well as the annual Mission Report on Turkey, both show that the country remains one of the most repressive countries in terms of media freedom in Europe. On the Mapping Media Freedom monitoring database, 135 press and media freedom violations involving 317 media-related persons or entities were reported in Turkey during 2024. Physical violence targeting journalists was common during election periods, and more than half of the attacks against journalists involved police or state security officers.
There is a stark non-alignment between the public sentiment concerning free expression and the government’s behaviour. This raises questions concerning democratic resilience and civil liberties. It is a matter of wonder how a majority of society values free expression so highly, and in the meantime, courts, police, and state officials are acting systematically to silence any critical voices. Looking at the findings of the research and comparing them with the data available on Turkey from Mapping Media Freedom, one can see the steady erosion of journalistic space in the country. Media workers constantly face censorship, police intimidation, and legal harassment as a result of their work. Freedom on the Net reports published by the Freedom House also show that online expression is suffering deeply in Turkey. Digital platforms are closely monitored and forced to collaborate with the government to ensure that critical statements do not spread, as many people face criminal prosecution for their social media posts, sharing memes or videos.
The paradox deepens, considering that the government increasingly relies on majoritarian narratives to justify restrictions, despite the research results showing that the majority, in fact seemingly stands against restrictions. Even though public opinion supports free expression, pro-government media and lawmakers often frame dissent as a threat to national unity or public morality. This weaponization of polarisation has helped to legitimise the erosion of rights and liberties, portraying repression not as a failure of democracy but as its defence.
In light of these developments, the Future Free Speech report is all the more significant. The report shows that despite years of crackdowns, surveillance, and media takeovers, a quiet consensus in favour of free expression still survives in Turkish society. This reservoir of democratic values, reflected in the silent discontent of the population, could form the basis for future reform, if political actors are willing to heed it. It also reminds us that rights do not disappear because they are violated; rights and liberties are still there, not forgotten, waiting to be reasserted.
At the same time, the risks are growing. In recent months, journalists reporting on allegations of corruption have faced not only arrests but also travel bans, raids, and threats to their families. Fact-checking initiatives and civil society organisations working to protect digital rights are increasingly targeted under “disinformation” laws, which are vaguely worded and arbitrarily enforced.
Turkey’s trajectory in this regard should serve as a cautionary tale for other countries in the region. The mere presence of public support for free expression does not guarantee its protection. Rights and liberties must be defended through institutions, laws, and a social culture that values dissent as a necessary component of democracy, not a threat to it.
International observers and institutions must not be misled by formal elections. The experiences of journalists, editors, and citizens who dare to speak truth to power in Turkey are shaped by fear, legal uncertainty, and institutional hostility. Support has to go beyond rhetorical condemnations; it must include sustained visibility, solidarity, and resources for local actors who are holding the line.
True freedom of expression cannot thrive on paper alone. It must be protected in courtrooms, respected by police forces, upheld in parliaments, and championed in public discourse. Until then, the gap between what Turkish society believes and what the Turkish state permits will continue to widen, and so will the democratic deficit it creates.