Publication: Türk hukukunda radyo ve televizyon yoluyla kişilik haklarının ihlali ve korunması
Abstract
TÜRK HUKUKUNDA RADYO VE TELEVİZYON YOLUYLA KİŞİLİK HAKKININ İHLALİ VE KORUNMASI Radyo ve televizyon yoluyla kişilik hakkının ihlali ve korunması, hukukun en önemli sorunlarından birini teşkil etmektedir. Zira hemen her yayının, bir şekilde kişilik hakkını ilgilendirmesi, konunun önemini göstermektedir. İkisinden birinin diğerine tercih edilmesi, haksızlığa sebebiyet vereceğinden, basın-yayın özgürlüğü ile kişilik hakkı arasındaki sınırın, hakkaniyete uygun bir şekilde tespit edilmesi büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu çerçevede ilk yapılması gereken, kişilik hakkının çerçevesi, kapsamı ve sınırlarını belirlemektir. Kişilik hakkının son derece geniş ve kapsamlı olduğunu, adı, fotoğrafı, eserleri, gibi “maddi bedensel varlıklar”, şeref ve haysiyeti, özel yaşamı gibi “manevi kişisel değerler” ile eserleri, markası, ticari işletmesi gibi “ekonomik kişisel varlıkların” “kişilik hakkı” kapsamı içinde yer aldığını belirtmek gerekir. Kişilik hakkı, kamusal nitelikli (kamusal koruma, idari koruma, kamu denetçiliği, AİHS) koruma yöntemleri yanında, kişisel koruma (meşru müdafaa, düzeltme ve cevap hakkı), koruyucu davalar (önleme davası, durdurma davası, ihtiyati tedbir, tespit davası), tazminat davaları (maddi tazminat davası, manevi tazminat davası, kazancın iadesi davası) gibi, son derece geniş ve etkin bir hukuksal koruma imkanına sahiptir. Kişilik hakkının diğer sınırını ise, radyo ve televizyonların anayasayla güvence altına alınan “basın yayın özgürlüğü” oluşturmaktadır. Buradan hareketle, radyo ve televizyonlar, görevlerini yerine getirirken, hukuka uygunluk sebebinden yararlanmaktadırlar. Bu nedenle, (yasadan kaynaklanan sebepler, haber, rıza, eleştiri, vekaletsiz iş görme vs. gibi) hukuka uygunluk sebeplerine özel bir önem verilmesi gerekir. Kişilik hakkı ile haberin/ yayının birbiriyle çatıştığı (yarıştığı), üstün olanın değerin diğerine tercih edildiği öne sürülmekte ise de, bizce, bu değerler arasında bir çatışma söz konusu değildir. Hukuka uygunluk sebebi, yayın fiilinin başından itibaren mevcut olduğundan, haberi hukuka aykırı hale getiren, kişilik hakkına göre üstün bir değer olmasından değil, haberdeki unsurlardan birinin eksik olmasındandır.
Violation and Sanction of Personal Rights Through Radio and Television in Turkish Law Violation and Sanction of Personal Rights through Radio and Television is one of the important subjects of law because a substantial portion of broadcasting involves personal rights. One needs to establish a fair and lawful line between the freedom of broadcasting and press and personal rights because tilting the balance in favor of one against the other will lead to injustice. Within this framework, the first task must be delineating the framework, jurisdiction and limits of personal rights. Personal rights include “properties material in nature” such as name, image (picture), and works; it can also include “non-material values” such as honor and reputation, and private life; finally it also includes “economic personal entities” such as brand-name, products, and business. In addition to public protection methods (public protection, administrative protection, public supervision, AIHS), personal rights has a wide and effective judicial protection privilege in the fields of personal protection (lawful self-defense, the right of correction and response to accusation), protective lawsuits (protective lawsuit, suit for preventing action, provisional protection and confinement suit), Indemnity (financial indemnity cases, privacy indemnity suits, suits for return of benefits). The other limit of personal rights is found in radio and television whose “freedom of broadcasting and press” is sanctioned by the constitution. Therefore, when the radio and television fulfill their functions they do so based on the principle of lawfulness. For this reason one needs to pay special attention to the reasons for lawfulness (or compatibility to the law) such as reasons emanating from the law, report, consent, criticism, and functioning without delegation, etc. Even though some argue that the report/ broadcast conflicts with (or rivals) personal rights, and that the better is preferred over the other, I do not see a conflict between the two. The principle of compatibility with the law exists from the beginning of the action of broadcasting and thus what makes the report unlawful is not that broadcasting has higher value compared to personal rights but because the report lacks all the necessary components to make it lawful.
Violation and Sanction of Personal Rights Through Radio and Television in Turkish Law Violation and Sanction of Personal Rights through Radio and Television is one of the important subjects of law because a substantial portion of broadcasting involves personal rights. One needs to establish a fair and lawful line between the freedom of broadcasting and press and personal rights because tilting the balance in favor of one against the other will lead to injustice. Within this framework, the first task must be delineating the framework, jurisdiction and limits of personal rights. Personal rights include “properties material in nature” such as name, image (picture), and works; it can also include “non-material values” such as honor and reputation, and private life; finally it also includes “economic personal entities” such as brand-name, products, and business. In addition to public protection methods (public protection, administrative protection, public supervision, AIHS), personal rights has a wide and effective judicial protection privilege in the fields of personal protection (lawful self-defense, the right of correction and response to accusation), protective lawsuits (protective lawsuit, suit for preventing action, provisional protection and confinement suit), Indemnity (financial indemnity cases, privacy indemnity suits, suits for return of benefits). The other limit of personal rights is found in radio and television whose “freedom of broadcasting and press” is sanctioned by the constitution. Therefore, when the radio and television fulfill their functions they do so based on the principle of lawfulness. For this reason one needs to pay special attention to the reasons for lawfulness (or compatibility to the law) such as reasons emanating from the law, report, consent, criticism, and functioning without delegation, etc. Even though some argue that the report/ broadcast conflicts with (or rivals) personal rights, and that the better is preferred over the other, I do not see a conflict between the two. The principle of compatibility with the law exists from the beginning of the action of broadcasting and thus what makes the report unlawful is not that broadcasting has higher value compared to personal rights but because the report lacks all the necessary components to make it lawful.