Dr. Muhammet Koçakgöl
Social Sciences University of Ankara
Dr. Olcay Karacan
Cukurova University
English abstract: The question of freedom of expression involves more than just the ability to voice an idea; it also encompasses the broader context in which such expression emerges. Nevertheless, in legal discussions the focus is often narrowed to the boundaries of what may or may not be said. These discussions frequently remain confined within a binary framework of restriction versus protection, primarily through legal instruments, and seldom move beyond this limited perspective. In line with Schauer’s view, the legal approach tends to classify and reach definitive judgments “by its very nature”. Yet, as Schauer himself underlines, this does not mean that freedom of expression and/or academic freedom is valuable solely for its own sake. Schauer’s framework, therefore, offers a way to move past the confines of strictly legalistic debates. He provides not only a legal but also a philosophical basis for examining how expression is either restricted or protected.
This article does not attempt to explore the entirety of Schauer’s arguments on freedom of expression. Instead, it concentrates on evaluating how the Turkish administrative judiciary approaches academic freedom of expression, particularly from the point of view of the tension between restriction and protection. The central question it addresses is: What are the protective and restraining dynamics shaping academic freedom of expression in the case law of Turkish administrative courts, especially in the context of the Academics for Peace? Drawing on Schauer’s analysis of the instrumental function of expression and the institutional limits placed on academic freedom, the article argues that the core issue lies not only within the judiciary but also in structural constraints, such as universities and academic hierarchies, that may foster self-censorship.
Keywords:freedom of expression, academic freedom, Frederick Schauer, Turkish administrative judiciary, Academics for Peace, self-censorship
Language: English.
Published: Number 4(2025), pp. 46–57.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2025.4.46
Number of downloads: 157,856
This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.