>Twitter's global policy team said it withholds content only "after due process", such as after having received a court order, and in a tweet said it would not

>Twitter's global policy team said it withholds content only "after due process", such as after having received a court order, and in a tweet said it would not do so "at the mere request of a gov't official". This is disappointing. Legal standards on free speech are hopelessly inadequate in Turkey, as can be seen from the existence of court orders banning the whole of Youtube. If Twitter obeys whenever a Turkish court orders removal of content or banning of accounts, it will be assisting in censorship - plain and simple. As for the specific cases of the two accounts that were withheld: The real content of the leaks are on Youtube, and these two accounts were used to 'announce' the leaks to the public, presumably by the leakers themselves. These accounts were retweeted by tens of thousands of people, so if the contents of these two accounts' tweets were illegal, so were those retweets. Will they ban the retweeters too? I don't think so, and this means Twitter's actions will contradict with each other. The leaks were important in showing the corruption at the top of the government and should not be censored, whatever Turkish courts decide. Tax avoidance, invasion of personal privacy, etc. all seem to be excuses by the government, created to lull their supporters.