A post, a comment, a reply — and the article it is charged under.

A person who attributes to another a concrete act or fact capable of injuring their honour, dignity or reputation, or who attacks their honour, dignity or reputation by swearing, is punished with three months to two years' imprisonment or a judicial fine.

For insult in the absence of the victim to be punishable, the act must be committed by communicating with at least three people. Where the act is committed by means of an audio, written or visual message addressed to the victim, the same penalty applies — which is how private messages come within the article.

Two aggravations sit on top of that range. Where the insult is committed publicly, the sentence is increased by one sixth (TCK 125/4). And where it is committed against a public official on account of his duty, on account of a person's expression of religious, political, social or philosophical belief, or by reference to values held sacred by the religion to which the person belongs, the lower limit cannot be less than one year (TCK 125/3). A post touching religious values therefore does not start at three months at all.

Two provisions that work in your favour

TCK 129: where the offence of insult is committed as a reaction to a wrongful act, the sentence may be reduced by up to one third, or no sentence imposed at all. Where it is committed as a reaction to the offence of intentional injury, no penalty is imposed. Where insult has been mutual, the court may reduce or decline to impose a sentence on one or both parties, according to the nature of the incident.

Exchanges online are frequently mutual and frequently reactive. That is not a technicality; it is written into the Code.

One filter runs the other way as well. Except where it is committed against a public official on account of his duty, insult is investigated and prosecuted only on the complaint of the victim (TCK 131). Where no complaint is made within the six months TCK 73 allows, the file cannot be opened at all — which on this offence is often the shortest route out.

A person who insults the President is punished with one to four years' imprisonment. Where the offence is committed publicly, the sentence is increased by one sixth.

The provision that matters procedurally is the third paragraph: prosecution for this offence depends on the permission of the Minister of Justice. A complaint, an investigation file and even a detention do not by themselves mean there will be a prosecution. Whether permission has been sought, and whether it has been given, is a specific question with a specific answer.

A person who publicly denigrates the Turkish Nation, the State of the Republic of Türkiye, the Grand National Assembly, the Government or the judicial organs of the State is punished with six months to two years' imprisonment. The same penalty applies to public denigration of the military or security organisation of the State.

Two paragraphs then follow that are as important as the first:

• Expressions of opinion made for the purpose of criticism do not constitute an offence. This is in the text of the article itself, not an argument to be constructed around it.
• Investigation of this offence depends on the permission of the Minister of Justice.

• 216/1. Publicly inciting one section of the public, differing by social class, race, religion, sect or region, to hatred and hostility against another section — where a clear and imminent danger to public safety arises as a result — carries one to three years' imprisonment. The requirement of a clear and imminent danger is an element of the offence, not a mitigating factor.
• 216/2. Publicly denigrating a section of the public on the basis of social class, race, religion, sect, gender or regional difference carries six months to one year's imprisonment.
• 216/3. Publicly denigrating the religious values adopted by a section of the public, where the act is capable of disturbing public peace, carries six months to one year's imprisonment.

A few practical observations, none of which is legal advice on any particular post.

• The platform does not matter; the audience does. Publicity is an aggravating factor in insult (TCK 125/4) and in TCK 299, and an element of TCK 216; for insult in the victim's absence what counts instead is communicating with at least three people.
• Deleting a post does not delete the file. Screenshots are what circulate, and an investigation begun on one does not end because the original is gone.
• The permission requirements are real filters. For TCK 299 and 301 the Minister of Justice's permission gates the matter, and establishing where that stands is one of the first things to do rather than one of the last.
• These files reach residence decisions. A criminal outcome feeds the immigration assessment that follows, which runs on a much shorter clock.