Twitter's Legal&Local Responsibilities

[Sarmatian]

Or call it "illegal" not "unfair". It works both ways. Twitter could very well claim that they could not be held subject to sanctions they were not notified/were non-existent before.

Any entity, be it a person or an organization, is required to obey the law. If the law gets changed, they are still required to obey it. Courts don't consider "the law was different when I started my business" as a valid excuse.

Don't confuse legality and justice/fairness. In a free society, law aspires to be just and fair (although it never quite reaches that point). If the parliament of a country passes a law that states any person who walks the street after 9 PM will be shot, and tomorrow a police officer shoots a man for doing it, courts will find nothing illegal happened.

In that case, your beef is with the legislative, not with the judiciary. Courts only care about how a law is enforced, not what it says.

Long story short - remove Erdogan. The fault lies with him, not with courts.

To disrupt the analogy, Twitter isn't selling products in Turkey and doesn't need a local presence (although they might have one).

That is true, but Turkey may decide to block access to Twitter if it isn't in accordance with local laws, completely legally.

To use a different, just example. If someone used Twitter to spread hatred of the Jews and pictures of Nazi symbols, current German government, under their laws, may ask Twitter to remove it. If Twitter doesn't comply, they may block it in Germany, again perfectly legally.