expression and dissemination of thought. The freedom of the press is protected within the scope of Article 10 on the freedom of expression of the European Convention on Human Rights and is also specially regulated in articles 28 to 32 of the Constitution (App. No: 2013/2602, 23/1/2014, § 44). 38. In a democratic system, in terms of ensuring that those who possess the public powers exercise their authorities within the limits of the law, the press scrutiny and the public scrutiny play a role just as effective and are equally important as the administrative scrutiny and the judicial scrutiny. Since the functioning of the press which acts as a public observer on behalf of the society is dependent on its being free, the freedom of the press is a freedom which is applicable to and vital for everyone. (See CC, M. 1997/19, D. 1997/66, DD. 23/10/1997), (for the judgments of the ECtHR in the same vein, see Lingens v. Austria, App. No: 9815/82, 8/7/1986, § 41; Özgür Radyo – Ses Radyo Televizyon Yapım ve Tanıtım AŞ v. Turkey, App. No: 64178/00, 64179/00, 64181/00, 64183/00, 64184/00, 30/3/2006, § 78; Erdoğdu and Ince v. Turkey, App. No: 25067/94, 25068/94, 8/7/1999, § 48; Jersild v. Denmark, App. No: 15890/89, 23/9/1994, § 31). 39. The Internet has a significant instrumental importance in modern democracies in terms of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms, specifically of the freedom of expression. The social media platform that the Internet provides is of an indispensable quality for individuals to express, mutually share and disseminate their information and thoughts. Thus, it is apparent that the state and the administrative bodies need to behave very responsibly and sensitively in regulations and practices to be issued in relation to the Internet and social media tools which have become one of the most effective and widespread methods of expressing thoughts today. 40. The freedom of expression and dissemination of thought is not absolute and unlimited. In this context, while exercising the freedom of expression and dissemination of thought, attitudes and behaviours violating the rights and freedoms of individuals should be refrained from. As a matter of fact, the freedom of expression and dissemination of thought as guaranteed by articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution can be restricted due to the reasons stated in these articles in accordance with the conditions in article 13 of the Constitution. As per article 13 of the Constitution, restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms can only be imposed by law and they can neither be contrary to the requirements of the democratic order of the society and the principle of proportionality nor infringe upon the essences of rights and freedoms. 41. It should be noted that the state and public bodies have discretion over the restrictions in relation to the freedom of expression. However, this sphere of discretion is also subject to the scrutiny of the Constitutional Court. During the scrutiny which will be conducted within the framework of the criteria of conforming to the requirements of the democratic order of the society, proportionality and not infringing upon the essence, instead of a general or abstract evaluation, there is a requirement to conduct a detailed evaluation which differs according to various elements such as the type, form and contents of the expression, the time when it is expressed, the quality of the reasons for restriction. The criteria of not infringing upon the essence or conformity with the requirements of the democratic society require that the restrictions on the freedom of expression should primarily be in the form of a compulsory or exceptional measure and that they should be considered to be the last remedy to be resorted to or the last measure to be taken. As a matter of fact, the ECHR concretizes being a requirement in the democratic society as a “pressing social need”. According to this, if the restrictive measure is not in the form of meeting a pressing social