Gülşen

Umut Akyürek publicly accused Gülşen, Hadise and other pop figures of setting a bad example to young people, targeting in particular their stage outfits and portrayal of sexuality. In July 2026, Gülşen brought a civil action seeking 5 million TL for infringement of her honour, reputation and personality rights.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Protagonist is the complainant

A joke made on stage in April 2022 — jokingly linking a member of her team's attendance at an Imam Hatip school to "perversion" — circulated widely several months later. Gülşen was arrested on 25 August 2022, detained and then placed under house arrest. In May 2023, she was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment for publicly denigrating a section of the population, with pronouncement of the judgment deferred.

Attribution

Accused

Gülşen's stage outfits and performances triggered a particularly fierce campaign of moral criticism on certain television programmes. Following comments about the Lolipop video that also targeted her husband and child, she sought and obtained one-month protective and restraining measures against Arto, Seren Serengil and Bircan Bali.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Protagonist is the complainant

During Pride 2022 and at other concerts, Gülşen displayed a rainbow flag and publicly expressed support for LGBTI+ people, saying everyone should be able to show their colours. These gestures attracted applause but also protests and conservative campaigns; an altercation among spectators was also reported.

State of the evidence

Documented

Legal status — source text

Not applicable

Attribution

Personally implicated

RTÜK sanctioned or warned several broadcasters over the video and lyrics of Dan Dan, considering certain visuals sexualised and certain lyrics to portray suicide as a solution to a romantic problem. A report had also compared Gülşen to a woman providing telephone companionship services.

State of the evidence

Documented

Gülşen sued MÜYORBİR in an intellectual property court, alleging that the organisation had collected more than one million TL in revenue linked to her rights but paid her only approximately 1,800 TL. The Culture Ministry subsequently inspected the organisation, and irregularities in management and distribution were reported.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Protagonist is the complainant