The relevance of freedom of speech in the region we're learning A language of? It's highly relevant to be able to speak freely if we want to speak sincerely.
I say 'A' language of the region because there is also Kurdish, for example, and the history and continued repression of those who speak that language must not go unchallenged.
Of course. Because the difference between using "got" and "was" just tells you in which neighborhood the speaker or translator grew up.
Geri, senin ulkende bu kadar muhalefet yapan gazeteci olsa tutuklanmaya kalmaz, muhtemelen oldururler
You mean like Turkey? For your information, below is a list of journalists killed in Turkey. Unfortunately, people in Turkey cannot view Wikipedia because the state blocks the website. Another gross violation of freedom of information. Web results List of journalists killed in Turkey - ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_...
Putting journalists in prison isn't justifiable because murder is worse. How about not being a fascist at all?
Finally, no. Just factually wrong.
afaik, the 'n' between tutukla 'n' mak makes it passive,
so as @ImanDalain wrote: tutukla- -mak (active verb) = to arrest tutukla-n-mak (passive verb) = to be arrested, to be under arrest
So would tutukla-t-mak then be 'to have someone arrested' or 'to have someone arrest (someone else)'?
Yes, "to have someone arrested" = "birisini tutuklatmak" and "to have someone arrest" = "birisine tutuklattırmak"
Iman Dalain states Tutuklanmak = to be under arrest. I answered 'This journalise was under arrest'. This was stated to be incorrect, and should have been 'This journalist was put under arrest'. Should my entry have been accepted?
I think tutuklanmak is literally "to be put under arrest", so using the simple past would give you "was put under arrest."
The sentence you gave (the journalist is under arrest) is more like describing a present tense state of being. For that, I think you would need to use an adjective like "gazetici tutuklu"