The first paragraph of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) recognizes the right to freedom of expression and prohibits party states from any arbitrary interference. The second paragraph, emphasizing that exercising this right comes with certain duties and responsibilities, authorizes the party states to restrict this right for their citizens if the specified conditions are met. One such condition is achieving one of the legitimate aims listed therein. The courts of Turkey, as a member state bound by the ECHR, have invoked these goals to justify their decisions regarding the restriction of citizens' right to freedom of expression. Nevertheless, convicted individuals who appeal these rulings before the European Court of Human Rights argue that no such legitimate aim existed, and that their right to freedom of expression has been violated. This study investigates the primary challenges faced by Turkish courts in invoking legitimate aims as justifications for restricting freedom of expression. It also elucidates the precise meaning and conditions for the eligibility of these goals based on the interpretation provided by the European Court of Human Rights.