(page 2 of 2)
Cyber-law attorney Jonathan Klinger, who represents some Israeli bloggers, said that the bill would badly affect people who report via new media, most of whom lack the financial resources of media organizations. “It will deter bloggers and will encourage people to write [only] under pseudonyms and other identities,” he predicted.
But Likud lawmaker Yariv Levin, an initiator of the bill, insisted that it “has nothing to do with press freedom, just to do with making the media check things and write the truth.”
“If people say we can’t afford to write the truth, they are giving the media a bad name,” said Levin.
Those protesting the bill maintain that in countries with a genuinely free press, professional diligence and fairness — not truth — constitute the criteria for defense against libel, ensuring robust discourse.
Critics of the legislation also view its requirement that media must allow the libeled party “to add his full response” as problematic. Running the full response of criticized parties in articles is not practical and goes against journalistic procedure, Dorner said. Some critics go further and say it will actually enable people to block negative press about them from ever appearing.
Television editor Haim Har-Zahav wrote on his blog: “All you have left to do is send a response of 40 pages. No media organization in the world will publish it… presto, you won a million and half shekels because the media did not meet the requirement of the law.”
According to Klinger, the requirement for responses “will actually kill the Internet.” This is because of the delay it will cause to articles and the space it will take up, especially in concise forms of new media like Tweets.
Levin replies that journalists and bloggers should be prepared to wait for responses — and said that impatience is actually one of his reasons for initiating the bill.
“With the rapid pace of the Internet people think, ‘Shall I wait [to check facts and obtain a response]’ — what can happen? In the end there was an incentive not to check things, not to do really serious work but to be the first to publish.”
Levin said that fears regarding the requirement to publish a “full response” were misplaced. It would mean a relevant response in proportion to the article length, “one where someone will be able to say what they want to say, not everything they send you.”
As the debate rages on over the libel law, journalists at two media channels were convinced that their woes, which officially resulted from their failure to comply with government procedures, were actually more political in nature.
Radio All for Peace has been broadcasting since 2004, believing that it did not need an Israeli license because its transmitter is in the West Bank city of Ramallah, which falls under Palestinian Authority control. But the station uses a Jerusalem studio. Citing this as their basis for action, police on November 17 ordered station manager Mossi Raz, a former Meretz lawmaker, to turn off the transmitter. With the exception of Arabic programs, which it continues to broadcast for Palestinian listeners, Radio All for Peace now streams only online.
Likud lawmaker Danny Danon told the Forward in an interview that the action came after he lobbied the Communications Ministry to shut down the station. It “promoted hatred and incitement against the Israel Defense Forces,” he claimed — though he said that in the end, its closure was unrelated to this and simply due to the fact that it had no license. Communications Ministry spokesman Yechiel Shabi told the Forward that the order to stop broadcasting “had nothing to do with politics.”
Raz is convinced that his transmitter was shut down to help silence voices critical of the country’s leadership and current political direction.
“It all comes from the same place,” he said, referring to his transmitter’s closure, the libel bill and the situation at TV Channel 10.
At Channel 10, management has told staff to expect closure in March. The station owes the state $115 million in license fees and $57 million in royalties, due by December 31. The Knesset’s Economic Affairs Committee rejected a proposal to allow it to defer payment, with Likud members voting unanimously against a reprieve. This has led to speculation in the Israeli media that there is a political motivation.
Channel 10 ran hard-hitting reports earlier this year, in which it claimed there were irregularities in Netanyahu’s travel expenses before he became prime minister in 2009. The station has also run reports critical of the government.
Contact Nathan Jeffay at email@example.com