Second, the other side of the Cyber Unit's operation according to the manager is the operator of the social platform, and not a private person who has been deprived of freedom of expression (a different position was presented in the position of the Honorable Justice Hayut).
Third, the decision whether to prevent publications in light of the Cyber Unit's request is at the discretion of the platform operator and not of the state.
Therefore, at that time, and on the basis of the evidentiary basis presented in the petition, the Supreme Court found that the action on the voluntary level, even though it is a governmental act, falls within the scope of the government's residual authority.
The Honorable Justice Hayut was of the opinion that the possibility that the operators of the online platform could be harmed by the removal of "voluntary" publications was not ruled out, and even that people of flesh and blood behind a publication that was removed could be harmed by this. Due to the lack of an evidentiary basis and due to the failure to include respondents who are liable to be harmed, she was of the opinion that the petition should be dismissed out of hand.
- The case before us is different from the case examined in the Adalah case, in almost every substantive aspect. First, it is clear that the seizure of a financial account violates a person's rights, his property, his occupation, and perhaps even his good name. According to the case law, "residual authority" is not sufficient for this purpose, and "explicit authorization" is required by law or by virtue thereof.
Second, assets that are seized and frozen belong to the victim, who is a human being, or at least a corporation, and not to "bots and agents" who cannot be ascertained whether a particular person is behind them.
Third, a financial corporation that holds assets such as Tether is not a social network, and it is close in nature to the bank, which holds assets for its customers, and owes them fiduciary duties in accordance with the contract between them and the law applicable to its place of activity. Therefore, it is doubtful whether it is possible to compare a "voluntary" request for removal of a post on a social network with a "voluntary" request for account suspension, as in our case.