12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, Piskei Din 51 (2) Section 4 of the law states that an infringement of privacy amounts to a civil tort.
- According to the plaintiff, the defendant's conduct, and in particular her systematic refusal to remove the offensive publications unless she is served with a gag order, indicates a lack of good faith and an intention to violate his privacy.
- The plaintiff further argues that the manner in which the Net-Mishpat website was managed by the courts administration also enabled the defendant to violate his privacy.
- In addition, the plaintiff claims that the defendants were negligent in managing the "Net-HaMishpat" website and the "Worm of the Law" website, because they anticipated and/or could have anticipated the violation of his privacy.
- All of the defendants argue first and foremost in the name of the principle of the publicity of the hearing, which is set forth in Section F of the Courts Law, 5744-1984 (hereinafter and for short: the "Courts Law"). This principle is set out in the rule set forth in section 68(a) of the Courts Law, according to which "a court shall hear in public".
- According to the defendants, in view of the importance of the publicity of the hearing, only the court is authorized to prohibit the publication of legal proceedings, and therefore, without a gag order issued by the court, the principle of publicity of the hearing prevails over the right to privacy.
- The defendants base their arguments on the protections set forth in section 18 of the Protection of Privacy Law, which applies to the violation of privacy the protections set forth in sections 13(5) and 13(7) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter and for the sake of short: the "Prohibition of Defamation Law").
- Thus, each of the parties comes in the name of a lofty principle and a right whose importance is unquestionable, the right to privacy on the one hand, and the publicity of the hearing (or the right to freedom of expression and freedom of information) on the other. The task before me is the task of balancing these two basic principles, as will be detailed below.
Discussion and Decision
- Since the dispute is primarily legal, we will begin with a discussion in the legal framework. Afterwards, a description of the websites operated by the defendants and the interaction between them will be presented, we will continue with a detailed description of the publications for which the lawsuit was filed, and we will conclude with the application of the rule to the case before me.
The Publicity of the Hearing, the Right to Privacy and the Balance Between Them - An Overview
- The importance of the right to privacy is beyond any doubt. This right is enshrined in Section 7(a) of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty:
"Every person is entitled to privacy and the privacy of his life."