"And as for the editor-in-chief, there is, if you ask me a legal question then I will answer you in the legal way, there is also a practice, a branch practice and a practice between the parties, and the industry practice in the communications industry is that the editor-in-chief, as his name implies, is editor-in-chief. may edit the content according to his understanding. Now you have to understand that radio is a little different from the world of a newspaper, of a newspaper of the past, where the text would go from the reporter to the editor and the editor would indeed edit it. In radio, which is a medium of live broadcasting most of the time, some of the editing is done retroactively. And this is a classic case of editing in retrospect, just like the previous case. Now there was nothing different here than the way we dealt with Natan in previous cases and with many other broadcasters to this day.
The Honorable Judge Bibi: So the instinct of the editor-in-chief as responsible for freedom of expression and the scope of freedom of expression is something that you have learned by virtue of practice? Because you're actually giving him, you say, not just the editor-in-chief, It is actually the final instinct as far as the station is concerned..
The witness, Adv. Somer: There is also a ruling on these matters, ma'am."
Similarly, Adv. Sommer testified in lines 25-28 on page 15:
"The witness, Adv. Somer: In my opinion, the person who sets the boundaries of internal freedom of expression within a broadcaster is the station's editor-in-chief. Ok? That's my perception. And above him is the regulator. Because it is a regulated tool. Both the regulator and the station's editor-in-chief determined in this case that the statement exceeded the boundaries of freedom of expression."
- I will note that although as stated in his testimony, Adv. Sommer testified that there is a case law in which the practice is embodied and in accordance with it, the editor-in-chief will be the one who will decide whether or not a statement violates the provisions of the regulation, in the framework of its summaries the defendant did not refer to a single judgment on this matter. Moreover, an examination of the case law shows that in the framework of the ruling, the editor's authority with respect to the content or programs was determined in advance, but there is no determination within the framework of the case law, and in accordance with it, the editor is authorized to decide retroactively, as to the question of whether a provision violates the provisions of the regulation and in accordance with the fact that the broadcaster violated the provisions of the regulation and the provisions of the agreement between him and the station - as the circumstances in the present case. Thus, with regard to the issue of the scope of the authority of the editor-in-chief and a broadcasting station, the Supreme Court was required in the case of the High Court of Justice 8707/08 David Elharar v. Yitzhak Tunik - Commander of Army Radio, at paragraph 22 (June 30, 2010). In the same matter, we discussed a case in which the management of Army Radio decided to remove a program from the broadcast schedule and offered the presenter a different broadcast slot. The circumstances are different from the case at hand, and at the same time, we can learn from them about the indications regarding the relationship between the station and the broadcaster. Thus, in that poorcase, the Supreme Court held that:
"The management of Army Radio was entitled, within the framework of its powers, to bring about a change in the perception of the broadcasting structure, to make changes and to convert programs, and even to replace program presenters, in order to refresh the broadcasting programs, and even to bring a new and different spirit to the structure and style of the programs. The management had the power to change the way the programs were designed in terms of content, style, approach, taste, priorities, and doses. The change in the nature of the Friday evening program was guided by a practical consideration, and the idea of designing an alternative current affairs program based on a dialogue between two or more people is also a reasonable professional consideration based on the reasons on the merits. The petitioner, for his own reasons, refused to accept the law of canceling his plan, and denied the authority of the professional body in charge of him, who has the authority to make the decision. The rejection of the alternatives offered to him on the website, and the opening of a public confrontation with the station and its leaders, while exploiting the public microphone and the written media to defame them and harm their dignity, could themselves serve as grounds for terminating the station's professional relationship with it. However, even in these complex circumstances, the station's management was willing, subject to an apology, to create a certain continuity in the employment of the petitioner, which would allow him to integrate into the station's broadcasts in one format or another in the future, but he refused to do so. In the circumstances that arose, there was no obligation on the station and its headquarters to continue to employ the petitioner in the framework of the station's broadcasts, in any context."