On the basis of the reasons detailed above, I accept Barkai's defense argument, according to which he is subject to the defense set forth in section 18(2)(a) of the Law. As a result of this determination, the claim against Barkai on the grounds of invasion of privacy is dismissed.
- The situation is different with regard to Elkabetz, Shahar and Kanti. These officials were serving in managerial positions at Army Radio at the time. Elkabetz was the station commander and editor-in-chief, Shahar was the current affairs department and Canti was the editor-in-chief of the program "What's Burning."
Canetti explained that in the framework of her position, she was responsible "for the content... to talk a little bit with the sources of information we are addressing..." (Par. p. 441, paras. 28,32-31).
Elkabetz also explained that as the station's commander and editor-in-chief, he was responsible for the broadcast content, as follows: "... I insisted from the first moment that I came to be defined as the commander of Army Radio and the editor-in-chief, so that they would understand that the station has an address both at the content level and at the command level" and later on: "And as editor-in-chief you are responsible for the content that is broadcast, you create new programs together with the editorial board, and in fact all the civil discussion of the station that is related to its broadcast, its content, for better or for worse, you are responsible for them" (par. p. 403, paras. 24-30).
The role of editors and managers at this level is to make informed professional decisions, based on a careful clarification of the boundaries of what is allowed and what is forbidden, and not to settle for a vague version or a blind eye. Thus, by virtue of their commanding, managerial, and editorial roles at Army Radio, Elkabetz, Shachar and Kanti were expected to investigate and understand in depth where and in what way these sensitive materials were obtained.
- This assertion is strengthened in light of the testimony of Elkabetz, who explained that In his first meeting with Shteif, he made it clear to her that the materials she presented were "explosives" and assumed that the source was Hani or a private investigator. He testified that Shteif refused to answer him positively or negatively, adding that "I was constantly apprehensive" about the true source of these materials. Despite this, Elkabetz made do with Shteif's lack of response at that stage and did not demand that she disclose at that stage Before him are its sources or to present him with any paraphrase on the matter (paras. 396, paras. 24-26, p. 404, paras. 35, p. 405, paras. 31-35, p. 406, paras. 1,20-21).
- It therefore follows that Elkabetz, Canetti and Shahar did not know that the information presented to them by Shteif was obtained by hacking into Naveh's mobile devices. However, in view of their senior professional status as station commander, head of the current affairs department and editor of the program, and taking into account the personal and sensitive information presented to them, they should have known about the possibility of an illegal violation of Naveh's privacy. Their refusal to conduct an in-depth and thorough investigation, despite their "concerns" or doubts, amounts to turning a blind eye and turning a blind eye is tantamount to constructive awareness. For these reasons, I determine that Canetti, Shachar and Army Radio are not protected under the permanent protection In section 18(2)(a) to the law.
Protection of Section 18(2)(b) of the Law
- Section 18(2)(b) The law provides for the protection of the mother: "The injury was committed in circumstances in which the offender had a legal, moral, social or professional duty to do it."
The legislature chose to explicitly add the box "professional duty" to section 18(2)(b) of the law, as opposed to section 15(2) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, which includes only a legal, moral or social obligation. This addition is intended to provide special protection to the press and journalists in the performance of their duties (Ilana Dayan, paragraph 58 of the opinion of Justice (as he was then called) A. Rubinstein). This is what emerged from the words of then-Knesset member Moshe Shahal, who joined the reservation that sought to add the professional duty to the clause: "When we asked with reservation to add the words 'his professional duty, ' we had in mind these rules of the Press Council, the desire to allow a journalist to fulfill his duties and to allow the court to determine when a journalist has inflicted an injury that his professional duty is obligated to do. This is on condition that the journalist's publication, even though he was harmed, was done in good faith. However, if it turns out that it was done out of malice, then his right will not stand" (Proceedings of the Knesset, Volume 20, Session 224, p. 1775; Protection of Privacy in Israel, p. 481).
- The information brought to the attention of the defendants and published by them allegedly pointed to a bad and corrupt influence on the Judicial Appointments Committee and a violation of the integrity of the judicial appointment processes in the State of Israel. In this state of affairs, the defendants have a professional and moral duty of the highest order as journalists and professional media personnel to act to expose the acts. The press in a democratic society cannot close its eyes to a real fear of such severe harm to the basic values of the rule of law. This is what emerged from Dr. Altshuler's opinion: "When a journalist receives information relating to the rules of government and regime, the public sphere, or any public and social issue, his basic duty is to convey this information to the public" (N/2). Dr. Altshuler's arguments are acceptable to me, And they befit the important role of a free and fearless press in a democratic country. Therefore, I determine that the actions of Elkabetz, Shahar and Kanti are protected by the protection of Section 18(2)(b) to the Protection of Privacy Law.
This protection also applies to Army Radio, given that it is a media organization with news features. This media body constitutes the organ of the state and as such is subject to the provisions The Protection of Privacy Law Accordingly Section 24 Law (Michael Birnhack Omri Rahum-Twig Information Privacy 164 (2026)). Since Galei Tzahal is subject to the Protection of Privacy Law, it is entitled to the protections set forth in it, including the protection that is prescribed In section 18(2)(b), which applies to it for the reasons I have detailed above.