A Facebook user, professor Amir Hetsroni, account was blocked due to a series of offensive posts that breached Facebook terms of use and the community rules.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal and held that the blocking of the account was done according to terms of use. The limits of interpretation of the contract are bounded by its language. The terms of use, a contract, which each user signs when creating an account, clearly determine the terms and policies regarding the use of Facebook and, among them, the commitment not to post content that includes "hate speech" as well as Facebook's right to stop providing the services in the event of a breach. This user published at least 69 different offensive posts in which he used violent and humiliating language towards different population groups based on their race, ethnic origin, religious affiliation, gender, etc. Facebook took an approach of targeted removal of the infringing content, over a long period of time, while providing notifying of each and every removal. Thus, the user was fully aware of its actions and their consequences and knew that its publications breached the terms of use and there is a possibility that its account will be blocked. Therefore, Facebook's decision to block the account was duly made in accordance with the terms of use. However, Facebook is a unique platform and the publication of which is necessary in order to give meaning to the user's freedom of expression and the question of whether it is appropriate to completely deny those who have published prohibited publications in the past the possibility of continuing to use Facebook in the future, and if so - under what conditions, remains unanswered at this point and likely to be resolved in the future.