Uphold talkbacker's anonymity in defamation trial, court says
Nazareth Court backs website refusing to hand over IP addresses of talkbackers accused of defaming journalist.
By Tomer Zarchin Tags: Israel newsThe Nazareth District Court has upheld the right of the Walla Web portal to refuse to hand over the IP addresses of commenters accused of defaming a journalist.
"The good of online anonymity outweighs the bad, and it must be seen as a byproduct of freedom of speech and the right to privacy," Judge Avraham Avraham wrote in his ruling last week.
The court also said the critical remarks concerning Yedioth Ahronoth reporter Israel Moskovitz, posted online in 2008, were unlikely to harm his reputation since they were poorly written and appeared only once, and readers were not likely to take them seriously.
Dr. Michael Birnhak, an expert in privacy and technology who teaches at Tel Aviv University's law school, expressed support yesterday for the court's decision.
"Anonymity on the Internet serves the important goals of privacy and freedom of expression, even if the price is sometimes harsh and insulting statements," he said.
It's important for courts to be wary about allowing revelation of the identity of commenters, said Birnhak, and should do this only in exceptional cases, in which it's clear that the statement is extremely offensive or constitutes a deliberate attack.
Birnhak also warned of the likelihood that exposure of IP addresses could be exploited. For instance, an employer could take revenge on an employee who wrote something negative about his boss.
The Nazareth District Court upheld the Beit She'an Magistrate's Court decision of May 2008, which ruled that the people who posted the messages were not defaming Moskovitz, and that in any case, the Internet should be judged by a different standard than other media.
Moskovitz had asked the Magistrate's Court to force Walla (which is partly owned by the Haaretz Group) to give him the Internet protocol addresses of the users who wrote three comments accusing him of poor reporting, which he said were untrue and damaged his good name. Walla refused to hand over the addresses.
In last week's ruling, Avraham adopted the position of Supreme Court Justice Isaac Amit, who ruled - while serving as Haifa District Court judge in a case against Yedioth Ahronoth Web site Ynet - that the nature of the comments' statements, and the extent of damage to the subject of the alleged defamation must be taken into account.
Avraham suggested looking at issues such as how extreme the allegedly damaging remarks are, whether the attack was systematic or a one-time phenomenon, and how seriously a reasonable reader would take the comments.
There was no clear precedent for Avraham to use. A 2008 Tel Aviv District Court ruling held that a commenter's identity should be revealed if the court is convinced that his message was damaging, while a 2006 Jerusalem Magistrate's Court ruling held that a commenter's identity should not be revealed unless his wording constitutes a criminal offense.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Naïveté is the name. In the legal battles money and power always win. That is why privacy must be protected. Reporters went to jail to protect their sources; otherwise everyone will be intimidated by the "Court of Law". Do not be foolish, gossip and in this particular case-opinion is not defamation. This journalist should change his carrier, may be become a prosecutor? He would look good as dictator: "no criticism accepted"!
The website that provides the platform for the "talk-backer" should assume the responsibility for the postings. If they allow unmoderated (i.e. libelous) texts, then the website deserves to take the heat and be liable for damages. You can't have your cake AND eat it without ingesting calories!
When people GET RIGHT with God-Yeshua... people will NOT desire to speak badly about one another. Deal with the root ...then the whole tree will be healthy...holy...righteous ! REPENT & GET RIGHT with GOD-Yeshua Messiah ! It is written, out of the abundance of the heart- the mouth speaks ! People who hurt others ... are hurting ...so don't condemn them... heal them ... LOVE them ..introduce them to Yeshua so HE will save them... from evil & themselves ! We catch more bees with honey ! Then we don't have to deal with all this residual garbage ! We can't put a band-aide on a cancer growth... expecting it to go away... get the root ... SEPARATION FROM GOD-Yeshua ! Freedom of speech is essential ... it indicates where we & our nation stands ...
Sorry that you think I am mean spirited! My recommendation is to avoid reading my posts. I find that those who seem to hate my posts most are those that read every one. At least this is the implication in their complaints. It must be akin to the moth to the flame I guess.
haters use this to hide behind. it's ridiculous how many jew haters come here to use haaretz deliberately and specifically BECAUSE it is an israeli publication and owned group. Censorship and good common sense are the answers...not lawsuits..if you ask me, they should eliminate the talkback feature altogether...it's simply not worth what ultimately comes out of here...have you read nathalie durson lately? how about dutch? labrahs? silvienne? I mean, if haaretz doesn't get what these people are and how abusive they are to this forum...then there really is a problem here.
I was brought up in a tradition of respectful disagreement of opinion and still believe in it. If someone displays faulty logic or ignorance of basic facts under discussion I believe they have a right to express their thoughts in public. However, on many talkbacks one reads material that clearly does not fit into this category. It is reasonably evident that motives other than the pursuit of truth are at work. One can see the particular talkback is malacious in nature rather than informative. It is designed to try to destroy someone's good name rather than demonstrate his/her incompetence and this is problematic. I don't think that someone hell bent on destroying the good name of someone else, when this is self evident, should be tolerated and protected by law. Freedom of expression does not include freedom to destroy others with your pen or tongue because you simply do not like them - for whatever reason.
Tracking backbackers (though i'm sure many wish the baiting mean spirited tone of "Natalie Durson/s" or whoever she/he/ is would simply disappear) would set a dangerous precedent...Being the cranky old fart that I am, I do miss the old days of just reading an article, and if something really needed to said, a letter in the post to the editor sufficed.
to life , And not when the wording constitute a criminal offense . And not when the wording constitute dammage . We don't live in the former U.S.S.R or China or England or Egypt where police arrest by court order T.V reporter , journalist , blogger for reporting stuff against Gov't policy , elected or appointed official corruption or Imam sermon . Free speech used as a cover to allow hate speech and outright abuse, must be countered by truth and logic and not by arbitral arrest thru unlawfull Court order to illegal police arrest. On the other hand we must reject situations in which Court of Law ruling relief petition subtantiated by truth and logic , facts , evidence , proof , but are not carried out by the relevant authorities or by police under fabricated unacceptable excuses of lack of personel/officers and/or of no interest to public and/or concerns for public security . I'm referring to cases in which Israelis won the Court verdict to evacuate illegal arabs squatters in lands and houses belonging to those Israelis .
I am beoming more and more convinced that anonimity that is used in news talk backs is incredibly problematic. If we fight for the rights of freedom of speech should we not also be willing to do so in our own name. More over maybe it would mean talk backers may engage their brains before typing !
Online anonymity outweighs the bad, and it must be seen as a byproduct of freedom of speech and the right of privacy... the Judge said. Leaving aside that anonymity outweighs the bad... because that's clearly an opinion on the Judge's part, and there's no way to measure the good or bad of anonymity. My problem is with the notion of online freedom of speech and it's right to privacy... as it pertains to anonymity. First of all, with freedom of speech comes responsibility and isn't the first obligation to know precisely... who is speaking. Certainly in a court of law that's a precedent. And how would that knowledge curb freedom of speech anyway. Second, the right to privacy is usually interpreted in the acts we preform in our bedroom or bank and medical records. An IP address does not fall into that realm or level of privacy. Certainly, the internet... with it's public forums, enables cover of anonymity for illegal and terrorist activity that threaten innocent human lives.
Seriously, how does this sort of legal activity make someone look?