Human dignity and publishing a name

Shula Zaken's return this week to the Prime Minister's Bureau - after a year's suspension from her position as bureau chief - will certainly provide another argument for those who support the proposal for a law to prohibit the publication of suspects' names. Zaken was suspended in the wake of the corruption investigation into the Tax Authority, which began with a loud trumpet blast and whose end is not yet clear.

Arrests and interrogations under a spotlight, usually of public figures, with a plethora of suspicions against them provided by unidentified "police sources" are injurious to human dignity and freedom. In Britain, as Anglo-Israeli attorney Ami Feder has told me, a suspect is customarily defined as someone who "is aiding the police in their inquiries," in order to maintain his dignity.

Nonetheless, no one in Britain or any other democracy has ever imagined restricting in law reporting about a police investigation or the names of people under investigation. For their part, the media in countries like Britain exercise self-control and do not usually publish the names of rank-and-file suspects who are of no interest to the public.

Refraining from publishing the "ordinary citizen's" name in Britain is based for the most part in the value of human dignity, but also in the idea that "any old" name does not interest the public and does not sell newspapers. In Israel, too, most reports relate to public figures, including all sorts of celebrities, soccer coaches or top fashion designers.

In contrast to the current situation and everything that has been customary, an impressive Knesset majority passed a bill last week in its first reading that would ban reporting on the existence of a police investigation or the name of a suspect. This would be in place before the filing of an indictment unless the court considered publication essential for the investigation or that the public interest took precedence over confidentiality.

If until now the rule has been that one may publish, and the exception has been a prohibition by special court order for the sake of the investigation or because of "severe injury" that might be caused to the suspect, the current proposal is a sweeping and blanket prohibition that has exceptions. Under the proposal, an iron curtain will be brought down on reports, including those about public figures, during the entire period before the filing of an indictment, which could go on for years.

The courts will, however, be authorized to decide on publication because of "the public interest" if a special request is submitted to them by someone who knows about the investigation, but this is not satisfactory. The Magistrates' Court's "record" on gag-order decisions under the current law, which have discriminated in favor of lawyers and doctors relative to other suspects in the same cases, does not ensure the protection of the public's right to know. The courts have done this despite a Supreme Court ruling that obligates a narrow interpretation of the existing authority to prevent publication because of the danger of "severe damage" to the suspect.

If this is the way things are now, it is not hard to imagine what will happen in a new legal situation in which the rule will be the prohibition to publish. The current law, which was passed in 2003, is sufficient to prevent publication in extraordinary cases that are justified. Not only will the proposed legislation damage the foundations of democracy, it will be ineffective and give rise to rumors and rampant reports on the Internet.

Nonetheless, the Press Council and the media must sharpen existing rules and beef up their enforcement. This can be done by preventing the publication of the names of suspects who are not of real interest to the public until the filing of an indictment against them and by refraining from being smitten by "informed sources."

Using greater caution and responsibility when reporting about investigations of public figures will also help in the struggle to have the proposal to prohibit publication removed from the public agenda, as it should be.