The judge rejected the defamation lawsuit: "Jose under the protection of truth in the publication" • The newspaper's editor Boaz Bismuth: "The rejection of the lawsuit is an important milestone in the struggle to preserve freedom of expression"

• Former Knesset member Bassel Gates

  Photo: 

  Courtesy of the Balad Party

The Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court today (Thursday) rejected a defamation lawsuit by the New Israel Fund against the newspaper "Israel Hayom" and reporter Yair Altman. At the center of the lawsuit is Altman's report of July 9, 2017, about the participation of former MK Bassel Gates in an event at the Jaffa Theater. The publication appeared after Gats was sentenced to prison for smuggling mobile devices to security prisoners in prison. The reports state that the New Israel Fund financed the event.

Following the publication and a number of follow-up articles published, the New Israel Fund filed a lawsuit against the newspaper for NIS 75,000, claiming that the link between it and support for Gats harms its good name. The fund was represented by attorney Yishai Schnidor and Israel Today was represented by Adv. Doron Cole of Fischer Bachar Chen Wall Orion & Co.

In the ruling, Judge Nimrod Eshkol dismissed the lawsuit without charging costs. In the lawsuit, the foundation made several claims, which the judge rejected one by one. It was alleged that the headline on the front page of the newspaper that read "The New Foundation Supported the 'Celebration' of Getas'" is defamatory. The judge rejected this argument and wrote "Ma'ayan is a headline with bold words, with line markings and quotation marks, written with the aim of attracting passers-by to access and take the newspaper, and not to harm the plaintiff", beyond that the headline was fair: "Not only the newspaper's position was quoted in this publication But also the plaintiff's response. " In conclusion, the judge wrote that "the plaintiff's support for the conference is true, and the style in which the defendants chose to describe the support is within reasonable limits."

Another argument of the foundation was about the use of the words "farewell party" in relation to the event. The judge wrote that even if the words are inaccurate, "it is not possible to say that Gattas' appearance at the event was made regardless of his entry into prison, and thus there is in fact a kind of farewell from Gattas to the specific audience." Beyond that, the judge ruled in principle that "defining a journalist to describe words accurately as if it were an architectural description of a house, infringes on the editor's freedom of expression and creativity."

Moreover, during the trial, the New Israel Fund admitted "that a body on its behalf (the '50 end 'website) invited an audience to the event that is the subject of the publications." The foundation testified "that not every event is promoted on this site, and that the events promoted on the site should be consistent with the agenda it promotes."

Another claim of the foundation was that it was not proven that Gates was a key figure in the event. The judge rejected this claim and wrote: "After determining that the plaintiff supported an event held at the Jaffa Theater, which involved raising awareness about Palestinian prisoners in the Israeli prison, and that one of the keynote speakers at the conference was Gats, before entering prison for criminal offenses. The truth in advertising. "

Beyond that, the judge ruled that the conduct of the newspaper Israel Today was professional and proper. "The defendants allowed the plaintiff to respond reasonably and proportionately with respect to the allegations in the article, both at the level of the headlines on the front page and in the article itself," the judge wrote, concluding: "Therefore, I am satisfied that ... the defendants have responsible press protection."

The editor of the Israel Today newspaper, Boaz Bismuth, said in response: "Israel Hayom newspaper has once again been shown to be accurate in its reporting and to act professionally and impartially.

The New Israel Fund said: "The fact that the court itself found that it did not rule on the newspaper's expenses despite the dismissal of the lawsuit shows that in its opinion the publications were borderline and excessive. In our opinion, the role of journalistic reporting is to publish reality as it is, based on facts. We respect the decision. The judge even if in our opinion he is wrong, since the judge bases the verdict on arguments from the world of freedom of art, as journalistic reports are a kind of literary prose.The court's decision does not reconcile with previous rulings, and undermines the public's trust in the media. The ruling, which in effect frees the newspaper from the obligation to stick to the truth in its publications. "