A loss for the Yesh Atid party:
The Chairman of the Central Election Committee, Supreme Court Judge Yitzhak Amit, rejected the Yesh Atid party's petition to declare Channel 14 on television an "election-active body". The Yesh Atid party was ordered to pay NIS 20,000 in expenses: NIS 10,000 for Channel 14 and NIS 10,000 for Likud.
The Yesh Atid party filed a petition to declare Channel 14 on television as an "election active body" and as such, as subject to various restrictions pursuant to Section 10C of the Party Financing Law.
The petitioners claimed that "...Channel 14's broadcasts and its postings on social media are election activity since it works to spread election propaganda in favor of the Likud party...and its leader, and that the channel attacks the petitioner "in an aggressive manner, which goes beyond any reasonable standard of journalism" and the partner parties.
Judge Amit rejected the petition and stated that the petitioner, the Yesh Atid party, did not prove that the channel engages in "election activity".
Channel 14, photo: Yossi Zeliger
Judge Amit wrote in his decision: "...the media bodies have an important status when it comes to the exercise of political freedom of expression, especially during elections. Freedom of political expression is an integral part of the existence of free and fair elections, and through it voters can get an impression of the "market of opinions" and make an informed decision when they come. to put the ballot in the ballot box. However, the democratic process is harmed if entities with capital bias the discussion so that their voice prevails over all other voices in the "market of opinions" while harming equality of opportunity in the elections, as we stated above. This danger increases in the modern media market on Its power and concentration characteristics...
"...in this case, I am not required to determine whether the activity of Channel 14 is caught in the magnetic pole of "election propaganda", and this in light of the definition of "election activity". It seems that the legislator saw before his eyes the right to freedom of political expression, and accordingly narrowly defined what it is That "election activity". As we will see below, the petitioner did not show that the activity of Channel 14 that she pointed to, falls within the scope of this narrow definition."
"...both in the linguistic aspect and in the aspect of the legislative history and the purpose that was the basis of the legislation, the activity of Channel 14 cannot be seen as "direct appeal to voters with certain political positions" or as propaganda through "advertisements" as stated in paragraphs (3) and ( 4) For the definition of "electoral activity" in the law. The legislator referred the definition of "body active in elections" to entities that carry out activities of direct and indirect contact with potential voters, or for the publication of election propaganda through the purchase of advertising ads in the press, on billboards or in the Internet space. The legislator did not intend to apply the limitations accompanying the definition of "body active in the elections" on a media body that is a commercial body with profit intentions, the body that broadcasts a variety of content to an indeterminate public and on a regular basis that is not necessarily related to the Knesset election system. The legislator consciously excluded from the law opinion articles and journalistic articles in media and applied them to advertisements Paid only. Indeed,The legislator sought to promote values of transparency and supervision of party funding through non-party bodies, but limited the potential harm to freedom of political expression and recognized this principle over imposing restrictions on media in a way that could lead to its closure."
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
