Last week, the cyber department of the prosecutor's office filed four indictments against four unknown citizens, who cursed and allegedly harassed Nir Hefetz and Hadas Klein, prosecution witnesses in the Netanyahu trial, on social media.
It will be said immediately: it is not nice to write the way the four wrote.
"You're going to kill an evil police agent. You're done," or "Trusting him is like trusting the Nazis who exterminated millions of Jews."
One of the suspects even addressed Hefetz privately on Facebook and wrote "In the world of crime they would kill you. You know, it's possible that some crime family will try to hurt you at the end of the day. I'm not threatening you, I'm just saying my opinion."
Both Hefetz and Klein have already finished testifying, with or without harassment.
It is not known if they read the posts or the tweets of the four unknowns, and if they influenced their testimony.
It is certain that they suffered heartache, but it is difficult to know if it is more severe than the bedbug-infested detention cell where Nir Hefetz was put by the police before he was set to serve as a state witness, the medical treatment he was denied, and the threats of his interrogators regarding the destruction of his family.
Also, although harassing a witness is definitely a criminal offense, in the case of Hadas Klein it seems that the state did the exact opposite: pampering a witness.
The prosecutor's office and the police decided in principle not to inquire about the contents of Klein's phones and computers.
Let's just say that the circumstances of recruiting Klein and Hefetz to testify seem no less serious than the social media ramblings of a few guys in bulk.
The penalty for harassing a witness can be up to five years in prison.
But until the four are sent to prison - if they are sent - they will have very interesting years ahead of them, like those that four other witness troublemakers, Netanyahu's advisers Yonatan Urich, Israel Einhorn, Yossi Shalom and Ofer Golan, are going through.
In August 2019, the four sent a vehicle with speakers to Shlomo Filber's house, and called on him over the public address system to withdraw from the agreement with the state.
Filber was not at home and did not file a harassment complaint with the police.
The four did not deny, but for their own reasons the police decided to search their phones, without a warrant as required by law.
The appeal of the four on the legality of the search and the use of the extracted content - was rejected in all courts, including the Supreme Court.
The judges admitted that the search was illegal, but described the offense as "improper in the conduct of the investigating authority", and instead of prohibiting the use of the content obtained in the course of an offence, they contented themselves with a paternal reprimand towards the police: "It should be expected that cases of this type will not happen again".
Shlomo Filber finished his testimony about six months ago.
The investigation of Netanyahu's advisers who are suspected of harassing him has ended after three years.
Their right to privacy was violated by the attorney's office, the police and the court, and contrary to the law.
Charges have not yet been filed, but the case is still open.
It may or may not close.
If it is closed - we don't know what the reason will be: lack of guilt?
Lack of public interest?
It may remain open for an unlimited period, like the case of Dr. Michael Ben Ari, in which an investigation was opened for incitement to racism three and a half years ago. An indictment has not yet been filed. From time to time he is invited to a police station and required to explain what he meant by a tweet or a lesson he gave. No Which is worth comparing, but let's say that the state's ability to harass a citizen with all the power of its institutions, without legal restraints, without a time limit and with the approval of the gatekeepers from the Supreme Court - is more worrying than the damage that may be caused by some citizens on the networks who are overflowing with emotion.
Bennett can sue all of Twitter and win all the lawsuits, but it is doubtful that he will win the love of the people he threatens to sue
It's not just the state that sometimes finds itself scratching its head and wondering what to do with this thing called "freedom of expression".
After all, people sometimes abuse this freedom: they lie, swear, share lies, share curses.
And sometimes it's real slander and real slander, and you can understand the person who sues for his insult in court.
Freedom of expression also has limits - although not of a school of manners and manners, but of the law.
Therefore, one can understand Naftali Bennett, who sent warning letters in the lawsuit to people who accused him of using public funds to renovate his house in Ra'anana, or who claimed that his mother was not Jewish.
First, like any person who encounters hostility directed towards him - he is offended.
Second - like any person, he wants to prove himself right.
But Bennett is not like any other human being.
He was a prime minister, and a prime minister should downplay starting a private war against citizens, even if these citizens are particularly annoying.
True, prime ministers also have feelings and a right to a good name.
But Bennett also distinguishes himself from other heads of government who sued their defamers.
He recruited investigators and lawyers who would scan the networks and find out from them all those who slandered him or disgraced him.
Furthermore, he denied the personal insult and presented a new thesis: defamation lawsuits as a national mission.
"As prime minister, I refrained from engaging in slander because I thought it was my job to absorb it," he tweeted, and immediately deviated from the path he set for himself: "But I now understand that there is no choice. The issue is not Bennett, but the future of our country and its very existence. We must turn off the poison machines that contaminate all of our lives." In doing so, he tries to turn the widespread human anger towards the regime into his "poison machine" theory, which he took the trouble to spread during his term and after, to the citizens of Israel and to the "New York Times": if they had not smeared him on the networks and in the media, he would still be prime minister.
Bennett ruling for a woman who filed a claim for breach of promise of marriage.
It doesn't matter if her righteousness was proven in court or how much money she got.
In the end, she couldn't force her man to love her or marry her.
She will be rich, but single.
Bennett can sue all of Twitter and win all the lawsuits: he failed to survive as prime minister, and it is doubtful that he will win the love of the people he threatens to sue.
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