Yesterday we were informed that the newly appointed member of the Knesset Boaz Bismuth submitted a bill prohibiting the publication of a recording of sensitive information about a person without his consent.
This is a classic case of a "statement of law" rather than a bill.
This is because if this bill is enacted - it will not change too much from the current legal situation.
This is the opinion, for example, of Prof. Michael Birnhak, one of Israel's leading experts on privacy law.
"Public interest" is a criterion that has already been determined to be able to overcome the protection of privacy, and in any case also this bill.
"We are putting an end to secret recordings," declared MK Bismuth. This is not the case, of course.
The end of publishing tapes in press investigations?
(for illustration), photo: GettyImages
Instead of exposing injustices
If the statement of the law does not change the legal situation, why did it come into existence anyway?
The one who usually publishes recordings is the press, and there are two types of recordings: those that reveal the injustices of individuals or companies - such as pedophiles, scams on the elderly, and more - and those that reveal injustices or hidden opinions of elected officials.
The clear assumption is that a Knesset member is not interested in protecting pedophiles.
So for whom?
Probably on the elected officials.
And also about their sons.
About those who were recorded, for example, on the way to a strip club when they say to the billionaire friend "My father arranged billions for your father".
Or, for example, about a recording published by Kan 11, in which MK Bezalel Smotrich reveals what he really thinks about the Likud chairman.
Smotrich recordings of Netanyahu - another exposure that would not have been possible under the proposed law (archive), photo: Oren Ben Hakon
Or, for example, about the one in which Binyamin Netanyahu was heard trading with Noni Moses in the circulation of this newspaper, which led to the submission of Case 2000. By the way, the recording was made by Netanyahu himself.
The balance already exists in the law
The press does not always strike the right balance between the violation of privacy and the public interest.
I, for example, would not publish the recording in which Sara Netanyahu is heard shouting "P-S-Y-C-W-L-W-G-Y-T".
In such and other cases, the law naturally allows the media or the private person who is alleged to have violated privacy to be sued.
Not all recordings are necessary, but their use is necessary for revealing journalism, Sarah Netanyahu (archive), photo: Oren Ben Hakon
Even if the submitter of the bill knows the details, his proposal as mentioned never comes to correct any situation.
She came to signal "Hey, I also hurt journalists".
As if at some point this value was part of the right-wing camp's basket of values.
It is appropriate to take advantage of the opportunity in the Knesset to work for and for the public, not to harm journalistic work.
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