Précédent 1 / 59 Next

HCJ 7846/19 Petitioners: 1. Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel 2. Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Respondents: Requests to Join: 1. State Attorney’s Office – Cyber Department 2. Attorney General 1. Lori Shem Tov 2. Movement for Freedom of Information Petition for order nisi Israeli Supreme Court cases cited: [1] EA 8/21 Shachar Ben Meir, Adv., v. Likud, (Feb. 27, 2019) [2] EA 27/21 Yisrael Beiteinu Faction v. Shamir Systems and Operators Ltd., (Feb. 26, 2019) [3] AAA 3782/12 Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Commander v. Israel Internet Association, (March 24, 2013) [https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/tel-aviv-jaffa-district-commander-visrael-internet-association] [4] LCA 4447/07 Mor v. Barak I.T.T. [1995] International Telecommunications Services Corporation, IsrSC 63(3) 664 (2009) [5] HCJ 8600/04 Shimoni v. Prime Minister, IsrSC 59(5) 673 (2005) [6] HCJ 6824/07 Manaa v. Israel Tax Authority, IsrSC 64(2) 479 (2010) [7] HCJ 399/85 Kahana v. Broadcasting Authority Management Board, IsrSC 41(3) 255 (1987) [8] HCJ 5185/13 A. v. Great Rabbinical Court, (Feb. 28, 2017) [9] MApp 2065/13 A. v. State of Israel, (March 22,2013)

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. State Attorney’s Office

Case Law

Country

Israel

Country Location

Latitude: 31.832202543391414

Longitude: 34.822003841400154

Country Location (Lié Case Law): Israel

Decision Date: 12 avr. 2021

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant

Keywords

Content Moderation
Content Regulation / Censorship
Digital Rights
Social Media

Judicial Body: Suprême (cour d'appel de dernière instance)

Court Name: Supreme Court of Israel

Case Number: HCJ 7846/19

Case Summary: In April 2021, the Supreme Court of Israel denied a petition regarding the allegedly unlawful voluntary enforcement procedure of the Cyber Department in the State Attorney’s Office. The petitioners contended that the procedure through which the Department notified online platform operators of suspected harmful content violated constitutional rights to freedom of expression and due process under Basic Law. The Court held that the Department’s voluntary enforcement procedure constituted a governmental act since the state influenced its interactions with operators and end users. The Court concluded that, in the absence of specific authority for its activity in primary legislation, the Department’s voluntary method could rely upon the residual power granted to the government under Section 32 of Basic Law, if its activities did not breach fundamental rights.

Case Significance: The decision of Israel’s High Court of Justice reviewed the constitutionality of government takedown requests concerning illegal content online. By considering that the Cyber Department had the authority to operate under the voluntary track mechanism, the Court ignored the constitutional and administrative constraints that state actions are traditionally subjected to, making it impossible for users to appeal the Department’s findings. Moreover, by stressing that it was ultimately up to the online platform in question to decide whether to assist or resist the government’s recommendation, the Court disregarded the state’s positive obligations to ensure human rights.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Analysis

Case Law on Content Moderation and Freedom of Expression

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 19 juil. 2024

Documents principaux

Supreme Court of Israel
English
Télécharger Vue