These are days of purification and disinfection. Every minute, we learn more about the monstrous extent of the terrible breach of morals among police ranks. One cannot tell how the scandal will develop or how it will end, but as the sunlight reveals damages to our individual liberties, interesting things are transpiring in the far more sacred and principled arena of legislation. A new bill introduced by members of the New Hope party seeks to allow the courts to require internet providers to reveal the identity of people found to be defaming others online.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
What does this mean? "Defamation" is a very broad term. The innovation here is that even if it was done anonymously, the legislation stipulates the defamer's identity be revealed.
On its face, the legislation sounds reasonable enough. After all, shaming is just another word for any monstrous conduct, and as we have come to understand, the internet is now our public domain. What, then, is the problem with the legislation?
The first problem is that it constitutes a blow to the sacred issue of freedom of expression. When a society decides to make freedom of expression a fundamental principle, it takes into account that this freedom will also include some less than positive expressions of that freedom. This freedom was chosen as a founding principle in democratic life because its essence as an existential condition for democratic life takes precedence over its inherent risks. The use, therefore, of government regulation or, heaven forbid, legislation to harm or even alter this freedom in any way must be done sparingly, if at all.
The second problem is the context in which the legislation has been introduced and the identity of those behind it. This bill is being introduced at the height of an ongoing political dispute that negatively impacts many politicians and is largely transpiring online. Within this context, it is very easy to interpret this legislative initiative as an effort to silence others. In fact, there is no other way to interpret it.
Of most concern, however, is that this school of thought, to which some in the New Hope party adhere, has signed on to a series of similar bills. The current bill is an upgraded version of the contemptible "Facebook law" that tried to establish government control over content published online. Unlike the previous law, which relates to damage or threats to the public, here the government is afforded control over "slander" โ a very broad and therefore more dangerous term.
New Hope is a party at the center of a bitter dispute with political rivals. If we add to these legislative efforts previous legislative efforts to limit term limits and turpitude, we see a political gang focused on political legislation that is, to the dismay of many, increasingly being interpreted as a serious and dangerous blow to democracy.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
