Ultra-Orthodox Newspaper 'HaModia' Fined $60,000 for Questioning Residents' Religiosity
Translated & summarized from Kikar HaShabbat by baba
The story in 4 lines · by baba
- HaModia newspaper fined $60,000 for questioning residents' religious status.
- The newspaper is appealing the ruling, citing freedom of the press.
- The original article discussed a dispute over kindergarten buildings in Ma'ale Amos.
- The court found the questioning of religiosity irrelevant to the dispute.
The ultra-Orthodox newspaper 'HaModia' is appealing a court ruling that ordered it to pay 230,000 shekels (approximately $60,000) in compensation and expenses to four residents. The ruling stemmed from a September 2024 article that questioned the residents' status as observant Jews and "Torah scholars." The article, published without a byline, discussed a dispute between the Hasidic and Lithuanian communities in Ma'ale Amos over standard kindergarten buildings. It was headlined "Shock in the Ultra-Orthodox Community in Ma'ale Amos," with the word "ultra-Orthodox" placed in quotation marks, implying doubt. The article also used quotation marks around "Torah scholars" when referring to individuals involved in the dispute, including Tzvi Olesker, Yonatan Glasner, Aryeh Kahn, and Yitzhak Glazer, who subsequently sued the newspaper's publisher for 400,000 shekels.
In their lawsuit, the four men argued that the publication damaged their good name, both personally and publicly, leading to numerous inquiries from public figures. 'HaModia,' represented by its lawyers, contended that the daily was unintentionally caught in a community dispute and that the report was important for the public. The newspaper argued that the plaintiffs' conduct was far removed from that of "Torah scholars" as perceived by the ultra-Orthodox public, suggesting that true "Torah scholars" would not act against infants seeking to study Torah.
Judge Doritt Feinstein ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that questioning their religiosity was irrelevant to the kindergarten building dispute. She noted that it was unnecessary to slander the plaintiffs to disagree with their actions or positions. In its appeal, 'HaModia' argues that the court deviated from principles of free speech and editorial discretion, asserting that courts should not dictate journalistic practices or reader choices. The newspaper also claims the ruling imposes an impossibly high standard of accuracy on journalists, thereby harming press freedom. A response to the appeal has not yet been filed.