Lawyer Sanctioned for Inciting Violence on Facebook Early in War
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
Jerusalem District Court Judge Nimrod Flex ruled that lawyer Nehorai Eisenkot committed disciplinary offenses for inciting violence on Facebook early in the "Swords of Iron" war. Flex overturned previous acquittals, stating that while freedom of expression is broad, it does not permit incitement. Specifically, Eisenkot's comments calling for Ehud Barak to be "pursued like Sinwar and hanged" were deemed incitement. The case has been returned to a lower court for sentencing.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Lawyer Nehorai Eisenkot was convicted of disciplinary offenses for inciting violence on Facebook during the "Swords of Iron" war.
- Judge Nimrod Flex overturned previous acquittals, citing the need to protect public safety over freedom of expression.
- Eisenkot called for Ehud Barak to be "pursued like Sinwar and hanged," which Flex deemed incitement.
- The judge noted the potential for social media posts to incite real-world violence.
- The case was sent back for sentencing, rejecting Eisenkot's defenses of pseudonymity and private context.
Jerusalem District Court Judge Nimrod Flex has ruled that lawyer Nehorai Eisenkot committed disciplinary offenses due to extreme statements made on Facebook against the IDF, the Supreme Court, and government opponents at the outset of the "Swords of Iron" war. In a rare move, Flex overturned previous acquittals by the Haifa District Disciplinary Court and the National Court, which had dismissed the case based on freedom of expression. Eisenkot's statements included describing the IDF and Supreme Court as "incest within the family and clones creating genetic stagnation," alleging "raging hatred in the traitorous left," calling Kaplan demonstrators "Nazis and their helpers," and referring to Ehud Barak as a "traitor in action who must be pursued like Sinwar and hanged." He also wrote, "The residents of the Gaza envelope, who marked memorial days together for IDF and Hamas fallen soldiers, were wiped out precisely by those who embraced them."
Accepting the appeal by the Bar Association's National Ethics Committee, Flex stated that while social media has become a "public square" where freedom of expression is highly protected, especially regarding criticism of government, this right does not negate the need to protect other fundamental values like human dignity, privacy, and public safety. He emphasized that freedom of expression cannot permit statements that encourage or incite violence.
Flex determined that while most of Eisenkot's remarks were regrettable and offensive, they did not constitute disciplinary offenses. However, he found that Eisenkot's comments against Barak clearly constituted incitement to violence, particularly given the timing of the statements. The judge noted a "real possibility, and even more so" that Eisenkot's publications could fall on receptive ears and lead to actual violent acts, given the rapid and widespread dissemination potential of social media. Flex rejected Eisenkot's claims that he used a pseudonym and that the statements were made in a private context, asserting that a lawyer cannot be excused from disciplinary law by hiding behind a pseudonym, especially when inciting violence. He also dismissed the claim of selective enforcement, as other lawyers had faced disciplinary proceedings for similar remarks. The case has been returned to the district court for sentencing.