Israeli Court Expands Definition of Harassment via Telecom Facilities
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
The Beersheba District Court has expanded the legal definition of harassment via telecom facilities, ruling it applies even if the perpetrator doesn't use the facility or the harassment isn't directed at it. The court also confirmed that harassing a group can be a criminal offense. This broad interpretation includes modern communication methods like WhatsApp and email. The ruling was made in an appeal by Rotem Omega, who was convicted for sending offensive messages to state employees.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Israeli court broadly interprets harassment via telecom facilities to include modern digital communication.
- Harassment conviction possible even if perpetrator doesn't use the facility or it's not directed at the facility.
- Harassing a group is now confirmed as a potential offense under the law.
- The court emphasized an objective standard for determining harassment.
- Rotem Omega's appeal against his conviction for sending offensive messages was rejected.
- The ruling aligns the law with technological advancements in communication.
The Beersheba District Court has ruled that the offense of harassment via telecom facilities must be interpreted broadly, allowing for convictions even if the perpetrator does not personally use the facility or if the harassment does not reach the facility itself. The court also determined that harassing a group can constitute this offense.
According to Section 30 of the Communications Law, "A person who uses a telecom facility or terminal equipment in a manner that is unlawful and likely to harm, frighten, harass, cause anxiety, or anger, is liable to imprisonment for three years." Judge Yuval Libedro noted that recent rulings have expanded the definition of "telecom facility" to include modern communication tools like WhatsApp messages, SMS, email, and even non-physical software. This interpretation aims to align the law with technological advancements, encompassing all electronic signal transmission systems, including cellular and internet networks and mobile devices.
The court emphasized that the test for harassment is objective, based on a reasonable general standard of conduct rather than the subjective perceptions of the involved parties. The combination of message volume and content is key to establishing discomfort, pressure, embarrassment, and worry, protecting an individual's peace.
Regarding group harassment, the court acknowledged potential legal and evidentiary challenges but affirmed its possibility, depending on the group's size, nature, message content, and relevance. The ruling specifically addressed public employees, stating that while conviction is possible, freedom of expression and criticism of government authorities must also be considered, especially when work performance is the subject.
In the case of Rotem Omega, who was convicted for sending vulgar and explicit messages, including sexual innuendos, to employees at the State Comptroller's Office and the Ministry of Health, Judge Libedro upheld the conviction. The lower court had sentenced Omega to a NIS 3,000 fine and NIS 1,500 compensation to each of two victims, avoiding jail time due to personal circumstances. Libedro also rejected the appeal against the severity of the sentence. Judges Fani Gilt-Cohen and Noa Haklai concurred with the decision.