Hatzroni managed a popular account on the social network, in which he used to post various content, including those that Facebook surfers reported and complained about to the site’s administrators. Following those reports and complaints, Defendant blocked Plaintiff’s Facebook account. Hatzroni claimed that the blocking was done illegally and petitioned for the return of the account for all its contents and for payment for damages caused to him, according to him, due to the blocking of the account.
On the other hand, Facebook claimed that the blocking of Hatzroni’s account was done against the background of various content he posted on the account and which, according to them, violated Facebook’s terms of use and community rules.
Judge Cohen addressed the question of whether Facebook may set its own rules of freedom of expression and restrictions on the use of the platform it provides that infringe, in Hatzroni’s method, on freedom of expression. “There may be room to examine this question against the background of Facebook’s status and being a network platform with more than two billion users in a way that has the potential to navigate social and political discourse. However, even if there is room to examine its status and address a question such as DA, Is not the right hostel for this, “he wrote.
Cohen added: “Even if the plaintiff could have been treated as an alleged satirical figure seeking to point the finger of blame at racism in Israeli society, Facebook is not obligated to provide him with a platform to do so, as it is content that could harm other users. “On a contractual issue, as the plaintiff himself testified and argued in his pleadings. The plaintiff insisted, throughout his pleadings, on the nature of the contract as he saw it.
In the margins of the judgment, Judge Cohen added: “It may be appropriate to examine a policy of balanced content management of social networks, a management and sharing policy that will include clear rules, enforcement procedures and the possibility of appealing decisions. However, in this case, the plaintiff failed to prove In this regard, most of his claims focus on the violation of freedom of expression. Facebook proved that the plaintiff knew the reasons for closing his account and delaying it several times. Facebook proved that the plaintiff was given several opportunities to comply with the terms of use and rules. There was a defect in it that is inconsistent with the provisions of the contract between the parties. “
In his decision, Judge Cohen also wrote that the other causes of action cited by Hatzroni, including copyright infringement, tort under the Computer Law, tort of making wealth and not in court, are also rejected. “The plaintiff did not establish an evidentiary and legal basis in the case and did not lay the foundation for proving the existence of the additional causes of action,” it was written. Beyond that, the judge clarified that it was not possible for Hatzroni to prove the damages caused to him or his other claims regarding this or that use that Facebook made of his content in his method.
Professor Amir Hatzroni stated: “Of course I will appeal the verdict. The judge ruled that posts that could emotionally hurt ‘protected’ groups on Facebook because of their religious beliefs, gender perception or background should not be posted. In fact, he stated that religion, immigration and even feminism should not be criticized. This anti-democratic statement is (to my delight!) Far light years away from the law. The same judge previously ruled against blocking Facebook users when the basis for the block was commercial. That is, in his view, people should not be prevented from expressing their opinions on Facebook due to a financial dispute, but it is permissible to prevent them from expressing their opinions when it is “disliked” in the eyes of those whom Facebook wanted to visit. The ruling hits a fatal blow not only on freedom of expression and artistic freedom (the court accepted that some of my publications are satirical), but also on people’s right to privacy (the judge authorized Facebook to keep a copy of every post, photo, video or letter of mine – without giving me Even a copy). I believe the verdict will be overturned. “