Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumAttorney General asks Court to adopt new policy formulated in response to B’Tselem’s petition,
aiming to preventing broadcast of radio spot with names of children killed in Gaza.Published:
6 Aug 2014
Attorney Generals recommendation to change rules as BTselems radio spot awaits approval raises concern of improper discrimination
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014, Attorneys Hagai Kalai and Gilad Barnea submitted the response by Israeli human rights organization BTselem to the attorney generals position as presented to Israels High Court of Justice (HCJ) earlier this week as part of the states response to the organizations petition. BTselems response emphasizes that the existing rule clearly establishes that it is permissible to broadcast a political advertisement provided that it concentrate solely on a factual message. BTselems proposed radio spot meets these conditions. BTselem adds that the Israel Broadcasting Authority (IBA) is not permitted to consider the advertisers identity, as it did, nor consider whether the facts presented may be interpreted differently by different listeners. Neither is the IBA permitted to assess the facts presented in reference to what it perceives as the governments position. Such conduct contradicts the IBAs obligation to act independently and raises grave doubts regarding its ability to foster effective criticism of the regime.
The attorney generals response to the HCJ seeks to overturn an existing rule, despite the absence of any new circumstances justifying such a change. He proposes a new test including a series of questions to be applied in determining whether or not to approve the broadcasting of advertisements. For example, the IBA will be required to consider whether an ad may be construed as political or as provoking ideological controversy; whether alternative media exist for the publication of the information; the timing of publication; and the advertisers identity. BTselem notes that these considerations have no basis in case law, contradict the existing rule, and are unlawful and unconstitutional. The IBA is not permitted to consider the advertisers identity: this constitutes improper discrimination and violation of freedom of speech. The upshot of the attorney generals position is that the IBA can prohibit the broadcasting of any spot, even a factual spot, presenting information it believes might support a controversial position, even if only implicitly.
The attorney generals new policy in its entirety was formulated only after BTselem filed the current petition and in reaction thereto. Instead of examining the petitioners radio spot on the basis of IBA policy, the above-mentioned policy was crafted in the course of the response to the petition for the purpose of preventing the broadcasting of the proposed radio spot. Changing the tests to be applied in order to reject BTselems radio spot heightens concern regarding lack of proper administration. The Court has previously recognized that changing rules according to a request by a specific body raises grave suspicion of administrative discrimination.
in full: http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20140731_children_name_petition_responses
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 474 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post