A democracy with a free market model of the press ensures freedom of speech, freedom of the press, private ownership of the media, and freedom from interference in the market (USA, France). In comparison, a democracy with a social responsibility model of the press allows the government to control or part-own certain media outlets for the educational well being of its society (UK, Israel) (McQuail, 2005). The first amendment to the American Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” (Findlaw.com, 2015). Israel’s social responsibility democracy allows its government to own some radio and television channels, but not to own newspapers (MFA, 2013). A question regarding the democratic and ethical nature of Israel’s press is in question recently with a new Israeli bill called the “Law for the Advancement and Protection of Written Journalism in Israel,” which is also known as the “Israel Hayom Law.” Though asserted to “protect” written journalism for democratic reasons, this law is in fact a financial and ideological chess piece for today that would endanger the future of Israeli written journalism to its core.

The Israel Hayom Law was recently passed in the Israeli Knesset by members who assert that they are defending written journalism in a time of financial hardship for newspapers in Israel (Pfeffer, 2014). The law would make it illegal to distribute newspapers free of charge, and defines a free newspaper as one that is distributed free of charge six days a week. The law would require that the lowest-priced paper with the widest circulation cost be sold for at least 70% of the next-lowest-priced paper (Harkov, 2014). The Israel Hayom Law would target the free Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom, and require it to change its successful business model, as it is the only free newspaper in Israel that fits these standards.

The bill is not only a financial undertaking, but ideological as well. The vote came out in favor of the bill with a 43-23 vote in the Knesset. MK Eitan Cabel (Labor, left-wing) proposed the Israel Hayom Law, and the bill was supported by members of all five Knesset coalition parties except for Likud (right-wing), where none supported it. Israel Hayom is a pro-Netanyahu newspaper that is owned by his supporter and billionaire political donor, Sheldon Adelson (Pfeffer, 2014). The bill’s supporters do not deny that they are targeting Israel Hayom (Harkov, 2014).

Cabel argues that his bill is “in favor of pluralism and multiple opinions” (Harkov, 2014). His justification, however, is less clear. Cabel claims that he “does not oppose ideological journalism” except in this case because of Netanyahu’s “cult of personality.” He explains, “Instead of being the watchdog of democracy, it [Israel Hayom] is Netanyahu’s attack dog” (Harkov, 2014). In vying for multiple opinions, Cabel must silence one.

It may seem like the issue is not a big deal because most news is on the internet nowadays, and in most cases for free. Despite the rise of free news on the internet, however, Israel Hayom remains the most powerful voice in Israeli press. First, there is a large number of people in Israel who do not read the news online. Second, when a free full-length well-written paper is handed to someone on their trip to work, they will more often than not read that paper as opposed to one of similar quality that they must pay for. Many Israelis are not buying the other papers because they receive the right-wing Israel Hayom full-length newspaper for free. There will always be an ideological battle between the left and right, which is more than acceptable and welcome in a democracy. This bill about the rights of the press is important because the role of the media in the political battle is a winning ticket. A weakened newspaper may directly weaken the political party, and vice versa.

The bill is ideological and fiscal - and technically democratic, as it was put to a vote - but not ethical. The bill may result from a democratic vote, but democratic votes may not necessarily point to an ethical government. Democracy just means majority-rule. Whoever has the most votes gets to decide what everyone else has to do, regardless of whether that is right or wrong. Democracy can be a tool for good or it can be a tool for evil. Two wolves can outvote one lamb on what to eat for dinner. This would be a democracy, but an unethical one. If 75% of the people vote to round up all the gays or all the Arabs or all the Hasidim and put them in concentration camps, that would be democratic, and it would also be wrong. This is why a democracy can be a tool for evil.

An “ethical government” protects individual rights (i.e. freedom from the use of violence by others including by government) without violating individual rights. An ethical government will not attempt to control the media, and will even have a constitution that removes from it any authority at all over the media. Democratically-elected legislators is just one part of how an ethical government would work. (Another tool is having a constitution with laws written by the people that govern the government; another tool is separation of powers into multiple branches of the government that check and balance each other; another tool is writing only simple, clear, unambiguous laws that courts can apply very transparently.) Democracy as the ultimate goal is the wrong goal. The ultimate goal of an ethical government is to protect individual rights, and democracies are a tool to get there; but democracy as such is not a good thing by itself. The best check against “pure democracy” is a citizenry who believe that the proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights without violating individual rights. The people at large need to be pro-individual-rights, and need to demand of their government to focus on protecting individual rights. If the people are pro-individual-rights, they will vote for the pro-individual-rights party, and the party will nominate pro-individual rights MKs.

While America has a constitution that grants the government no control over the media, Israel does not have a constitution. Israel has a Journalistic Code of Ethics. This “socially responsible” code mainly enlarges the government’s control over the press, as it requires responsible journalistic behavior (aka limits free press). Israel’s Journalistic Code of Ethics does, however, grant the Israeli government limited control over written newspapers: “a newspaper and a journalist shall not be instructed in the fulfilment of their functions by any external body which is not disclosed and in particular not by advertisers or governmental, economic or political bodies” (Israeli Press Council, 2008, 19). That is, Israeli newspapers cannot be controlled by governmental or political bodies. While the government in Israel owns and taxes citizens for their television and radio channels, they may not do this for newspapers. The Israel Hayom Law calls for the government to control the functions of newspapers. (Namely, Israel Hayom.) If the Knesset signs the bill into law, it will not only be government censorship (violating a free press media model), but it will violate Israel’s Rules of Journalistic Ethics (violating Israel’s social responsibility media model).

In truth, there no such thing as social responsibility, but there is a ton of harm people do in the name of social responsibility. Social responsibility was the Nazi and Soviet model of the press too. Social responsibility usually amounts to: do what we tell you to do, or else. For example, ISIS is all about social responsibility for the people living within its borders, in the sense that two wolves decided it would be socially responsible for a lamb to hop into the oven. It is a phrase used to guilt people into doing stuff they have no reason to do. ISIS is not a democracy but ISIS demands of the people in its borders that they act in a socially responsible manner; e.g., no drinking, no uncovered women, no missing prayers, and no blasphemy. For their version of social responsibility, that is. Everyone has their own version of social responsibility; it is not an actual thing that can be defined and proved. It was democratically decided in Athens that Socrates shall drink poison and die for the crime of teaching the youth to question authority. Democracy can be a tool for good or it can be a tool for evil. Democracy as the ultimate goal is the wrong goal, but democracy can be a good tool for the ultimate goal of protecting individual rights.

If one may say that it is possible to make the argument that the Israel Hayom Law is undemocratic because its stated intentions (to protect written journalism) are the opposite of its real outcome (violating individual rights), this is an unclear picture of the meaning of democracy. Lots of laws have pleasant-sounding names yet awful content. This Child Protection Act reads, "3.4(a) All children living in the country will be raised and taught in a central compound in each metropolitan area; contact with parents is permitted once a month for one hour only, and only under supervision of armed guards." This is a made up example to point out how easy it is for a bad law to have a good name. Democracy is ethical if it is a tool in the service of protecting individual rights; if something that violates individual rights is said to be "good for democracy," it may be good for democracy, but only for the bad kind of democracy, not for the good kind. When people treat democracy as a goal in and of itself, that's bad; when they treat democracy as one tool to protect individual rights, that's good.

With such impressive funding for a pro-Netanyahu newspaper, one may ask, “What is the difference between journalism and propaganda?” A debate between what is considered propaganda versus journalism is less important than understanding that both of them are legal in a free press model of government. Supporters of the Israel Hayom Law say that the Israel Hayom newspaper is propaganda for the current Israeli prime minister. Whatever the context, all newspapers have their own agenda. It is impossible to report unbiased news. Fox News and MSNBC both believe that they are reporting unbiased news, and they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. This does not mean that government should restrict their voices. If the propaganda (or plain truth-telling, depending on which side you're on) contains, for example, “true threats,” then the true threats should be illegal because it's true threats; not because it's propaganda.

Sheldon Adelson is not the only private newspaper owner. Yediot Aharonot is owned by Yediot Aharonot Group, which is an effective way to slide itself off the radar. In a recent interview with miRTVi, 20% owner of Haaretz Leonid Nevzlin explains that he uses his influence to “promote projects that help Israeli society” (Haaretz, 2011; miRTVi, 2014). Sheldon Adelson saw profit in the decline of newspapers and seized an opportunity in a free market. A selfsame supporter of the Israel Hayom Law, Yediot Ahronot newspaper, began imitating Sheldon Adelson with a free paper on weekends. Yediot Ahronot is hypocritically following Israel Hayom’s lead, while at the same time supporting the Israel Hayom Law that castigates Israel Hayom as undemocratic. In an illustration of ethics, MK Moshe Feiglin (Likud), who has a history of opposing Netanyahu, supports Netanyahu in this matter because the bill limits freedom of expression (Harkov, 2014). Propaganda should not be illegal; any speech which is a true threat should be illegal, whether it is contained in propaganda or anywhere else. A free paper, whoever it is funded by, is competitive propaganda/journalism in a free market.

Absolute freedom of speech and freedom of the press are the strongest bulwark against government abuses, including the range from unjust policing all the way to dictatorship. Exceptions include "direct incitement to violence,” "true threats,” and “libel and slander.” An example of a “direct incitement to violence” is a Sheikh commanding his followers on friday to go out and stab Jews in the street. The Sheikh should be imprisoned. Abbas saying, “Jews are the worst and we shall not allow dirty Jewish feet in the Aqsa" is wicked but should be legal. But were Abbas to say, "go out there and kill me some Jews," that would be incitement to violence and should be illegal. An example of a “true threat” is if you threaten to murder someone’s family (and it's a real threat). The one who threatens cannot say "it's just my free speech.” The threatener should go to jail. For “libel and slander” the speaker (1) needs to know that the thing being said is false, (2) needs to intend harm by means of the speech, and (3) needs to actually cause harm via the speech. Libel and slander are also very hard to prove with these guidelines, because to prove them, you have to prove that the speaker/writer actively knew and actively intended, both of which are hard. Europe and Russia have very lax libel and slander laws, though, and they are routinely used to harass and imprison people that the government does not like.

In a situation where the government respects the individual right of people to speak and write as they like, or in a free press media model of government as opposed to a social responsibility model, it is legal for politicians’ friends, or even politicians, to be speaking or to be funding speech as long as the funding is of one’s own money. Even if Netanyahu is personally funding the free newspaper with his own money or with the money of his supporters, that would be okay; if he is using taxes to fund it, or if he is making laws that give the free newspaper a special advantage at the expense of other newspapers, that would not be okay. However, Netanyahu is not using state funds and not creating laws to give Israel Hayom a special advantage. The supporters of the Israel Hayom Law, on the other hand, are creating laws to give the other newspapers an advantage.

From a political-journalistic standpoint, those who want it to be illegal for a newspaper to speak its mind, just because it is backed by someone they do not agree with, do not support freedom of the press. Those who have a problem with the things a newspaper says can say different things, or they can support people who say different things - but they should not try to make it illegal for the newspaper to operate. Deputy Transportation Minister Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) put the case succinctly: “MK’s who claim to believe in human rights and freedom of expression chose narrow and personal interests over the basic right to free speech” (Harkov, 2014).

From an economic-journalistic standpoint, supporters of the law to restrict the free paper want to “advance and protect print journalism.” Indeed, the other newspapers in Israel, such as Maariv, Haaretz, and Yediot Aharonot are fighting for their lives. There was a journalist strike in 2012 where Maariv journalists who were expecting mass firings and salary cuts rallied outside the Tel Aviv offices, claiming that Netanyahu is destroying Israel’s free press (Frenkel, 2012). But the law does not reflect the future of the newspaper industry (Kremnitzer & Altshuler, 2014). Supporters of the Israel Hayom Law want government to protect them from the cold hard facts of reality, which is that people do not much want to read their news when they could read buzzfeed instead. If a paper is handed to them for free, fine. Journalism is a hard business, and along with trends that are shifting to internet content, these same trends are telling people that content should be free, just as it is on the internet. Certainly media outlets will have to adapt and only some of them will succeed. But that is no excuse for them to try to use the government as a weapon against their competitors.

From Israel’s social responsibility model of the press one might say: in the name of social responsibility, Netanyahu is wrong and Israel Hayom is a bad paper, so we need to stop them from saying mean things about people we like or saying nice things about people we hate, and we need to make special laws just to stop them. Section 19 of the social responsibility Israeli journalistic ethics form is a small protection for freedom-of-the-press, but not a big one. “A newspaper and a journalist shall not be instructed in the fulfilment of their functions by any external body which is not disclosed and in particular not by advertisers or governmental, economic or political bodies” (Israeli Press Council, 2008, 19). An external body “which is not disclosed” may not control an Israeli paper. More clearly, a disclosed external body may instruct the functions of a paper. Writing the headline: “‘Benjamin Netanyahu is a dangerous cult of personality’ (Disclosure: the Labor majority leader told us to say that),” would be an example of fulfilling the disclosure clause. Clause 19 is good, but it is not really a free-press issue; it is more like a press-transparency issue: a "don't lie to your readers by pretending these are your words when really they're the government's words" issue. All the section is saying is, if the people decide democratically that they no longer want a free press, and they vote for a press controlled by the government in the name of social responsibility, then the press just needs to disclose who gives them their orders. On the one hand, this is good, since journalists are not really in control of whether or not the government decides to start giving them orders. But the issue at hand is about whether government has the power to give journalists orders about what to print and what not to print - and if government does have that power, then there are no clauses in Israel’s journalistic code of ethics that can really counteract that. As long as you already have a free-press model of government, then clause 19 is good; once you have a pure-democracy model of government and it decides to enforce some kind of version of a social-responsibility model on the press, then clause 19 kind of helps a little bit but not all that much. Israel is probably not a “pure democracy,” and if it were, it has more than enough citizens who want their individual rights protected, and who don't want pure majority rule, to counteract those who would use the power of government to control the press.

The Israel Hayom Law not only violates freedom of the press and Section 19 of the Israeli Rules of Journalistic Ethics, but it sets a precedent. It puts the government in the position to regulate such freedoms in the future - and for laws that the proponents now may not support (Kremnitzer & Altshuler, 2014; Pfeffer, 2014). Do Jews really want to live in yet another third-world middle eastern dictatorship? Freedom to speak is the last bulwark against tyranny. Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz warned that “[Cabel is] paving a path to make closing media legitimate” and quipped that Iran and North Korea can learn from Cabel how to close a newspaper that they dislike (Harkov, 2014). Many newspapers in the world have clear political positions. This is not a new phenomenon. Newspapers may try to be as unbiased as possible, but at the end of the day each one covers the same news story differently. Steinitz contrasts the bill to the free-press media model in the United States of America: Congress would never vote to close Fox News (right-wing) and not MSNBC (left-wing) (Harkov, 2014).

Nobody is ever so good at using the government to crack down on their political opponents that somebody even more vicious is not going to be better and use the government to crack down on them next year. An example of this are the routine purges that go on in every socialist dictatorship. He who lives by the sword (using government to crack down on political opponents) will die by the sword.

While democratically voted on, the Israel Hayom Law is a “bad law” (Pfeffer, 2014). A free press should not be checked; rather, a government system, even if democratic, must be checked so that there are clear, well-defined limits to violations of individual rights that its MK’s can pass.

References

Findlaw.com. (2015). First Amendment - U.S. Constitution. Findlaw.com. Retrieved 21 November 2015 from http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html

Frenkel, S. (2012). Sheldon Adelson shakes up Israeli newspaper market. NPR. Retrieved 8 November 2015 from http://www.npr.org/2012/10/18/162816525/sheldon-adelson-shakes-up-israeli-newspaper-market

Haaretz. (2011). Haaretz announces: Leonid Nevzlin acquires 20 percent of Haaretz shares. Haaretz. Retrieved 11 Nov 2015 from http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-announces-leonid-nevzlin-acquires-20-percent-of-haaretz-shares-1.367159

Harkov, L. (2014). Israel Hayom bill ‘shames the Knesset,’ PM says. The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 8 November 2015 from http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Knesset-approves-bill-to-ban-Israel-Hayom-in-early-vote-381588

Israel Press Council. (2008). Rules of professional ethics of journalism. Moaza.co.il. Retrieved 11 Nov 2015 from http://www.moaza.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=27521

Kremnitzer, M. & Altshuler, T.S. (2014). Legal opinion on the Israel Hayom Law. The Israel Democracy Institute. Retrieved 8 November 2015 from http://en.idi.org.il/analysis/articles/legal-opinion-on-the-israel-hayom-law/

McQuail, D. (2005). Mass Communication Theory (5th edition). Chapter 5: Normative Theories of Media Structure and Performance. London: Sage, pp. 109-134.

MFA. (2013). Culture: Media. Israel Ministry of Cultural Affairs. Retrieved 21 November 2015 from http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Culture/Pages/CULTURE-%20Media.aspx

myRTVi. (2014). Леонид Невзлин. Эксклюзивное интервью RTVi. Часть 2 [Interview]. YouTube. Retrieved 11 Nov 2015 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuzINqHdo6g

Pfeffer, A. (2014). Everything you need to know about the Israel Hayom (or anti-Sheldon Adelson) Law. Haaretz. Retrieved 8 November 2015 from http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.626053