A person contacted our office following an article published about him on the Internet which entailed comments (talkbacks) published thereafter and which hurt his good name and constitute libel. That person encountered difficulties in identifying the publisher and thus actually has difficulty protecting his good name. Is there a way to protect the good name even when the harm is by an anonymous online slanderer?
The way to protect a good name against damage is to file a lawsuit for defamation. However, many times the victim of a tort of defamation on the Internet cannot obtain the details of the tortfeasor because in order to do so he is required to obtain a Court order which will oblige the Internet provider to disclose the details of surfers and thus harm their privacy. The Courts are reluctant to issue orders of this type and it is often recorded in judgments that the courts are waiting for the issue to be settled in legislation.
The defamation law comes to balance two conflicting interests: freedom of expression and freedom from expression - a person's right to a good name. The law states that one must not publish anything whose publication could humiliate, humiliate or harm a person - in his profession or occupation. In order to avoid a situation in which there is a complete discussion on the question of the existence of a "good name" and the degree of damage to it, and since proving the degree of damage in the case of defamation is extremely difficult, the law, among other things, allows compensation to be claimed "without proof of damage". The amount fixed by law is a ceiling of ILS 50,000 and if certain conditions are met, this amount can even be doubled. Despite this, in practice the Courts award compensations that are significantly lower than what is stipulated in the law and considering that they also do not usually award the winner his full expenses, a situation arises in which the defamation plaintiff finds himself ultimately compensated with a lower amount than the expenses he incurred in order to maintain the lawsuit.
In light of the aforementioned in October, 2011, a proposal to amend the law was placed on the Knesset table which sought to increase the amount of compensation without proof of damage sixfold and to allow those who believe they were harmed by publication to publish their response, while setting a fine, without proof of damage, of up to one and a half million ILS for media that do not Post a comment. The proposal caused a public uproar, both in the Knesset and among the public who went out to demonstrate in the streets. The amendment was even nicknamed - the "Silencing Law". While the bill seems to have the potential to seriously harm the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press, it is hoped that the very public discourse on the issue will be A deterrent to the spreaders of defamation on the Internet and will encourage the courts to award higher amounts to the victims.
As mentioned, even in the current legislative situation, it is possible in some cases to reveal the details of surfers and to file a claim for defamation and to receive compensation in significant amounts. It should be noted that in some cases of this kind, the websites even delete comments following a suitable letter from a lawyer and thus the damage to the good name can be reduced. However, in light of the complexity of the issue, it is recommended to contact a lawyer who specializes in the field.