The parties' arguments
- Avi petitions for compensation without proof of damage for at least four cases, according to him, that Tsafrir published defamation against him before the following parties: the Polish company, the workplace's WhatsApp group, Discount Bank, and Amir. In respect of each case, my father petitions for compensation in the amount of ILS 150,000, and in total for a total payment of ILS 600,000.
- According to the counter-defendants, Tsafrir did not libelize my father. Tsafrir sent one letter to the Polish company, which he said promised to work with him. It was also claimed in the summaries of the reply that when my father's conduct was exposed, all the statements made by Tsafrir were made lawfully, and he has the claim that "I spoke the truth". As for Mr. Matzliah's statement to the Polish company, this is his opinion that Avi will not assist them in their work in light of his conduct with the plaintiff who did not contribute to his good name. In this matter as well, Mr. Tsafrir argued that this was a defense of the truth of my speech that reflects his opinion. As for the defamation in relation to the WhatsApp group, Tsafrir claimed that it was a prohibited wiretapping carried out by the counter-plaintiffs and did not specify what the defamation was said by the counter-defendants. As for the claim in relation to Discount Bank, it was claimed that no evidence was presented that a conversation took place with the bank and what was said in it, and Tsafrir even denied having a conversation with the bank on this matter. In addition, the defamation claim raised by my father and its concern in a private conversation between Amir and Zafrir does not constitute defamation. Tsafrir has defenses by virtue of the Defamation Law, including the protections listed in section 13(9), "I Spoke the Truth" and the defense of good faith, in light of which the claim in respect of this component should be dismissed.
Discussion and Decision
- Section 1 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter - the Prohibition of Defamation Law), provides as follows: "Defamation is a matter whose publication is liable: (1) humiliate a person in the eyes of the public or make him the target of hatred, contempt or ridicule on their part; (2) to degrade a person because of acts, behavior, or qualities attributed to him; (3) To harm a person in his office, whether a public office or any other position, in his business, occupation or profession; (4) to degrade a person because of his race, origin, religion, place of residence, age, sex, sexual orientation or disability;"
- Section 2 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law determines what will be considered a publication: "Publication, for the purpose of defamation - whether oral, written or in print, including a drawing, a figure, movement, sound and any other" In addition, section 2(b) states that: "Defamation is considered to be publication, without the exception of other means of publication - (1) if it was intended for a person other than the victim and reached that person or to another person other than the victim;".
- In accordance with the case law, "The existence of defamation is examined in four stages: "In the first stage, the meaning that arises from it must be determined according to the standards of a reasonable person, that is, according to an objective test, according to the circumstances and the language of the words. In the second stage, it is necessary to ascertain according to the purpose of the law whether it is a defamation expression under sections 1 and 2 of the law. In the third stage, it is necessary to ascertain whether the advertiser has one or more of the protections listed in sections 13-15 of the Law. At the fourth stage, the question of the compensation due to the victim must be discussed" (see Civil Appeal 89/04 Nudelman v. Sharansky [published in Nevo] (4.8.08)." (Labor Appeal (National) 46548-09-12 Avidan - Pelephone Communications Ltd., [published in Nevo], March 31, 2015).
It was further determined in the matter of Labor Appeal (National) 26198-07-13 Dr. Sigal Schwartz vs. Dr. Amir Abramovich [Nevo] (April 30, 2015) as follows: