There is no room to accept the argument that the publication is defamation of the plaintiff, and in this regard the following will be brought:
- The first and main reason why the argument that the second publication is defamation (the publication relates to the surrogacy company) should not be accepted is that the second publication does not relate to the plaintiff at all. The publication refers to the surrogacy company, a legal entity separate from the plaintiff - whose ownership was sold to Danel.
The sale transaction to Danel, as also detailed in the proceeding, made it clear that the company's reputation belonged to Danel, and in fact, the transaction prevented any claim by the plaintiff to his personal reputation in the company. In the second publication - the plaintiff's case was not mentioned at all, and the criticism voiced in it - was a criticism leveled at the surrogate company. A company in which the plaintiff, as aforesaid, has no share.
- A second reason why the argument that the second publication is defamation (a silencing suit) should not be accepted - here too it should be said that the claim is a suit for silence. What reason did the plaintiff find in quarrelling with the company he sold, if he had not sought to silence the defendant?
It should also be said - if the plaintiff has already decided to quarrel with the company he sold, how did he choose to "tail", just like that, in the critics - when he refrained from suing the economic press and refrained from suing Danel or its officers - and chose to sue the link, perhaps the weakest, that is the defendant.
- The third of seven publications - the publication detailed in section 6.1(c) above (in which the plaintiff is also not mentioned personally)
For the sake of ease of reading, the publication will once again be brought back as it was done on the social network Facebook. The publication reads: "In my personal opinion - they did this in order to inflate the company's revenues before selling it. According to the Israeli embassy, they acted in violation of the law..." Following the comments on the post, the defendant added: "They continued to sign couples even though it was forbidden even during the Corona period because it was before the sale of the company."