There is no room to accept the argument that the publication is defamatory, and in this regard the following will be brought:
- The first reason why the argument that the sixth publication is defamation should not be accepted with all due respect, is that the publication does not contain independent statements that are defamatory, and certainly not defamation directed at the plaintiff. The publication refers to the fact that the defendant wishes to conduct an investigation about the surrogacy company, as well as about other companies, and declares the defendant's intention to act in this field; Even the photos in the publication are not necessarily of the plaintiff, but also of Danel's CEO - that is, the publication of photos of the surrogacy company's managers. I have given my opinion that the motive for the investigation is the personal injury of the defendant and her spouse from the conduct of the surrogacy company - but at the same time it should be emphasized that the defendant is a journalist and hence, conducting a journalistic investigation by her is not unfounded.
The fact that a journalistic investigation of the surrogacy company's exploits is not unfounded, is evident from the fact that at the end of the day, the investigation reached an article that was broadcast on television and even published in writing under the title " The Broken Market of Surrogacy in Georgia." In this regard, see paragraph 5 of the defendant's affidavit, in which it is written as follows - "... The investigation yielded an article brought by Yolan Cohen on 04/04/2024, after many postponements, some of which are understandably related to the war. In addition to the broadcast of the article on Channel 12 News, a broadcast that made waves, the written article also appeared on the Mako website and I was later invited to the channel's morning show. It didn't end there. Following the research provoked, they also produced a podcast on the subject of "One a Day", where they expanded and developed the subject, which was also published on the front page of Mako. Another proof that this is an issue of public importance and that important journalistic work has been done."
- The second reason why the argument that the sixth publication is defamation (expression of opinion) should not be accepted - even if the publication constituted defamation, it should be noted again that the publication and the need to conduct an investigation, not only about the surrogacy company, is an expression of opinion. Again, it should be noted that this is not a baseless opinion, since it has already been clarified above and the facts and criticism that was leveled at the sale transaction were presented. It should also be said that this is not a far-fetched opinion - which has already been clarified and presented above how, miraculously, after the sale of the surrogacy company, it turned out to be an empty vessel. As for a publication that is an expression of opinion, in order not to burden the judgment here, I will refer to the reasons stated in section 11.2.2 above.
- Third reason why the argument that the sixth publication is defamatory (a suit for silence) should not be accepted - even if the publication constituted defamation, once again one must wonder why the lawsuit was filed in respect of this publication, when the plaintiff did not demand anything and remained silent in the face of publications in the press and against Danel and its officers. Even in the face of the channels on which the article was published - on television, on podcasts and in other written newspapers - the plaintiff did nothing. Here, too, the characteristics of a proceeding whose purpose is a silencing claim can be clearly seen. As to the fact that this is a claim for silence, in order not to burden the judgment here, I will refer to the reasons stated in clause 11.2.3 above.
- Publication Seventh of the Seven - The Publication Mentioned in Section 6.2(d) Above
The seventh publication, as it was called here, is the same publication that was defined in the statement of claim as "the first publication". Again, I would like to point out that there is another confusion between the definition of the publication in the statement of claim, its definition in the affidavit, and its definition in the plaintiff's summaries. In the statement of claim, the publication in both places was defined as "the first publication" - and see paragraphs 26-27 of the statement of claim; In the plaintiff's affidavit as well, the publication in both places was defined as "the first publication" - see paragraphs 22-23 of the affidavit; In the framework of the plaintiff's summaries, it was claimed that this was a separate, additional, and independent publication which was the "fourth publication" (paragraph 20 of the plaintiff's summaries).