Transition note - Even if it turns out that one statement or another by the defendant did indeed defame the plaintiff, the framework in which it was said and the overall public discourse are still important. How to relate to this discourse? Is the defendant, who is a journalist who was also a client of the surrogacy company and was burned by her actions, prevented from participating in the discourse? Should the defendant be silenced? All of these, and also, of course, the question of whether the publications constitute defamation - will be addressed in section 11 below.
- Discussion of the third of three issues - Individual reference to the publications attributed to the defendant
- Overview
The statement of claim referred to three publications by the defendant, and these were detailed in clause 6.1 above. In addition, the plaintiff referred to four additional publications (some of which overlap) - and these were detailed in section 6.2 above.
On the face of it, we should relate only to the specific claims of the statement of claim, i.e., to the three alleged publications. However, for the sake of caution, I will refer to all seven publications - i.e. those listed in clause 6.1 above and those in clause 6.2 above.
- First of seven publications - the publication specified in section 6.1(a) above
For the sake of ease of reading, the publication will be brought once again -
"Hey friends,
I assume that you also read the article about Manor/Danel today
I will summarize the main points: "Going Concern" note.
A loss of ILS 3.1 million in the first quarter of this year.
A loss of ILS 1.8 million in the second quarter.
If you sign with Manor. Keep that in mind. I don't know if there will be someone to repay.
I want to put a few things in the article in a different light.
Ami Manor writes in the article that Danel has experienced a 40% decline in surrogacy agreements, and all this due to his departure from the company.
In my opinion, and again this is my opinion only, Ami Manor signed agreements in order to inflate the company's value, knowing that he would not meet his obligations and agreements.