The Supreme Court rejected the application for leave to appeal against this judgment (Civil Appeal Authority 4673/15) [Nevo].
- Thus, the case law has so far used the blatant false test as the sole test for examining Masada's duty to remove an offensive publication without a judicial order. In accordance with this test, when a removal request is presented to the Establishment with clear evidence that the content of a certain publication published in it is false or constitutes an illegal publication on its face, for which no factual clarification or legal clarification is required, it is obligated to remove the publication, even without a judicial order.
I will further emphasize that the case law did not mention the legal ground by virtue of which the duty of removal imposed on the institution arose, but it would seem that given that the Prohibition of Defamation Law does not apply for any of the reasons detailed above, the legal cause giving rise to the aforementioned duty may be the tort of negligence, in addition to other possibilities in the field of contract law.
- In our case, does the publication meet the test of clear falsehood?
In the interim decision given in this case, I was of the opinion that the prima facie conclusion that arises from viewing these files is that none of them meets the test of clear falsehood.
After the conclusion of the evidence case, I do not believe that it has been proven that this result should be changed.
The plaintiff did not point to any concrete passage that is clearly false on the face of it, in the sense that it does not require a shekel and tarya. A significant part of the content was claimed to be quotes from the report of the Center for Victims of Cults in the case of the plaintiffs (which did not provide evidence that they were clearly false), quotes from others about the plaintiffs (and it was not proven that the words were not said, nor was there any evidence that they were manifestly false), statements from the plaintiff himself about others and on issues on the agenda (and it was not denied that the plaintiff said these things), audio clips that were claimed to be from the plaintiff's son (and it was not denied that the speaker was the plaintiff's son, Here, too, no proof was brought that his words were clearly false.)