Therefore, the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof required to prove that defendant 5 was behind the response, and that he was the one who published it.
Therefore, the lawsuit against him should be dismissed.
The Claim Against Defendant 6
- There is no dispute that defendant 6, 70 years old, shared one of the videos on her details page. In the affidavit, defendant 6 claimed that she was a follower of the plaintiff, and had been following his personal page for years. When she examined his visual footage, she shared the video automatically and inadvertently, and she was not exposed to the video at all before sharing it. She removed the video as soon as she found out what it was. The defendant attached to the affidavit six other publications of content relating to the plaintiff, all of which are positive towards the plaintiff. Defendant 6 further claimed that her words were true.
- In the summaries of defendant 6, it was argued that the plaintiff's affidavit did not include any allegations against her. This argument is correct, since the claims against the defendants are not included in the plaintiff's affidavit except by way of reference to a doctoral report. Although this is a technique that should not have been used, since the plaintiff's affidavit had room to explicitly state the publication, taking into account the admission of defendant 6 that she was the one who shared the publication in question, this omission was corrected.
- The cause of action against defendant 6 focused on the first part of the response in which it was stated that the plaintiff was a former secular Jew posing as a rabbi. I am of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, defendant 6 proved the existence of the defense of the truth of the publication, in accordance with section 14 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law. This is because the plaintiff did not dispute that he was secular in the past, and in his cross-examination, the plaintiff confirmed that he was never ordained as a rabbi (p. 191, paras. 2-8). This is sufficient to raise the burden required of defendant 6 to prove the defense.
- The second part of the claim against defendant 6 relates to the sharing of the video itself. I find it difficult to accept the arguments of defendant 6 in this context. First, even if the publication was uploaded unintentionally, it is not possible to evade responsibility for its publication. On the merits, it is difficult to accept the claim that defendant 6 did not know that this was a defamatory publication, since this clearly arises from the front of the video that pierces the words "he attacks his followers and the audience by cursing threats and intimidation of strange deaths". Moreover, in the cross-examination of defendant 6, it emerged that her claim that this was the first and last video she uploaded against the plaintiff was false, and she admitted that she had shared additional publications defaming the plaintiff (pp. 430-432 of the transcript).
- In view of the aforesaid, the claim against defendant 6 should be accepted, in relation to the sharing of the publication and not in relation to the content of the response. However, since the scope of the partnership has not been proven, the compensation must be on the lower side, and I obligate defendant 6 to pay the plaintiff the sum of ILS 5,000.
Conclusion
- In light of all the above, I state as follows:
- The lawsuit against Google and Meta is dismissed. The plaintiffs will bear the attorney's fees of Google and Meta in the sum of ILS 50,000 each. There is no order for expenses for the expenses of Google and Meta's witnesses or an order for indemnification for other expenses incurred by Google and Meta, since it turned out that the testimony of the witnesses on behalf of Google and Meta was irrelevant to the hearing and decision here.
- The claim against defendant 4 is accepted. Defendant 4 will pay the plaintiff the sum of ILS 1,000. There is no order for costs.
- The claim against defendant 5 is dismissed. The plaintiffs will bear the fees of Defendant 5 in the sum of ILS 10,000.
- The claim against defendant 6 is accepted. Defendant 6 will pay the plaintiff the sum of ILS 5,000. There is no order for costs.
The right to appeal to the District Court within 60 days.