On the same day, the plaintiff requested a re-examination, and immediately on the same day, Meta responded:
"... An expert on our team double-reviewed the post and confirmed that it doesn't violate any of our Community Standards, including hate speech. We base our Community Standards on feedback from people who use Facebook around the world, as well as from experts."
- As part of its response to the questionnaires, Meta admitted that Meta's revenues from the promotion of 9 advertisements amounted to a total of ILS 30,605 (Exhibit 1, answer to question 8).
Defendants 4-6
- According to the claim, defendants 4-6 posted responses to the posts on Facebook, as follows:
Defendant 4 - "Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak said to burn (sic!) the books of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef";
Defendant 5 - "Amnon Yitzhak, the climbing cat, would break into houses";
Defendant 6 shared one of the posts on her Facebook page, and added a comment: "The former secular man posing as a rabbi."
The parties' arguments
The plaintiffs' arguments
- The publications constitute a funded campaign with a huge financial investment, the sole purpose of which is to harm and tarnish the plaintiff's image through videos in which he is portrayed as someone who abused his children, instructed his followers to threaten murder, is connected to murders, and is mentally ill and must be hospitalized. The plaintiff was portrayed in the campaign as a violent and dangerous cult involved in criminal acts, which should be distanced from her and her activities.
- The cause of action against Google and Meta is formulated, in paragraph 7 of the statement of claim, as follows:
"When the online platforms have become aware of the actual existence of offensive and wrongful publications on the networks and websites that they own and are responsible for, and these have refrained and refuse to remove them, their conduct establishes responsibility towards them, and they will be considered aiding and abetting the wrongdoing and being directly negligent. This, first, is in accordance with the integration of the provisions of section 7 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965, which applies to the tort of defamation provisions from the Torts Ordinance, including section 12, which deals with the liability of a collaborator and solicitor, and secondly - they are by virtue of the tort of tort negligence."