In this context, the lawsuit against Google and Meta raises three questions of fact, and three normative questions, which need to be decided:
At the level of questions of fact:
- Do the publications amount to "defamation" in accordance with theProhibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter: the "Prohibition of Defamation Law")?
- Did the plaintiffs prove that the advertisements were published on Facebook, and did they contact Meta with a request to remove them?
- Has it been proven that the plaintiffs know who the creators and advertisers of the advertisements are?
At the level of normative questions:
- Does Masada's refusal to remove a publication that includes defamation give rise to the victim a cause of action against Massadat in accordance with theProhibition of Defamation Law?
- Does Masada have a duty of care towards the object of the offensive publication, in accordance with sections 35-36 of the Torts Ordinance [New Version] (hereinafter: the "Torts Ordinance")?
- If so, given the facts of this case, were Google and Meta negligent in removing the publications that are the subject of this lawsuit?
Discussion and Decision - Questions of Fact
Do the publications amount to defamation?
- Section 1 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law states that:
"Defamation is something whose publication is liable:
(1) to humiliate a person in the eyes of others or to make him a target of hatred, contempt, or ridicule on their part;
(2) degrading a person for actions, behavior, or attributes attributed to him;
(3) harm a person in his office, whether a public office or any other position, in his business, occupation or profession;
(4) to degrade a person because of his race, origin, religion, place of residence, age, sex, sexual orientation or disability;
When determining the meaning of a phrase, it is not enough to look at its literal meaning. This was discussed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Case 4534/02 Schocken Network in Tax Appeal v. Herzikovich, IsrSC 58 (3) 558, 570 (2004), when it ruled that the reasonable interpretation of the words should be given to the expression, according to the context in which the words were spoken, taking into account the nature of the matter and in accordance with the accepted perceptions of a reasonable person. The objective test for the interpretation of the phrase is based on an examination of the meaning of the phrase in the eyes of a reasonable reader, but it is done while examining the overall context in which the words alleged to be defamatory were said [Civil Appeal 1104/00 Appel v. Hasson, IsrSC 56 (2) 607, 617-618 (2002)]. Therefore, it is not the intention behind the publication that it will point to the existence of defamation, but rather the message with which it leaves the reasonable reader [(Civil Appeal 751/10 Anonymous v. Dayan-Orbach IsrSC 66 (3) 369, paragraph 83 of the judgment of the Honorable Vice-President Justice Rivlin (2012)].
- In our case, the publications are dramatically edited and their common denominator is the presentation of the plaintiff as an impostor and the head of a violent cult, which encourages its members to resort to violence against those who oppose the plaintiff. In addition, the plaintiff is portrayed in these videos as someone who exploits his followers financially and impoverished, and controls them with mental control to the point of turning them into a herd without independent thought. I am of the opinion that this way of presenting the plaintiff, as a whole, amounts to "defamation" in accordance with each of the first three alternatives in section 1 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law.
Was it proven that the posts were published on Facebook, and was it proven that the plaintiffs approached Meta with an appropriate request to remove them?
- According to Meta, the plaintiffs have not proven at all that any of the videos were posted on Facebook. According to her, all the videos that are the subject of the lawsuit were removed from YouTube, and the plaintiffs did not present any evidence that they were also published on Facebook. Among other things, the plaintiffs did not provide Meta with specific URLs (hereinafter: "domain addresses") from which the videos can supposedly be located on Facebook, as required under the doctrine of "notify and remove".
- Meta's claim should be rejected.
First, it appears that one of the videos was posted on the Facebook page "Judaism Against Cults" and received 1,000 comments and 557 shares.