"There is no denying that the aforementioned mechanisms may be limited in terms of their ability to completely neutralize the chilling consequences that may be of filing lawsuits for social media posts. In this sense, too, the trial courts must be aware of the danger and act in light of the relevant concerns. It is to be hoped that after the matter is paved, things will become clearer and users will realize that frivolous claims that lack good faith for the purpose of silencing do not provide relief to the plaintiff and are dismissed out of hand. It is important and essential that social networks remain a vibrant place that includes the expression of diverse opinions, protests, fierce arguments, and harsh criticism - and this is also by disseminating all of these through the act of sharing. As in any other context with regard to defamation law, the goal before us is to eradicate the extreme and negative expressions found on the margins of the discourse, which do not contribute to the public debate but rather harm it."
- In the Shaul case, the Supreme Court insists that weight should be given to the type of expression that was shared and its content, and whether it was perceived as serious, credible, and trustworthy in the eyes of the sharer - since there is a difference between sharing a post by someone on a social network and sharing "factual content that originates from a newspaper article, an academic article, or any other context that indicates its truth in the eyes of the person who chooses to share it."From the position of the Attorney General that was submitted in the District Court in the Shaul case and quoted in the Supreme Court judgment, paragraph 25 of the judgment of Justice D. Barak-Erez). The Attorney General's position that "in these situations it is necessary to assume that in the case of the sharer, the condition of telling the truth for the purpose of establishing the defense of the truth of publication under section 14 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law exists" was not adopted by the Supreme Court, but it was noted that:
"As the Advisor noted, a strict requirement to conduct a comprehensive examination of any content that a user chooses to share as a condition for the application of the protection is not necessarily adapted to the manner of operation on social networks, where the sharing of journalistic articles, for example, is routinely done. This issue, which the parties did not argue about, will still have to be examined in the appropriate circumstances." (Shaul, paragraph 60)