(1) To humiliate a person in the eyes of others or to make him a target of hatred, To be scorned or ridiculed by them;
(2) Humiliating a person because of his actions, Behavior or attributes attributed to it;
(3) Harm a person in his position, Whether a public position or another position, In his business, In his occupation or profession;
(4) To despise a person because of his race, Origin, His religion, His place of residence, Discover, Gender, Sexual orientation or disability;
- The section lists 4 alternatives, one of which is sufficient for the publication to be considered defamation. The first alternative is the "basket alternative," and the other alternatives relate to concrete damage. Deciding whether a publication is defamatory is examined according to the criterion of the reasonable reader and how he understands the publication. The examination is objective and is not required for the victim to understand the publication or his feelings. Accordingly, the question is not the intention behind the publication, but rather "the message with which it leaves the viewer" ( Civil Appeal Dayan, 436). In case law in the trial courts, there is an approach that requires a higher threshold for the purpose of determining that advertising on a social network amounts to defamation, on the grounds that the weight that the public gives to these publications is lower than to publications in traditional ways (Civil Case (Shalom Tel Aviv) 31694-09-16 Gia Management and Restaurants in the Tax Appeal v. Konki, para. 12 (February 5, 2018); Civil Case in Rapid Procedure (Shalom Hai) 39205-09-18 Bubli v. Sheffer, paragraphs 80-84 (June 10, 2019)). (See also Shenhar, 111-116, on the special characteristics of publications on the Internet).
- Against this background, I will proceed to examine the publications that are the subject of the lawsuit attributed to Levinson:
First tweet: "Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Bullying at Work Avner Hofstein"
- Levinson shared part of the article in Politikaly, which deals with the plaintiff, and wrote: "Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Workplace Bullying, Avner Hofstein." As for the sharing of the article - since it was determined that defendants 1-3 had the same defense, Levinson also had the same defense. As for the accompanying tweet - it is true that attributing a description of a person who "abusers at work" to a person may constitute defamation, but in the circumstances of this case, an examination of the overall context leads to the conclusion that the expression does not amount to defamation.
First, the "regular reader" who is exposed to the tweets are "Twitter" consumers who are familiar with the characteristics of the network. It can be assumed that they follow or at least are familiar with Levinson' s page, are aware of the overall context of the matter, and do not look at the "tweet" in a detached way from it. Second, the phrase is not harsh enough, but rather evokes sarcasm and irony that characterize Levinson, and this should be given weight in examining the message left by the publication. Third, the expression "corresponds" with the way in which the plaintiff presents himself as an investigative journalist who has published a comprehensive investigation dealing with workplace bullying, and this should be read in this context. Fourth, weight should also be given to the fact that it was preceded by "Twitter fights" between the parties (the plaintiff himself tweeted that Levinson "supports workplace bullying") and it can be assumed that the ordinary reader in these circumstances is aware of the overall context, as stated.