If so, it can be assumed that the reader who is familiar with the characteristics of the network and the overall context understands the tweet as a criticism and irony that corresponds with previous harsh "tweets" that the parties exchanged between them, and does not amount to defamation. In a similar context, it was held that "there may be difficulty in the claim of a person who is so active on the social network and who believes that every subject and matter is worthy of a tweet, according to which when a tweet is published about him, he believes that the matter is of no public interest (Civil Case (Mount) 29483-05-18 Rahav v. Levinson, para. 42 (May 26, 2021)). See also Civil Appeal (District Judge) 17865-05-23 Asulin v. Tzubari, paragraph 32 (September 26, 2023), where the court noted that a cynical statement made in response to the other party' s claim, even if it is unsuccessful and insulting, does not cross the threshold for defamation.
Second tweet: "What's going on? Will you quit like Lisa?"
- This "tweet" was published in response to the first "tweet". The background to this publication is the affair described above in the case of Lisa Peretz and her dismissal following the investigative report published by the plaintiff. Without going into this affair, which is not our business - and the dispute between the plaintiff and Levinson as a result - the tweet does not ask the plaintiff whether he intends to resign following the article in Politikali in order to constitute defamation. Even if Levinson sought to provoke and anger the plaintiff - how can this still be done in order to make the expression one that meets the definition of defamation according to the law?
Third tweet: "Court transcripts can be sent to the office of Leonid & Co. on Yehuda Halevi Street, Discount Building"
- In response to the second tweet (and in the same thread that also included the first "tweet"), the plaintiff wrote to Levinson, "Don't worry, you will sue too"; In response, Levinson responded: "Court transcripts can be sent to the office of Leonid & Co., Yehuda Halevi Street, Discount Building" (hereinafter: "the third tweet"). This publication does not contain the slightest expression of libel or defamation. As stated, even if Levinson's intention was to provoke the plaintiff (and it is certainly possible that this was the case), the publication that was stated in the name of the production of court writs does not constitute defamation.
Fourth Tweet: Daily Follow-up on Hofstein's Lawsuit and the "Sting" of the Publication
- In response to the plaintiff's announcement that he intends to sue anyone who shares the article, including Levinson (whom the plaintiff calls "stupid"), Levinson tweeted: "Avner Hofstein promises that he will sue the Politikali website, and for some reason me, for their investigation with testimonies about his sexual harassment on Army Radio. We will consult the thread and monitor every day how the lawsuit is progressing" - a publication that echoes Hofstein's statement that he intends to sue for sharing the article, and which was published in response to the plaintiff's publication, does not amount to defamation. Even the "sticking" of the publication at the top of the page and Levinson's statement "to monitor every day how the lawsuit is progressing" is at most a provocation, and does not constitute a phrase that meets the definition of defamation.
Fifth tweet: "There are VIP harassers"
- This caption was accompanied by the sharing of a Facebook post published by journalist Birnit Goren, who came out in defense of the plaintiff. Attribution of the title of harasser or harasser "VIP" may amount to a phrase that meets the definition of defamation under the law, since it may "humiliate a person in the eyes of others or make him a target of hatred, contempt or ridicule on their part" (section 1(1) of the law), as well as fall within the scope of section 1(2) and section 1(3) of the law. On the other hand, the publication shows that this is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, and that it is criticism and irony of the journalist Birnit Goren and the phenomenon of "crowding of ranks," and the hypocrisy of media people who, according to Levinson, automatically came to the plaintiff's defense.
In the case of the New Contract Association, Justice N. Sohlberg noted that "on the spectrum between the expressions that constitute defamation, and those that are not, it is clear that publications that are characterized as an expression of an opinion, as a rule, will be closer to the other pole than to the first (ibid., at paragraph 19) and that "The classification of publication as an opinion is therefore intended only to blunt the potential for harm (when in certain cases the reduction of the potential for harm will reach the point of removing the publication from the category of 'defamation')" (ibid., at paragraph 33). The Supreme Court recognized the value and importance of satirical expression, which may sometimes be defiant, blunt, sarcastic, and even provocative, in order to create a public debate (Herzikovich, para. 11), and that in the tension between the right to a good name and freedom of expression, the interpretation according to which the expression does not constitute defamation should be preferred (ibid., at para. 13). It was also held that the weight that should be given to the right to a good name is weakened even when it comes to a public figure, who has great access to the media, and is at the center of a public debate (ibid., at paragraph 14).