In this case, my opinion is that the totality of the circumstances - the overall context of the publication shared by a post defending the plaintiff, the discourse that Levinson sought to provoke through it, as well as his cynical style - tip the scales to the determination that the publication does not exceed the "tolerable threshold of non-offensive expression" (the Heter-Yishai case, para. 41) and does not justify the imposition of liability for defamatory publication (See also the reasons I listed in the analysis of the first "tweet", which are also true in relation to this tweet).
Sixth tweet: "Hey Avner Hofstein, when are you suing?"
- This caption accompanies the sharing of the article on Channel 13. As stated above, asking a person when he is suing does not amount to defamation, especially where that person threatened to file a lawsuit earlier. As for the sharing of the article that was broadcast on Channel 13. Since I have determined that there is a defense against it, the cooperation does not constitute libelous publication in itself.
- Therefore, and to summarize this part, the aforementioned "tweets" do not amount to defamation under the law.
- Even if I had determined that the tweets, or some of them were defamatory, Levinson would have defenses for them. Taking into account the public interest in the publications and the fact that "Twitter" has become an acceptable advertising platform for journalists and public figures as a means of expressing an opinion and creating a discourse, it is possible to recognize the application of the protection of section 15(2). In this case, the defense of expression of opinion enshrined in section 15(4) may also be applied in circumstances in which "the publication was an expression of opinion on the conduct of the victim in a judicial, official or public capacity, in public service or in connection with a public interest, or on the character, past, actions or opinions of the victim to the extent that they were discovered in that conduct".
Although the plaintiff was not a public servant or public officer, he served at the relevant times as a senior editor at the Galei Tzahal station, as a civilian employee of the IDF, and is known to the public as a media person. In the literature, an approach has been expressed according to which "the list of public positions is not limited only to positions in which the subjects are public servants" (Shenhar, 635). In one case, a lawyer was recognized as a public figure (among soccer fans in Israel). In another case, the director of an association that works for cats was recognized as holding a public office (Civil Appeal (Hai District) 1301/03 The New Dog in the Tax Appeal v. Goldberg, paragraph 6 of the judgment of Judge (as he was then called) Y. Amit (January 29, 2004); Civil Case (Tel Aviv District) 2458/98 Adler Blue v. Schocken Chain Ltd., para. 8 (February 20, 2006)). The application of this expansive interpretation in our case leads to the conclusion that the plaintiff can be regarded as having a public office for the purpose of applicability of the defense.