It goes on to say:
I can say that precisely because it was Avner and in light of what was revealed that they did to him at Galatz, we debated a lot about the matter, we were especially careful, and that's how we presented things. We also really believed that his name wouldn't be the one to make headlines, but the inability to deal with what women say about him leads to the fact that now we're all fighting over the one paragraph that deals with him.
In response to the plaintiff's tweet on Twitter, defendant 3 wrote as follows:
You're talking tomorrow on a panel about silencing lawsuits and their impact on the press, right? I understand that you were brought in on the side of the pro.
III. Pleadings
III(1) The Statement of Claim
- The lawsuit claims that the article in Politikaly published false remarks about the plaintiff attributing to him the behavior of a serial sexual harasser towards two young female soldiers who worked with him. It was also claimed that he was presented as a sex deviant, as someone whose behavior included incessant sexual touching, verbal harassment, and explicit sexual expressions. It was claimed that the female soldiers quoted anonymously set sail with imaginary and false descriptions about him, while attributing to him a lack of understanding of what was wrong with his actions. It was claimed that this was a sinister story that was examined and did not actually contain it, and that his name was included in the article even though it was not necessary.
It was further argued that defendants 1-3 ignored the plaintiff's sweeping denial that had been given to them in advance, and chose to publish the matter out of considerations of publicity and the promotion of an agenda, even though the complaints had been examined in the past and rejected. It was claimed that the words were presented in the article in a one-sided manner, while ignoring the possibility that the plaintiff's version was the truth and that the soldiers' statements were a crow.