It was claimed that defendant 3, in the publications she made on social media, backed up the defamatory statements published against him in the article, attributed to him behaviors that were not his, with the aim of harming the plaintiff, humiliating him and making fun of him, and that she turned the plaintiff into an ugly "example" in order to decorate a sloppy article about a "method" and as a result allowed herself to spill the plaintiff's blood.
- As for the publication on Channel 13, it was claimed that it retracted the lies published in the Politikaly article, without checking the facts at all, and added lies such as portraying him as a "sexual predator." It was further claimed that defendants 4 and 5 broadcast the interview with "Dana" even though they knew or should have known that there were question marks regarding her reliability. It was argued that the things that were published on Channel 13 were even more serious than what was published in the article, and that although the article dealt with a number of different events, Channel 13 focused only on him, and thus the damage to him was intensified, since the reasonable viewer understands the things that were said in their entirety as attributed to him.
- It was claimed that the publications in Politikali and Channel 13 were not true, because they were made in bad faith and in deviation and disregard of every basic journalistic norm, while presenting a distorted picture of the plaintiff without giving him a fair opportunity to address the allegations against him. It was claimed that the defendants ignored the fact that at that time heavy political pressure was exerted to cause the plaintiff to be removed from Army Radio.
- With regard to defendant 6, it was alleged that he published on social media the false claims published in Politikali and Channel 13, and deliberately trampled on the plaintiff's good name, without checking the matter or presenting them fairly, while dripping with venom, poison, hatred, contempt and ridicule for the plaintiff.
- It was argued that all the publications caused the plaintiff serious damage, his good name, his profession and his profession as an investigative journalist. It was also claimed that the publications harmed and humiliated him in front of all, and took a heavy mental, family, financial and professional price from him without any wrongdoing.
III(2) Statement of Defense - Politically
- In the statement of defense, defendants 1-3 claim that the investigation is based on meticulous journalistic work that was done over more than a year, and that it focuses on the poor conduct of Army Radio regarding sexual harassment. It was argued that the part dealing with the plaintiff is not at the center of the article. It presents the events that took place from the perspective of two young female soldiers who served alongside the plaintiff in a responsible manner, as told by them, and focuses on Galatz's poor conduct in handling the affair.
- It was also argued that the investigation was protected under the protection of the truth of publication in section 14 of the law. that the part of the article in relation to the plaintiff is based on the direct testimonies of two female soldiers who suffered from his actions, and that, contrary to the plaintiff's claims, the alleged acts were not clarified and no decision was made about them due to the female soldiers' choice not to file an official complaint.
- According to defendants 1-3, the investigation is also covered by the defenses of good faith: the protection of section 15(2) of the law, according to which by virtue of their duties they have a moral and social duty to publish the matter ("protection of responsible journalism") and the protection of section 15(3) of the law, since the publication is done for the purpose of protecting the interest of the defendants in which the defendants have a legitimate personal interest. It was also argued that to the extent that it is determined that the publication or part thereof constitutes an expression of opinion, then the protection of section 15(4) of the Law also arises, since the publications express an expression of an opinion about the plaintiff's conduct while he is in a public position, in public discourse or in connection with a public interest.
- It was claimed that the plaintiff was contacted prior to publication. In his reply, he did not claim that the time given to him for a response was too short and did not ask for an additional time. The plaintiff chose not to provide a detailed and substantive response, but rather flatly denied the allegations in his case and threatened to sue him. As to the claim of political pressure, it was argued that insofar as there is substance to it, they are not related to the serious allegations raised by the complainants against the plaintiff about his conduct constituting sexual harassment. It was argued that there is reason to assume that the plaintiff knows that what was published is true, and that is why he did not sue the two female soldiers who were interviewed for their words, even though he knew their identities and even though he threatened on social media that he would sue them.
- As for defendant 3's publications on the social media, it was claimed that they do not amount to defamation and were written in the framework of a discussion that arose following the investigation. It was argued that in response to the publication of criticism of the article by the plaintiff's friend, Birnit Goren, defendant 3 responded to the remarks and expressed a position condemning the phenomenon of the density of the lines out of collegiality. Defendant 3 further emphasized that the plaintiff is not at the heart of the article, but is one of a number of journalists mentioned in the article, and that it is his aggressive stance that intensifies his preoccupation.
- It was claimed that the investigation did not cause the plaintiff any damage, because he himself claimed that the institutions that employed him did not take the publication seriously and that full confidence was expressed in him.
III(3) Statement of Defense - Channel 13
- The investigative article published in Politikali dealt with the flawed organizational culture of Army Radio, the poor handling of complaints of sexual harassment, incompetence, and sometimes the disclosure of the identity of complainants against their will. The article also published testimonies of two female soldiers regarding the plaintiff's misconduct. Defendant 4 did not publish an investigative report, but rather broadcast an "item" about the investigative article on the "Before the News" program, which included an interview with one of the female soldiers who complained and with defendant 2 (who was not sued herself for the interview on Channel 13). This is a clear "follow-up" publication following the investigative report that made waves. Following the investigation, various articles appeared on various websites.
- The interview did not include new allegations that were not previously made in the investigative report, it did not make an objective determination about the plaintiff, and all that was said in it was by defendant 2 and one of the complainants, who shared her difficult feelings regarding the plaintiff and her disappointment with the way the complaints were handled in real time. The phrase "predator" was uttered by the complainant, as someone who expressed her opinion and shared her experience in her joint work with the plaintiff. Defendants 4 and 5 acted in accordance with their professional duty in advertising.
- The plaintiff was given the opportunity to respond, but he chose to respond in a casual and laconic manner only, without specifying what the alleged false claims were and how they were refuted. The plaintiff's position that it is forbidden to conduct "follow-up" reports and interview the subjects of the original publication undermines the foundations of freedom of expression. The prosecution is an attempt to silence any discussion of the affair and constitutes an abuse of the legal process.
- It was argued that the things that were published were true and there was a public interest in their publication, and defendants 4 and 5 have the defense of the truth of the publication in section 14 of the Law. If there was any inaccuracy, it was an ancillary detail that was not seriously harmed.
- According to defendants 4 and 5, the publications are also protected by the defenses of good faith, including that they acted according to the standard of "responsible journalism" under section 15(2) of the Law. This is reinforced where the plaintiff is a journalist known for his publications on the subject of bullying by senior officials against subordinates in the workplace. The matter was published in good faith in order to protect the complainant's legitimate personal interest in accordance with section 15(3) of the Law. The defendants also have the protection of section 15(4) of the Law, since the publications express an opinion about the plaintiff's conduct in connection with a public interest. According to the defendants, the defense in section 15(6) of the Law has also arisen, and they have the presumption of good faith under the law.
III(4) Statement of Defense - Levinson
- According to defendant 6, behind the "tweets" that are the subject of the lawsuit is a previous dispute between him and the plaintiff over an article published by the plaintiff on the "Israel Time" website that attributes acts of workplace harassment to Lisa Peretz, a former editor of the "Gallery" supplement of the Haaretz newspaper. Levinson criticized the plaintiff's publication in the case of Lisa Peretz. The prosecutor reacted sharply to this and published harsh and defamatory statements against Levinson.
- According to defendant 6, he did not publish a "tweet" by an anonymous or unsubstantiated source, but rather an investigative article of a journalistic website that was not predicted to have been done casually but after examination and preliminary journalistic work. It is not clear what statements constitute libel attributed to him, and what is stated in the tweets is, at most, an expression of a legitimate opinion about an investigative article by a journalistic body. It was argued that the opinion of defendant 6 was not expressed in a vacuum, but against the background of the previous dispute between them and the harsh and offensive statements made by the plaintiff towards him.
- With regard to the first "tweet", it was claimed that the phrase "Mr. Workplace Bullying" stems from the fact that the plaintiff presents himself as someone who fights the phenomenon of workplace bullying, published articles on the subject and dealt with it a lot on his personal Twitter account. Therefore, this is not defamation, but at most an expression of an opinion by defendant 6 about the plaintiff.
- Regarding the second "tweet," it was claimed that in response as part of a series of tweets, the defendant asked the plaintiff if he intended to resign, like Lisa Peretz, whose job at Haaretz newspaper ended after the plaintiff's article on her case. This is not defamation, but a legitimate question in itself, certainly against the backdrop of the accusations leveled by Levinson in previous publications. At most, it is an expression of a protected opinion.
- Regarding the third "tweet," it was claimed that it was Levinson's response to the plaintiff's response in a Twitter thread, and when the plaintiff threatened to sue him, Levinson replied that the lawsuits could be provided directly to his attorney. It was argued that this is not defamation, and in any case it is a protected publication, including under section 13 of the Law, since the publication was made in the context of a legal proceeding. Even with regard to the fourth and sixth "tweets" in which the plaintiff wondered when the lawsuit would be filed, it was argued that they did not amount to defamation.
- Regarding the fifth tweet, which was published in response to a Facebook post by Birnit Goren expressing support for the plaintiff, Levinson claims that in the same post, the author attacked him by referring to "despicable colleagues." In response, he replied, "There are VIP harassers," referring to the way Birnit Goren backed the plaintiff, while she would not have behaved in the same way in relation to others.
- As stated, according to Levinson, the publications do not defame the plaintiff. Alternatively, and to the extent that it is determined that he has published defamation, he has the following protections: truth in publication under section 14 of the law, good faith under sections 15(2), 15(3), 15(4), 15(6), 15(10). With regard to the publications that dealt with the filing of the lawsuit, it also has the protections of sections 13(5) and 13(7) of the Law.
III(5) Write a Reply
- The plaintiff submitted a reply. It was argued that the complainants' complaint (who did not file an official complaint) referred only to verbal harassment. According to him, this was an inconvenience felt by the complainants in light of what the plaintiff said in their presence and in the presence of many other people, in a spontaneous response to a rude and inappropriate item that was broadcast on a television program with Yaron London. According to him, in real time there was no mention of the serious allegations raised in the article.
- According to the plaintiff, there was no justification for including him in the article because, unlike the cases covered in the article, his case was examined, reached the highest levels, and he was even suspended for a short time until it became clear that it was a great commotion for nothing.
- The plaintiff further claims that defendants 1-3 contacted for a response a few hours before publication, did not take into account the categorical denial that was given to them on his behalf, and did not stop or make further inquiries. It was argued that there was no truth in the claims of defendants 4 and 5 that the main points of the affair had been published in the past, that the request for his response prior to publication was false and misleading, and that defendants 4 and 5 had " targeted killing" him in the publication. As for defendant 6, it was claimed that he ran a mocking and slanderous "smear campaign" against the plaintiff on Twitter for many days, and that there was no relevance to previous publications on the Internet, as part of a war that defendant 6 launched against the plaintiff.
- The course of the litigation
- On December 27, 2022, the first pre-trial meeting was held. On that date, a hearing was held on the motions submitted as part of the list of motions, and the parties' agreement to transfer the affidavits of the complainants that were in the possession of defendants 1-3 (to the plaintiff and his counsel only - it was agreed that they would not be transferred to third parties); and the conduct of the interviews that dealt with the plaintiff conducted by defendants 1-3 prior to the publication of the article.
- The parties submitted their evidence in affidavits of the main witness. The plaintiff submitted affidavits of the following witnesses: his own; of Mrs. Hadas Steif; of Ms. Birnit Goren, who is in charge of the plaintiff as editor of the Zaman Israel news website; of Mr. David Wertheim, who served in 2016 as the editor of the "Walla Branje" section; of Ms. Tanya Polyak, who served as the head of the Chief of Staff for Women's Affairs at Galatz; of Ms. Nurit Canetti, who worked with the plaintiff at Galatz and serves as chairperson of the Journalists' Association; and of Mrs. Linoy Bar-Geffen.
- On behalf of defendants 1-3, the affidavits of the main witness of defendants 2-3 were submitted themselves, as well as the affidavits of the main witness of the two complaining soldiers (while a gag order was requested regarding their names or any identifying details about them). On behalf of defendants 4 and 5, affidavits were submitted by Ms. Noam Goldberg Youngman, who served as the editor of the program. On behalf of defendant 6, an affidavit of himself and an affidavit of Mr. Hadar Schiffer, who served during the relevant period as deputy head of the news department at Galatz, were submitted.
- In a decision dated May 10, 2023, I ordered a prohibition on the publication of the names of the complainants and details that may lead to their identification. The plaintiff's request (which was submitted as part of his response to the request) to prohibit the publication of the contents of the complainants' affidavits was also denied.
- On June 8, 2023, a summary pre-trial hearing was held after the affidavits were submitted. The hearing discussed the request of defendants 4 and 5 to delete the affidavit of Mr. David Wertheim, in which it was stated that political pressure was exerted on the part of Ilan Yeshua and Nir Hefetz to publish a report against the plaintiff on the Walla website regarding the complaints about the harassment. At the end of the hearing, the plaintiff announced that he agreed to the deletion of Mr. Wertheim's affidavit from the file.
- The hearing also discussed the request of defendants 4 and 5 to receive documents together with a public servant's certificate from the Ministry of Defense, in connection with the clarification process conducted by the IDF in relation to the complaints against the plaintiff. It was determined that after the documents are received, the plaintiff will be entitled to submit an affidavit of supplementary primary testimony on his behalf in relation to them. A request for reconsideration filed by the state was rejected on December 22, 2023.
- On January 25, 2024, February 1, 2024, and February 8, 2024, evidentiary hearings were held in the recording. At the hearing held on January 25, 2024, the plaintiff testified on behalf of Ms. Tanya Polyak, Ms. Nurit Canetti, Ms. Linoy Bar Geffen, Ms. Hadas Steif, and Ms. Birnit Goren. In the hearing held on February 1, 2024, the plaintiff and the complainants testified. In the hearing held on February 8, 2024, defendants 2, 3, and 6, as well as Ms. Noam Goldberg Youngman and Mr. Hadar Schiffer, testified. For the sake of convenience, the referral to the evidentiary hearings shall be made as Minutes 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
The complainants will be referred to in the judgment by the pseudonyms used in the article ("Dana" and "Sapir").