Sorry you didn't bother to ask, because what have you already done, it's all an autistic girl to hold back. Go whining to Facebook, and most importantly clean up your Mercedes because what you did can't be cleaned.
I despise you."
- It seems that the same things that were said above in relation to the first post, both in relation to the fact that it is a defamatory publication and in relation to the failure to prove the existence of the permanent defense In section 14 The Prohibition of Defamation Law is also completely relevant in relation to this post. Again, this is not just a case of hurling insults at another person during a loud argument, insults that are uttered in a storm of emotions. Again, this is a Facebook post, which was not made during the loud quarrel between the plaintiff and the defendant, but after a considerable period of time had already passed. The nature of this type of publication is that it is done after thought and not as an immediate reaction to and during a loud fight. This circular publication, which was made after the passage of time, is worse than the previous publication, and certainly does not deserve the protection, which can be insulted, which is said in a storm. This is a matter of re-publication and the re-imagining of an issue, which was already addressed in the previous publication, in a manner that could have harmed the plaintiff and his profession. Therefore, I am of the opinion that because of the content of this publication and because of the manner in which it was published and even the timing of the publication, it is a publication of defamation. Once again, the defendant did not meet the burden imposed on her, and did not prove that this publication was true, neither in relation to the event itself nor in relation to the removal of the first publication from the Facebook website.
- The plaintiff also complains about another alleged publication, the defendant's appeal to the taxi station manager demanding his dismissal. The very existence of this alleged request has not been proven at all. The testimony of the station manager, Mr. Ovadia Menashe, indicates that the plaintiff was the one who shared the details of the incident with him, and even showed him a video (p. 19 of the transcript, lines 17-21).
Indeed, in one of the defendant's responses, which was attached as part of Appendix 1A to the plaintiff's affidavit, it was stated: "In a conversation with the station manager in my presence, he said that the taxi is not a restaurant." This confirms the claim that the defendant approached the station manager in which the plaintiff worked. However, the content of this request has not been proven.