Therefore, it can be said that this appeal to the station manager is protected under the protection set forth in section 15(8) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, where it was held:
"In a criminal or civil trial due to defamation, it will be a good defense if the defendant or defendant made the publication in good faith in one of the following circumstances:
...
(8) The publication was in the filing of a complaint about the victim in a matter to which the person to whom the complaint was submitted is in charge of the victim, by virtue of a law or contract, or a complaint submitted to the authority competent to receive complaints about the victim or to investigate the matter that is the subject of the complaint, but this provision does not confer protection on another publication of the complaint, the matter of its submission or its content."
It was not proven in this case that any of the qualifications listed in section 16(b) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law were met. This is especially so in light of the fact that the content of the appeal itself to the station manager has not been proven and has not even been presented to me. This is before the station manager, in which the plaintiff works, the same manager who is responsible for the plaintiff and his work at the station. The complaint was filed regarding the plaintiff's work at the station.
Therefore, insofar as the claim relates to this application to the station mana, it is liable to be dismissed.
- With regard to the additional ground on which the plaintiff based his claim, the "breach of privacy", I did not find that the plaintiff was able to prove it. The statement of claim claimed that the same violation of privacy was reflected in the publication of "his name, vehicle number, vehicle type, and taxi station details." This publication of an event that took place in the public domain does not answer any of the permanent alternatives In section 2 of the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981. Therefore, the lawsuit in this matter should be dismissed.
- We will conclude that at this stage we found that both the publication of the first post and the publication of the second post constituted prohibited defamatory publications. Regarding the amount of compensation for the person who was harmed by the defamation that was published against him, other requests were made by the municipality (Hai District) 20665-02-19 Tzuri v. Kershover, granted on June 16, 2019:
"67. The rule is that in a lawsuit under the Prohibition of Defamation Law, there is no need to prove actual damage: 'There is no need to prove that in fact damage was caused by defamation in various ways, and the judge's assessment of the damage that may be caused by the publication is sufficient'...