(1) The libel was nothing more than a repetition of what had already been said, and he specified the source on which he relied;
(2) He was convinced of the truth of the slander;
(3) He did not intend to be harmed;
(4) He apologized for the publication, corrected or denied the defamation or took steps to stop the sale or distribution of the copy of the publication containing defamation, provided that the apology, correction or denial were published on the spot, to the extent and in the manner in which the defamation was published, and there were no qualifications."
These are, as stated, considerations in favor of the defendant - the advertiser. This is not a closed list, and the court must take into account the specific circumstances of the publication, in the specific case before it, both for the advertiser's right and for his obligation. '[shall] the amount of damages [reflect] in the most appropriate way the severity of the tort in question of defamation? The settled rule is that the court must take into account the special circumstances of the case and take into account, in addition to the nature of the tort itself, the conduct of the wrongdoer to the extent that it was malicious or unrestrained, the scope of the defamation and its publicity, as well as his conduct throughout the course of the trial...' - Civil Appeal 30/72 Friedman v. Segal PD 27(2), 225, 243.
It seems that when determining the compensation due to the plaintiff for each of the publications, we must take into account the plaintiff's humiliation in respect of the two publications and their blunt language. This should also be taken into account that throughout the course of the proceeding, the defendant did not express any remorse for the publication, or - at least - for his blunt language.
In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the defendant should be obligated to pay compensation in the sum of ILS 15,000 for each of the publications, and in total compensation in the amount of ILS 30,000.
- The Defendant's Counterclaim:
In the counterclaim, the defendant petitioned to charge the plaintiff with compensation in the amount of ILS 80,000.