It was none other than the defendant who told how, with great initiative and talent, and the words were not written with cynicism or light-headedness, she and others were able to even join the "WhatsApp" groups, of which the plaintiffs are members, in order to be able to follow the discourse there and, according to their wishes, also take part in it or, at the very least, gather information (Transcript, at p. 65, paras. 18-21). It was the defendant who testified - again not the widower of Israel - how she was able to locate the telephone number of plaintiff 1 through the Internet search engine and by perusing the online telephone book of the moshav, in which the plaintiff lives (ibid., at p. 66, paras. 13-14). The defendant also searched for her talent and found that "[plaintiff 3] himself posted his phone on Twitter, [and] himself [wrote:] 'Call me' or he asked for donations through 'bit' [payment app], through his phone" (ibid., at p. 71, paras. 22-24). "I have 'Telegram,'" the defendant summed up her extensive access to online means of expression, "I have 'Facebook,' I have 'Instagram.' On Twitter, I have only 11,000 followers" (ibid., at p. 69, paras. 19-20).
Truth: The characteristics of the defendant's conduct on the Internet reveal that he is, with all due respect, a fairly sophisticated and well-trained figure. In the age of social networks, in which the defendant is privileged to publish her positions by mentioning her name, her familiar nickname and her picture, she does not suffer from a "media inferiority" in relation to any of the plaintiffs. The fact that a significant part of the public discourse is currently conducted in the online space has revolutionized its accessibility. It enabled skilled and resourceful surfers like the defendant, and even less skilled surfers, to bring their messages, in an easy and accessible manner, to the attention of many. It revealed, perhaps to the surprise of some, the wide accessibility of online expression, the many possibilities it provides to those who hold it, and its power in the hands of those whom the defendant calls "ordinary citizens" and who are "actors", sometimes quite sophisticated, on the platform of free expression (see, on this matter, Uri Shenhar Defamation Law 111 (Second Edition 2024)).
- The defense added the idea that the entire purpose of the lawsuit was to silence the defendant and the positions that it seeks to make public, the defense added and supported the statement, which had been heard by one of the plaintiffs in the past, that "the days of playing in front of an empty gate are over" and the fact that the plaintiffs filed a significant number of other defamation lawsuits against others. These matters in themselves do not, in my opinion, lay a basis for the claim of a suit for estoppel. Had the plaintiffs sought to attack, in a proceeding before this court, the positions expressed by the defendant on matters that are at the center of the public discourse, there could have been a feasibility for her claim. But what, ostensibly, was asked to be "silenced" here? The defendant's suggestion that who, who wants to purchase diapers, should turn to plaintiffs 3 and 4? Her suggestion that he, who wants eggs and oil, turn to the mobile phone of the Prof. Bressler? Her suggestion that who, whose home is in Eilat and who is looking for cleaning services, should turn to an engineer from the industry? Where is the silencing here, in the sense of abuse of the legal process? What is the expression whose silencing threatens to harm the public discourse and narrow its boundaries? I won't know.
After all, the defendant, who told me that "it was a humorous tweet, ironically, it was a piece of laughter" (Protocol, at p. 67, paras. 26 and 31; p. 69, paras. 14), did not protest in the name of the joked expression. She did not demand that she be allowed to continue posting jokes on the social network, which bring a person to tears of laughter. The defendant, who in any case argued that she did not seek to bring about the harassment of the plaintiffs and the violation of their privacy, did not come out against the chilling effect, which could lead to calls for harassment and intrusion into a person's mother's body. Her argument that the lawsuit should be dismissed relied on the fear - which should never be brought before the court - of the restriction of freedom of expression, in the context of the political and moral dispute between the parties. I do not believe that such a concern has any basis, whether in the very filing of the claim or in the granting of it.
- Third The defendant argued that the amount of the claim was "inflated" - A matter that is indeed recognized in case law as a possible indication of a lawsuit, the purpose of which is to intimidate defendants. Although, certainly, this Court has something to say regarding the maximum alternative claimed by the plaintiffs and the manner in which the amount of compensation they claimed (below) is calculated, the statement of claim sets out a number of alternatives which, taking into account their content and the fact that they are no less than four different plaintiffs and two different causes of action, do not indicate an increase in the amount of the claim. The lowest of the alternatives that were claimed, for example, stood at less than ILS 270,000 for all four plaintiffs combined. Although, as I shall show shortly, I will not be able to award the plaintiffs even this amount, the words of the legislation and are the basis for this claim allow for a claim of considerably higher sums. Justification for the ruling of a sum of money, on the one hand, and its view is intended to intimidate a defendant to the point of dismissing the claim against him out of hand, on the one hand.
- Fourth, in a stack of materials, which are not admissible evidence to prove their contents; I do not know where they came from and what their reliability is, and most of all: nothing connects them to any of the plaintiffs and their claim here, the defense sought to show that various protest organizations are funded on a considerable scale, and therefore, if I get to the end of the argument, this indicates the inferiority of the defendant vis-à-vis the plaintiffs in terms of financial resources as well. The court is not an arena for attacks on oil. There is no room for rumors and press clippings. He is not satisfied with statements, however poignant they may be. The civil proceedings and the laws of evidence adhere to clear rules, without which there will be no revival, within the framework of the proceeding, for any of the positions expressed therein. Everything that was claimed in the financial context was not proven before me. In particular, the defendant did not prove the existence of a financial gap between it and any of the plaintiffs, in the sense that it makes the claim - Silence lawsuit.
I have not found, in summary of this point, that the purpose of filing the lawsuit, or the result of acceding to it, is to silence the defendant, to intimidate her, or to prevent her from presenting, at length, her political, moral and social opinions before the attention of all scholars. Neither the purpose, nor the measure, was found to me to be foreign, unworthy, or exaggerated. There is no basis for concern here, in the name of which the law developed the concept of a "silencing claim".