To the extent that the lawsuit had been filed in respect of things that attribute to the plaintiff being a "frightening" or a "frightened group" ("a group of frightened people"), it is possible that the conclusion regarding the classification of the matter as a fact/opinion would have been different. However, the publication that is the subject of a scandal - de facto evasion from the IDF - is a clear and erroneous fact.
C4. Section 15(6) of the Law - Publication Following Publication
- Section 15(6) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law states:
"In a trial [...] civil defamation would be a good defense if [...] the defendant made the publication in good faith in one of the following circumstances:
[...]
The publication was a criticism of a literary, scientific, artistic or other work that the victim published or presented to the public, or an action he performed in public, and to the extent that this involves such criticism - an expression of an opinion about the character, past, actions or opinions of the victim to the extent that they were discovered in that work or action."
- In the statement of defense, the defendants claimed that the publication constituted a criticism of an excerpt from Channel 12 News that was a 'different work' made and published by the plaintiff, and an expression of opinion about the character, actions, and opinions of the plaintiff from that segment; In their summaries they claimed - over only two lines - that it was a criticism of an action taken by the plaintiff in public.
- It appears that this argument was made half-heartedly, and it is doubtful whether at the end of the proceeding the defendants stand behind it. On the merits of the matter, the defendants' argument reflects an erroneous reading of the clause as well as an erroneous application of it.
Insofar as the defendant had criticized the plaintiff's position, there would have been no difficulty in this; the problem is that since the plaintiff did not incorporate anything from his past into the 'action he took in public', but rather presented a position regarding the conduct of the government and the cabinet regardless of his biography, the publication cannot be protected under the protection of section 15(6) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law.