(b) It is considered to be defamatory publication, without the exception of other means of publication:
(1) If it was intended for a person other than the injured party and reached that person or another person other than the victim;..."
In the circumstances, this is 'publication' as defined in the Prohibition of Defamation Law, since the defendant's words were said and reached the viewers of Channel 14.
- Section 1 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law defines 'defamation', inter alia, as follows:
"Defamation is something whose publication is liable to -
(1) To humiliate a person in the eyes of others or to make him the object of hatred, contempt or ridicule on their part;
[...]
(3) To harm a person in his office, whether a public office or any other position, in his business, occupation or profession;"
- The plaintiff claimed that the publication was intended to portray him as someone who had not fulfilled his duty under the Defense Service Law, to damage his good name and public standing, and his ability to fulfill his journalistic duty and to criticize the centers of power in the state; The defendants argued in general that this was not "defamation in the light of section 1 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law". They did not elaborate.
- Since the reasonable person or the person from the community or the ordinary person views evasion of military service as a negative biographical fact - the defendant's words in relation to the plaintiff's (absence) of military service reflect an injury to the plaintiff and his humiliation before the spectators.
Stage 3 - Defenses:
- In the third stage of the hearing of the tort of defamation, "it is necessary to clarify whether the advertiser has one of the protections listed in sections 13-15 of the Law" (assuming that the first two stages have been met, as in our case; the Schocken Network case).
- In contrast to the first two stages, in which the burden is on the plaintiff, at this stage the defendant-advertiser must lift the burden (even the initial one) that he has one or more of the defenses of the Prohibition of Defamation Law. See Civil Appeals Authority 6557/20 New Channel 10 Ltd. Minister of Culture and Sport (March 13,2024): "The burden of proving the defense's claims in a defamation suit rests on the defendant's shoulders."
- In order to establish a defense against the protections of section 15 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, the defendant must prove two cumulative conditions: they are good faith; they are one of the 12 circumstances in the subsections of section 15 See Civil Appeal 844/12 Molkandov v. Porush (February 22,2017):
"We are dealing with, therefore, a request for circumstances in which the defendant will be protected even at the cost of harming the good name of the victim, if two cumulative conditions are met: one, that the defendant made the publication in good faith; and the second, that the publication was made in one of the circumstances enumerated in the sub-sections of section 15 of the Law [...]."