[...]
(2) The relationship between him and the person to whom the publication was referred imposed imposed on him a legal, moral or social obligation to make that publication."
- 00In the statement of defense, the defendant claimed that since he and the plaintiff had a media-ideological rivalry, he saw a moral and social obligation to condemn the plaintiff for things he said against the cabinet and the government; in the defendants' summaries it was claimed that the relationship between the defendants and their viewers, as well as between the defendant and the plaintiff as members of the media, "imposed on defendant 1 a moral, public and journalistic duty to respond to the plaintiff's words" who voiced harsh criticism of the government in matters of military and war conduct (paragraph 27 of the defendants' summaries).
0
- This defense argument cannot be accepted. The defendant did not present a legal source for the publication. As far as moral or social duty is concerned, the claims were made in a very general way and are inconsistent with the law and the facts:
First, section 15(2) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law does not deal with the relationship between the defendants and their viewers, but only with the relationship between the defendant(s) and the plaintiff, and only that must be examined;
Second, a public and journalistic duty do not fall within the scope of the protection of section 15(2) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, but rather a "legal, moral or social" obligation.
Third, even if I assume that the defendants have a 'moral obligation' or 'social duty' to respond to the plaintiff's words, the defendant will be honored and respond to the plaintiff's words. Personal injury to the plaintiff is not a social or moral obligation.
C3. Protection of Section 15(4) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law - Expression of Opinion or Fact
- The main dispute between the parties is whether the publication is an 'expression of opinion' or a 'fact', since the expression of an opinion (voiced in good faith) constitutes a protection under section 15(4) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law.
The plaintiff claimed that the publication was a matter of fact, a "clear biographical fact" (paragraph 8 of the plaintiff's summaries) and the defendants claimed that the publication was an expression of a legitimate opinion as part of the freedom of expression and the press about a plaintiff who is himself a public figure.