Denial of Truth Protection in Publication and Defense of Good Faith
The first condition in the framework of the "truth in publication" defense under section 14 of the Law, is that the publication was true. As detailed at length, the entire publication is not true, the plaintiff did not express any support for the words of Hodak and Raz, nor did he express support for civil war, but in fact the opposite - the plaintiff expressed a grave concern that such a war might break out. Hence, the defendants are not given the protection of truth in publication.
In addition, the defendant's statements are not protected under the defense of good faith under the alternatives of section 15 of the law.
With regard to section 15(2) - the defendant lied in everything related to the plaintiff's words, attributed to him statements that he never said, "interpreted" his words and gave them the opposite "intention" to their intention, and in any case his opinion was expressed about the plaintiff himself and not about his words.
With regard to the alternative of section 15(3) - the defendant had no personal interest with the plaintiff, who never threatened him or his family members, and the use of this section is baseless and was done in bad faith. If the defendant's fear of the plaintiff was genuine, he should have complained to the police. The publication of defamatory words is not an answer to real or imagined fear.
With regard to the defense of section 15(4), the defendant did not relate at all to the plaintiff's words, did not argue with him substantively, and all the publication stemmed from a deliberate and malicious distortion of the plaintiff's words. The defendant turned the plaintiff into a criminal worthy of arrest. The defendant's "reaction" constitutes violence and incitement for its own sake, while insulting the plaintiff and his family members.
The alternative in section 15(6) of the law also does not help the defendant, since a radio interview does not meet the definition of an artistic, scientific or other work. The defendant presented his words as facts and not as an expression of opinion.