Defendant 2's Civil Liability and Her Lack of Good Faith
The defendant's defense argument could have been accepted if it had been a criminal indictment and not a civil lawsuit. Section 11 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law also applies the responsibility for publication in the media to those responsible for the media. The defendant's responsibility is also expressed in the violent reactions to the plaintiff that appear on the defendant's YouTube channel. (For example: "Langotsky, if you missed the first bullet, all your slave is gone, I will not give up until the last one in the neighborhood and your slave is eliminated. If you are elected." [Errors in the original - D.W.).
The Procedure
At the evidentiary hearing , Mr. Caspit testified on behalf of the plaintiff, who testified about the circumstances of the interview, as well as the plaintiff himself. An affidavit of primary testimony was also submitted on behalf of Adv. Dror Vigdor in relation to the plaintiff's military and security activities. Counsel for the defendants waived Adv. Vigdor's cross-examination.
On behalf of the defendants, the defendant himself testified, as did Mr. Edri, who serves as the defendant's CEO. Mr. Magal, who was included in the list of witnesses on behalf of the defendants, did not file an affidavit and did not appear to testify.
After hearing the testimonies, the parties submitted their written summaries and now the time is ripe for a ruling.
Discussion and Decision
00The Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter: "the Prohibition of Defamation Law or the "Law") contains a test of several stages. First, it is necessary to examine whether the statements constitute "defamation" as defined in the law and whether the element of publication exists. If the answer to this is yes, it is necessary to examine whether the defendant has a defense from among those set forth in the law, which, if proven, will exempt him from paying compensation to the plaintiff.
"Defamation" is defined in the law as follows: