The defamatory nature of the publication is determined in accordance with the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, as well as according to the context of the matter. In Civil Appeal Authority 2572/04 Raphael Freij v. "All the Time" (June 16,2008), it was held: "... The determination that a publication constitutes defamation is not learned only from the offensive words as they stand on their own. It is learned first and foremost from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the publication. It is not the words themselves that create defamation, but rather the context and circumstances that give the set of facts its intensity, its colors, its taste and its smell." (paragraph 22).
The existence of defamation is examined independently of the question of the veracity of the content of the publication. Publication can be true to the truth, and even if it is degrading or degrading, it will be considered defamation. (Civil Appeal Ilana Dayan, paragraph 84 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice (Vice-President Rivlin).
Do the defendant's statements constitute defamation?
After examining the defendant's statements, against the background of the definition of defamation in the law and the rulings in case law, I have reached the conclusion that the first two statements constitute defamation within the meaning of the law. My conclusion is different with regard to the third statement.
Attribution of Shooting and Killing Intentions and Presentation of the Plaintiff as Worthy of Detention
The plaintiff's arguments in relation to the first publication focused on the claim of verbal manipulation and distortion of his words, which were intended to warn of civil war, out of sincere concern for the future of the state and its citizens, and to turn him into someone who intends to take up arms and shoot the defendant. The defendant brought the plaintiff's son into the cauldron, while turning him into a violent criminal. In doing so, the defendant turned a legitimate political argument and a general warning against civil war into a personal war, while presenting the plaintiff as someone who was personally about to physically harm the defendant.