The second publication relates to the presentation of the plaintiff as a person who deserves to be in custody. In this regard, it was argued that following the accusation of the plaintiff and his son with the intention of holding a weapon and killing the defendant, the plaintiff was presented, in a distortion of the matter, as a criminal who is subject to arrest and a person to be feared.
Taking into account the entirety of the defendant's statements and the context in which the words were made, as well as taking into account the definition of defamation in the law and the precedents in case law, it is clear that attributing the intentions to shoot the defendant while presenting him as a person who deserves to be arrested, are matters whose publication is liable to humiliate and humiliate the plaintiff as stated in the law. As determined, attribution to the commission of criminal offenses constitutes defamation (Civil Appeal (Tel Aviv District) 52910-09-12 Amnon Holtzman v. Adv. Yoram Sheftel (October 29,2013), para. 13).
It should be emphasized that the remarks were not made in the heat of an argument, but rather in the context of statements made by the defendant at the beginning of the program, in which the plaintiff was not a participant. The defendant's statements were woven throughout the monologue ("Langotsky, what, is your child going to take a rifle and shoot me?";" You are a person who threatened my children, me, my family"; "Do you want what, to kill us? Why, because my opinion is different from yours?"), when there was no direct political dialogue or argument between the two .
The third statement - presenting the plaintiff as a person who lacks understanding
With regard to the other things that the defendant said, regarding the intellectual level of the plaintiff ("Because you are stupid and don't understand what you are talking about?" You don't understand what you are talking about), I am of the opinion that these are not statements that constitute defamation.