Now we have to decide whether the first two statements fall under one of the protections set forth in the law, which exempt the advertiser from compensation.
Examining the Protections
The defendant claimed the protection of the truth of the publication and the protection of good faith in accordance with sections 14 and 15 of the Law.
The defense of truth in publication is enshrined in section 14 of the law, which states:
"In a criminal or civil trial due to defamation, it will be a good defense that the thing that was published was true and that the publication was of public interest; this defense will not be denied merely because the truth of an ancillary detail that does not cause real harm has not been proven."
In order to obtain this defense, the defendant must prove two cumulative elements: one, that the publication constituting defamation was true, and second, that there is a public interest in that publication, based on the assumption that there is a social benefit in holding a public discussion on the subject of the publication, based on correct facts. We are dealing with two intertwined links in an inextricable connection. (See the comment of the Honorable Justice Arbel Civil Appeal 10281/03 Aryeh (Arik) Koren v. Aminadav (Ami) Argov (12 December 2006), (hereinafter: "A.A. Aryeh Koren") para. 11; The Honorable Justice Rivlin in the Ben Gvir Civil Appeal Authority, paragraphs 16-21).
The amount of proof must be proportional to the seriousness of the content of the libel. The more serious and serious the accusation attributed to the person in the publication, the more weighty, "high-quality" evidence will be required in order to meet the burden of proof of the balance of probabilities. Where the offending publication attributed the victim to the commission of criminal offenses, it is customary to demand evidence of significant weight that corresponds to the severity of the accusations. (Civil Appeal Arie Koren, paragraph 14)
The defendant claimed that throughout the interview, the plaintiff expressed support for personalities and statements calling for civil war; the plaintiff did not condemn the statements of Adv. Hodak and Ze'ev Raz and did not point to the imminent existential danger inherent in them, thus placing himself in the camp of civil war supporters. (See, for example, paragraph 29 of the statement of defense, as well as paragraphs 4,5, 8, and 14 of the affidavit).