In light of the aforesaid, the defendants do not have a true defense in the publication.
The protection of good faith applies when two cumulative conditions are met:
The first is that the publication was made in good faith. The exact content of the requirement of good faith is not the same with respect to each alternative, and its interpretation is made in accordance with the interests, for the purpose of defending which each and every alternative was created (Additional Civil Hearing 2121/12 Anonymous v. Dr. Ilana Dayan Orbach, (September 18,2014), (hereinafter: "DNA Ilana Dayan") paragraph 66 of the opinion of the Honorable President, Justice Grunis; Shenhar 462).
The second condition for the protection of good faith is that one of the circumstances enumerated in the subsections of section 15 existed. The defendant claimed the existence of four circumstances set forth in sections 15(2), 15(3), 15(4) and 15(6) of the Law.
Section 15(2) provides protection to the advertiser if the publication was made in good faith and in circumstances in which the relationship between him and the person to whom the publication was directed imposed on him a legal, moral or social obligation to make that publication;
The protection of the clause in terms of publication in the media is known as the "defense of responsible journalism". In another civil hearing, President Grunis discussed the subjective and objective characteristics of the requirement of good faith, in the context of this defense. In the subjective sense, a belief in the existence of a duty to publish and its being the motive for publication may have weight, when the sense of duty to publish something may arise, for example, against the background of regular engagement in journalistic work or in light of the advertiser's assessment of the importance and necessity of the information published to the recipient. Therefore, the existence of these circumstances may, as a rule, support the claim that the motive for publication is a "journalistic duty" felt by the advertiser. Where the publication stemmed from malicious intent, from a desire to slander or harm the object of the publication, the necessary good faith was not maintained. Consideration should also be given to other considerations that may underlie the publication, such as the journalist's personal considerations, with an emphasis on the desire to achieve a journalistic achievement ("scoop") while getting ahead of the competition, as well as commercial considerations of the media, which concern the desire for broad exposure to the public ("ratings considerations") and generating profits. At the same time, consideration must also be given to the advertiser's attitude toward the content of the published statements. As a rule, a person who wishes to rely in his defense on the existence of a journalistic duty to publish something is expected to believe in the truth of what he has published. (Additional Civil Hearing Ilana Dayan, paragraphs 72-73 of President Grunis's opinion).