In my opinion, the tone and style of the publication were not sufficiently careful and the defendant did not comply with the rules of responsible journalism protection, which are detailed above, including the presentation of a full, fair and true factual picture; the defendant attributed criminal intentions to the plaintiff, while hurling serious and baseless accusations, without verifying the matter or receiving the plaintiff's response, prior to publication. The offensive expressions used by the defendant were not necessary for the purpose of conveying the message of his position, and the duty he undertook, as he put it, to combat any manifestation of support for a civil war (paragraph 3 of the affidavit; p. 56, lines 6-15). The defendant was able to provide a substantive response to the plaintiff's remarks, and there was no justification for attacking him.
Section 15(3) provides protection if the publication was made in good faith and for the purpose of protecting a legitimate personal interest of the defendant or defendant, of the person to whom the publication was directed or of a person in whom that person is interested in a legitimate personal interest;
The defendant claimed that the plaintiff's support for a civil war, as understood by him, was connected to what Adv. Hodak said to him. The defendant feared for his safety and the well-being of his family, and his words in the monologue were intended to reflect to the public and to the plaintiff the fear he felt as a result of the plaintiff's words. Thus, the publication of the monologue was intended to protect his legitimate personal interest, which is his personal security, by exposing and denying the danger to the public.
As it appears, the defendant made a connection between Adv. Hodak's words towards him while he was in the restaurant, and the meaning of the plaintiff's words, as they were understood by him - as support for a civil war. This context led the defendant to the conclusion and understanding, as he claimed, that there was a real concern for his safety and the well-being of his family, and therefore he delivered the monologue, which was intended to serve as a defense.