In this case, the court discussed subjective feelings of threat in relation to filing a complaint with the police and ruled that there is a clear public interest that the complainant will not be deterred from filing it, due to a fear of conducting proceedings by virtue of the provisions of the Prohibition of Defamation Law. This is not similar to the case before us, when the defendant chose to express his words and the sense of threat he felt, as he claimed, on the television stage, in front of many viewers and listeners, and we are not concerned with filing a complaint with the police.
Sections 15(4) and 15(6) provide protection when the publication is an expression of opinion.
Section 15(4) provides protection when the expression of the opinion was made in good faith with respect to the conduct of the victim in a judicial, official or public position, in public service or in connection with a public matter, or on the character, past, actions or opinions of the victim to the extent that they were discovered in that conduct;
Section 15(6) provides protection when an expression of an opinion was made in good faith as a criticism of a literary, scientific, artistic or other work published or exhibited by the victim, or an action performed in public, and to the extent that this involves such criticism - an expression of an opinion about the character, past, actions or opinions of the injured party to the extent that they were discovered in that work or action;
While section 15(4) provides protection for expressions made in response to the victim's conduct in an official or public position or in connection with a public matter, section 15(6) provides protection, when the expression of the opinion was brought as criticism of a work published by the victim in public or an action he performed in public. This protection is not contingent on the identity of the victim and is intended to apply to publications relating to the public conduct of a person, which he himself chose to bring before the public, and thus opened the door to expressing an opinion about him and his conduct. In the case before us, the plaintiff was interviewed as part of a current affairs program broadcast on FM103, an action that was undoubtedly carried out in public.