Mr. Caspit explained that during the interview, Mr. Magal presented the plaintiff with repeated questions regarding the security issue, and the plaintiff's answer was that the reform and security are intertwined tools. " So at a certain point I tried, I'm not sure I managed to put an end to it after 4 times, as if we had to think about the listeners as well... But he didn't succeed because he came back every time, God forbid, and God forbid, anyone who knows the plaintiff's biography has been doing his whole life just to keep the state from dismantling it" (p. 10, lines 20-28,33, p. 11, lines 1-2).
The vast majority of the defendant's monologue dealt with the plaintiff personally, mentioning his alleged criminal intentions, the need for his arrest, his lack of understanding and shallowness, and even a reference to his personal lifestyle. If the defendant had described what the plaintiff had really said, correctly and accurately, and at the same time said his words as an expression of opinion, then he might have been considered to have expressed an opinion. However, as soon as the defendant did not describe what the plaintiff really said, the publications were caught by the viewer, who explained that the plaintiff allegedly supported a civil war, and even allegedly called for harm to the defendant, his family, and supporters of the judicial reform.
In the judgment in the Haaretz newspaper case, the Honorable Justice Ben Porat ruled: "A person who relies on 'expressing an opinion in good faith' must bring to the attention of the reader the factual basis on which he relies - and those facts must be true... The idea underlying the great difference between the defense of "I spoke the truth" and the defense of "expressing an opinion in good faith" must always be remembered. ... The justification for the broad scope of the second defense lies in the proper possibility given to the reading public - and the subject is of interest to us - to judge for themselves whether what appears in the article in detail the facts does indeed lead to an opinion expressed on the basis of those facts. Hence the dual duty imposed on one who wishes to defend himself against this claim: first, to recount at least the main facts on which his opinion is based; and second, to make it sufficiently clear to an ordinary readership that the part that harms the good name of a certain person is merely an expression of opinion... There must always be some kind of reciprocal connection between the facts and the opinion expressed... In the absence of such a minimal connection, what is expected to be an expression of opinion becomes a fact whose truth must be proven." (Civil Appeal 723/74, Haaretz Newspaper Ltd., et al. 3 et al. v. Israel Electric Company Ltd. (February 24,1977)).