According to section 16(a), a publication in one of the circumstances listed in section 15 of the law, which did not deviate from the scope of reasonableness in the circumstances of the case, establishes a presumption that the publication was made in good faith.
As was determined in the Ben Gvir case, the nature, form, language and style of the publication itself may also indicate the good faith of the advertiser. In this regard, I will also refer to what was determined in another civil hearing by Ilana Dayan: "... The nature and form of the publication itself may also indicate the good faith of the advertiser. Thus, for example, a publication that is determined to be prudent and moderate may indicate the existence of good faith..., while in certain circumstances, the use of offensive and harsh language may indicate its absence." (Additional Civil Hearing Ilana Dayan Orbach, paragraph 68 of the opinion of the Honorable President, as he was then called, Justice Grunis).
In the case before us, the defendant used harsh statements attributing to the plaintiff his family members an intention to kill, when these statements were repeated throughout the monologue and the plaintiff was presented as someone worthy of being in detention. In this regard, I find that there was an exception to the realm of reasonableness, when this is compounded by an attempt to blacken the plaintiff because of his age, understanding, and to ridicule him while presenting him as someone who resents the fact that he was moved with caviar. Therefore, the defendant did not have the presumption set forth in section 16(a).
Section 16(b) of the Law establishes a presumption of lack of good faith, if one of the circumstances enumerated in its sub-sections exists in the publication as follows:
")1) What was published was not true, and he did not believe in its truth;
(2) what was published was not true and he did not take reasonable measures to ascertain whether it was true, or not;
(3) He intended by the publication to harm to a greater extent than was reasonable for the protection of the values protected by Article 15."