The first test examines the content of the publications, and in particular whether there is a similarity between them. According to this test, when the content of the publications is similar, but not identical, the addition to the new publication will be examined as opposed to the previous one. If it is found that the addition in the new publication is significant, one that exacerbates the harm to the injured party, the tendency will be to view the new publication as a separate publication. On the other hand, if it turns out that the new publication does not add anything material to what was stated in the previous publication, the tendency will be to view the first publication, and the one that follows it, as a single publication.
The second test examines the time that has elapsed from publication to publication. The longer time has passed, between one publication and the next, the tendency will be to view each of these publications as a separate publication and vice versa.
The third test examines the identity of the recipients, in relation to each of the publications. As part of this test, the "stage" on which the publications were made will be examined. When it comes to social networks, for example, it is necessary to examine on which page or forum each of the publications was published, and who were the parties to which they were exposed. To the extent that it is possible to prove the existence of variation between the identities of the recipients, from publication to publication, the tendency will be to view each of the publications as a separate publication and vice versa.
(Paragraphs 80-82 of Justice Sohlberg's judgment; see also Shenhar. Pp. 789-792).
An examination of the case before us in accordance with the aforementioned auxiliary tests leads to the conclusion that the two statements should be viewed as one publication. In our case, the two statements were part of the same monologue that the defendant delivered at the beginning of the program "Sheva" that was broadcast on February 7,2023. There is no doubt that the statements were made consecutively and in the same period of time of about 3 minutes, without any change in the platform or in the recipients. Other Municipal Applications (Nazareth Districts) 7341-04-23 Ron Aharon Kobi v. Haim Haliva (November 2,2023) The court heard 26 statements that were published on the appellant's Facebook page, over a period of several months. The court ruled that all the publications were published in the same manner, on the same platform and on the same "platform", and therefore it is assumed that the recipients of all the publications are the same recipients (paragraph 27).