In the present case, I do not believe that the additional element required for a determination that the publication was done with the intention of harming has been sufficiently proven, when blatant publication does not necessarily lead to this conclusion if there is no additional evidence indicating a real purpose and aspiration to harm. Criminal Appeals Authority 9818/01 Shimon Biton v. Zion Sultan, 59(6) 554 (31.3.2005), however, this is a borderline case, in which the publication itself is serious.
As we have said, the vast majority of the 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.
An examination of the circumstances shows that these were not insults made during a heated argument or in a time of anger and out of control, but rather as part of a monologue delivered by the defendant, hours after the plaintiff's interview, and without the plaintiff being given an opportunity to respond to the remarks.
The defendant sought to portray the plaintiff as a person calling for civil war, who intends to kill the supporters of the judicial reform. This is the message that the defendant sought to leave with the viewers (Civil Appeal Ilana Dayan, paragraph 15 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Rivlin). These statements were not true, and they were offensive. In addition, no explanation was given as to why it was necessary to address the nature of the plaintiff's private life, and to call him "stupid" in order to achieve the moral and social goal that the defendant had set before his eyes, namely his struggle against those who call for civil war. I will mention that the plaintiff has a rich military history, is a recipient of the Israel Prize and is a two-time winner of the Israel Security Prize. The content of the monologue, the serious accusations in the defendant's words and the circumstances of their statements in public, on television, without teaser and provocation on the part of the plaintiff and without giving him the opportunity to respond, deepen the seriousness of the incident.