Protection of section 18(2)(d)
- The defendants raised an additional defense argument by virtue of the Section 18(2)(d). This section provides protection to the offender if "the offense was committed while carrying out the offender's lawful occupation and in the course of his regular work, provided that it was not done through public publication." This is a defense that was originally intended to enable the orderly activity of private investigators (Protecting Privacy in Israel, at pp. 499-500, Shock, at pp. 217-218). This defense is not available to the defendants, mainly since it is an infringement committed by means of public publication.
Protection Section 18(2)(f)
- Another defense argument raised by the defendants is based on the Section 18(2)(f) to the Protection of Privacy Law. This provision copies some of the good faith protections from Prohibition of Defamation Law In the event that the infringement was done by way of publication that is protected under paragraphs (4) to (11) of section 15 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law. In their summaries, the state's counsel (representing Canetti, Shachar and Army Radio) focused on the application of the provisions Sections 15(4), 15(5) and 15(11) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law.
According to them, the publications attributed to them are protected under the protection of Section 15(4) to the Prohibition of Defamation Law, since they constitute, at most, an "expression of opinion" on the plaintiff's conduct. According to them, the plaintiff held an official and public position as chairman of the Israel Bar Association at the time, and the publication directly related to a clear public interest. As for the defense Section 15(5) According to the law, the defendants argued that the publication constituted an expression of an opinion on the plaintiff's conduct "as a person whose case serves as the subject of an investigation, " since a criminal investigation was being conducted against him at the time.