In addition, the defendants claimed that they acted responsibly and with great caution, obeyed the instructions of the legal counsel, and refrained from publishing the materials themselves. In addition, they claimed that they also had the defense under Section 15(11) to the law, since some of their actions were in the form of providing information to the editor of a media outlet or his representative for the purpose of examining the question of publication only.
- As for the first two defenses by virtue of Section 15(4) and 15(5) The Prohibition of Defamation Law is based primarily on the protection of expressing an opinion regarding a public official or a person under investigation. In the context of the element of expressing an opinion, the rule is that a distinction must be made between factual statements and opinions. An examination of the content of the special broadcast shows that its essence is a descriptive discourse of facts - a connection between the investigation process in Naveh's case, which has become public, and information Overview Another that is in the hands of the defendants and will be published:
"[...] A humiliating, rude correspondence between the arrested central man and a senior figure in the government, about senior female judges [...] What we can tell at the moment without quotes, but we all know that the material, from the material in the possession of the police, emerges from the intensive engagement of the main suspect and others with everything that can affect both public opinion in Israel and the judicial system [...] a very close relationship with judges, with senior officials in the political system [...] that this is a connection that goes beyond the connection between legitimate and illegitimate sources and journalists. And we have to make it clear [...] that what will happen is that later in the broadcasts, and also in the coming days, we will bring, because in the hands of Hadas and the editorial board of What's Burning, there is a great deal of the material. Look, not all the material [...] mainly that it is about high-ranking people [...] We will probably bring some of the quotes later [...]
- An examination of the above publication shows that it constitutes mainly a factual description regarding the acts attributed to Naveh according to the information that was in the possession of the defendants. The publication did not include a distinction between the factual element and the element of expressing the opinion (9/77 Further Discussion Israel Electric Company Ltd. v. Haaretz Newspaper Publishing Ltd.IsrSC 32(3) 337,350 (1978)).
It should be added that this is a clear news broadcast - a news hack as part of a current affairs program, which shows that this is factual exposure and not an interpretation or expression of an opinion (Civil Appeal 751/10 Anonymous v. Dr. Ilana Dayan-Orbach, IsrSC 65(3) 369,466 (2012)). All of these lead to the conclusion that the statements made in the framework of the special broadcast are not suitable for protection under protection Section 15(4) or 15(5) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law.
- As to the defendants' claim as to the applicability of the defense In section 15(11) According to the Prohibition of Defamation Law, I believe that This It includes only some of the preparatory actions that were taken in preparation for the special broadcast. And I will explain.
Thus, the first meeting, which was held at the offices of Army Radio in the presence of Adv. Danino, was characterized by the presentation of the information that was in Steif's possession and the examination of the possibilities for its publication. As emerged from Steif's statement to the police (P/22), the main discussion was the question of whether it was possible to publish from the materials that Shteif presented to her superiors at Army Radio. At the end of that meeting Moderation Adv. Danino to those present that until another decision is made, the materials produced from Naveh's telephones should not be published. Therefore, I determine that the violation of Naveh's privacy in the framework of that meeting from that date 24.12.2018 In Elkabetz's office, in the presence of a representative of the Military Advocate General's Corps, Hosa is under the permanent protection Section 15(11) The Prohibition of Defamation Law (Uri Shenhar Defamation Laws 647-648 (2nd ed., 2024) (hereinafter - Shenhar)).