Compensation in the amount of NIS 120,000, including attorney's fees - this is the price that the Magistrate's Court in Haifa ruled in favor of a professor at the Technion, for defamation posted against him on Facebook by Dov (pseudonym), who claimed that Hela harassed his sister.
In his lawsuit, the professor claimed that in nine cases Dov posted slander against him on various Facebook pages, from which it can be understood that he harassed his sister - while he has no acquaintance with her and has no idea why she decided to slander him as if he was following her, photographing her and even threatening her.
According to him, Dov and his sister harassed him, threatened him, spied on him and slandered him for no wrong in his palm.
The court argued in the absence of the professor, attorneys Yuval Adler and Luna Halon from Ben Ari's firm, Fish Saban, that the publications damaged his reputation and endangered his family. To issue an order to prevent harassment by Dov and his sister.
Adv. Luna Halon,
Defendant argued in his defense that this was a silence lawsuit against the illegal and immoral acts committed by the plaintiff, who he said was a detective after his sister, violated her privacy and threatened her.
According to him, she filed two complaints against the plaintiff with the police.
Dov did not deny the posts on Facebook, but claimed that they were intended to clarify the professor's identity and that their content was correct.
Judge Avishai Robes accepted the lawsuit and ruled that the publications constituted defamation: "These statements, especially when the defendant emphasized the plaintiff's status as a professor at the Technion, in order to humiliate him, humiliate him before his superiors and harm his office, and they constitute defamation."
In justifying his decision, the judge noted that “the defendant did not cease after the first or second publication, even when he undoubtedly knew the identity of the plaintiff, but went on to add more defamatory publications, in multi-circulation pages.
"It must also be taken into account that today the defendant continues to hold his opinion, stubbornly, contrary to all the findings and common sense, and did not find it appropriate to apologize or remove the publications on his own initiative."
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we would love for you to share it with us