Anyone visiting social media cannot miss the unfathomable inflation in threats of libel suits. Arguments on Twitter - the most toxic social network, but the one that unsurprisingly (and perhaps precisely because of that poison) houses most of the journalistic brass - end in mutual threats of libel lawsuits or a quick deletion of the tweet to avoid it.
But the phenomenon is not only prevalent among tweeters of all kinds.
The Israelis just love to sue for libel: politicians, media people, in sports, between neighbors, at work.
"Money on the floor", various lawyers define it, due to the fact that the outdated judicial system, which is not suitable in its mentality for what is happening in the Israeli reality of 2023, allows generous compensations to the winners and minimal to ridiculous reimbursements of expenses in the event that the defendants were able to prove their innocence.
In the absence of minimal patience and mutual respect in the culture of local discourse, it seems that defamation lawsuits are slowly becoming a real threat to Israeli democracy and freedom of speech as we know it.
Because beyond the legal matter, there is of course also the social matter and the uncertain state of the boundaries of discourse in Israeli society.
Defamations in global exposure
You can start from the bottom line: in the State of Israel it pays to sue for libel.
Data from the administration of the courts show that in the years 2019-2020, 1,329 defamation lawsuits were concluded in the courts throughout the country.
48 percent of them were accepted in full or in part, and 18 percent ended in compromise.
Courts rarely dismiss defamation claims.
In light of all this, is it any wonder that Israel is a country that found an exit through the legal system.
A study published in 2018 in the journal "Laws", by Prof. Tamar Gideon and attorneys Roi Iloz and Roi Reinsilvar, examined 563 judgments in defamation lawsuits in the years 2004-2011 and analyzed the compensation amounts received, with special reference to those with higher chances of winning. The researchers found a slight decrease over the years in the amount of compensation awarded in court - on average between NIS 30,000 and NIS 60,000. They explained that "the data show that plaintiffs with special characteristics that the courts bother to mention as such, usually win compensation that is higher than that of other plaintiffs.
Such an effect also exists when it comes to plaintiffs whom the courts call by other characteristic names.
"The fact that the claimant is 'Arab' (or 'member of minorities'), 'Ethiopian', 'religious' or 'Orthodox' also affects the determination of whether the publication for which the claim is filed is defamation and also the amount of compensation.
Retired Supreme Court Judge, Prof. Eliakim Rubinstein, sees the phenomenon of defamation lawsuits as something that is indeed changing before our eyes: "The new technological possibilities allow defamation to be written in a second from the end of the world to the end, which our ancestors did not imagine. Perhaps we can attribute to this technological empowerment a large number of lawsuits Faced with the increase in the possibilities of defamation. As for me, I see no fault in defamation lawsuits when a person's good name is at stake, if his honor is trampled and he seeks to protect it. See my sole opinion in further discussion of the lawsuit against Ilana Dayan."
(R., commander of the Girit outpost in the Rafah sector, filed a defamation lawsuit for Dayan's investigative report as part of the "Ovda" program, following an operational incident in which Iman al-Hams, about 14 years old, was shot to death while she was discovered in the sensitive area that surrounded the outpost. The plaintiff claimed that In the article, there is a sense of justice towards him. In the Supreme Court's ruling, the judges sailed through the description of the high value of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Judge Rubinstein had a different opinion, saying that a person's good name prevails over freedom of expression. He anchored this in a basic law: human dignity and freedom , "After all, what is a person's dignity at its foundation if not his good name?").
"As for freedom of expression," Rubinstein continues, "of course his dignity and status is important in its place - firstly, for the good in my opinion as a rule no less weight, and this is human dignity in its simplest form. And secondly, it will be the court's role to examine whether this is a claim that has substance or a claim of silence or A frivolous lawsuit, and if he can impose expenses in these cases. Of course, what can be resolved in the public discourse is his honor, but not for nothing did the legislator establish the law prohibiting defamation. And of course, it takes strength and courage to start such lawsuits, because a person from the settlement exposes himself to continued attacks and expenses, And on the other hand for idle claims".
Attorney Doron Kol, a partner in the litigation department at the Fischer-Bacher law firm, an expert in defamation law, who serves as the legal advisor to Israel Hayom, explains how he deals with the inflation of defamation lawsuits and warning letters: "It seems that one of the reasons for this is the increasing use on social networks.
Today, a significant part of social interactions, which used to be conducted face-to-face, is moving to digital arenas such as Facebook and WhatsApp groups.
"This transition has various effects, including the nature of the conversation, which sometimes becomes more extreme and violent; the distribution - statements that used to remain between one person and another are now exposed to a large group of people; and also the exposure time - postings on social networks remain in the air for a long time. All of these intensify the effect the potential that those statements have on social networks, causing more libel lawsuits to be filed than in the past."
Limited absorption capacity
At the beginning of the week, we were informed that former member of the Knesset, Zehava Galon, filed a defamation lawsuit against the person who usually files defamation lawsuits himself, MK Itamar Ben Gabir.
The chairman of Otzma Yehudit was the first to sue her, after Galon stated, among other things, that he is "the only supporter of terrorism in the Knesset" in one of her statements. Terzo' - the court is not the appropriate arena for political wrangling," claims Galon.
"It is forbidden for the courts to become a tool in the political debate, sometimes partisan, because this erodes the power and status of the court. But unfortunately, there is a growing gap between the desired situation and the current situation. Recently, all the dams have been broken and the rules of the game have been broken. Public figures find themselves - like In the case of former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and in my case - under a false and manipulative defamation attack, designed to blacken their faces, and since the lie is established as the truth, the only way to fight this is to bring the matter to the court for a decision."
Some will say that it is surprising that the person who headed a party that advocates for individual freedom and speaks highly of freedom of speech, chose to act this way, but Galon has a reasoned explanation: "I believe that wide margins should be left for freedom of speech, but that does not allow for bloodshed and the blood of elected officials The public is not allowed. It is better that the boundaries of the decree be determined in the public arena, but since the circumstances have changed, I am not afraid that the court will regulate the discourse.
"His role will be to outline the discourse and examine the lawsuits - if they fall within the scope of defamation according to the law, and rule accordingly in order to deter false lawsuits. The counterclaim that I filed against the person designated to be the Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben Gabir, is a lawsuit that has no choice, because An elected official cannot have an unlimited absorption capacity."
Ben Gabir refused to be interviewed for the article.
Why even get into it
"It's better for you to punch someone today than to call them 'mentally ill,' the punishment you receive will be lighter," explains lawyer and media personality Ari Shamai, who, among other things, represents Yigal Malka, who was sued by Bennett for half a million shekels for "spreading lies Serial".
The former prime minister announced that this is only the first lawsuit on the subject and Malka is only the first.
"Mr. Bennett's right to sue, and I hope that we can prove my client's innocence in court, but what can be said about Israeli society if a former prime minister sues a citizen? For me, this is a danger to democracy," Maraim Shamai, "even as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom I am a fan, sued Ehud Olmert when the latter called him 'mentally ill', I claimed it was a mistake.
He called you 'mentally ill'?
Call him 'mentally ill' back.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, maybe I'm radical, but I can't live by the saying of teacher Yochaved from the fourth grade that 'a blow passes, but an insult remains'.
I want to live in a country where you can curse a politician without fearing that he will sue me."
Shamai says that in the past Beitar Jerusalem football player at the time, Antony Varen, approached him and asked to sue Merav Michaeli after she allegedly slandered him. "I explained to him that in our country the small citizen cannot sue the big politician.
She will say what she wants, and he won't be able to sue.
Is this the society we want to live in?
The striking difference from then to today is that once a libel suit could eliminate a person, and today he can be helped by crowdfunding."
Journalist and media personality Haim Levinson is currently handling six defamation lawsuits filed against him - three privately following his writing on social media, and three more as part of his work as a journalist at Haaretz.
According to him, he never filed a libel suit: "The judges don't understand the new world. Today, people have so many platforms in their pockets that allow them to express themselves, and the volume has also increased. It's not what it used to be, and the judicial system doesn't understand it. I don't accept The one that someone sues for libel on an insult.
"Guy Peleg (News 12 reporter) sued someone who called him a 'Gestapo officer.' Says: If you call me a whore, I won't be offended, but if you tell me I'm going to a whore, I'll sue you."
Levinson, who is involved in defamation lawsuits against journalist Eli Tzipori and Channel 20 (currently 14), emphasizes that nothing is personal: "I have no problem with Tzipori. He decided to spend the money for both of us, and that is his right. Unfortunately, as soon as someone drags you into the mud, you are dragged Along with him, and this is what happened with Channel 20. I put up a satirical tweet that read 'At 20:00 we will live broadcast Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Ben-Gurion Airport, where he will speak following the outbreak of the Indian strain.
Everyone is recommended to watch, leave the propaganda channels.
Attached to the tweet was a photograph of former Prime Minister Netanyahu carrying the Israeli flag as well as Netanyahu's signature, even though at the same time Naftali Bennett had already assumed the position of Prime Minister.
Following the tweet, Arutz Yehudi Israeli Ltd., operator of Channel 20, filed a defamation lawsuit in the amount of approximately NIS 140,000 against Levinson. According to the lawsuit, the journalist presented Channel 20 "as a cuckoo, delusional broadcaster, on the fringes of sleeplessness," and therefore must be liable by paying compensation. "Do you understand?" explains Levinson, "For them it is deducted from the gross because they are a limited liability company, for me it is deducted from the net. They are a company, they are a great force, so they use it. It costs me money, it costs me time, And they do it because they can. Now I go with it to the end, but when people approach me, who earn a normal salary and are not media people, I often advise them and tell them to delete the post or tweet and move on.
"Understand, a good lawyer in these lawsuits costs about NIS 25,000. Why do people need this? It's better if they delete it and that's it. At the moment I'm still getting by financially and believe that the situation will stay that way, but if another libel lawsuit is filed against me, it's not impossible that I'll turn to the public To help me deal with her financially."
This is not Europe
Journalist Kalman Libeskind (here 11 and "Maariv") also claims that we are in a period of broad changes when it comes to the Israeli discourse, especially in social networks: "I am a big follower of defamation lawsuits against journalists. I have been sued 12 times in my 25 years in the profession. But what happens during The last one is something like no other. It's not just the swearing and threats on social media. I, for example, don't block anyone, even when they curse me and my family. For me, what might make me sue for libel for the first time is the unbridled spreading of lies that we see lately , also by other media people who lie without hesitation. As soon as they lie and make up things related to me, I think that as soon as I turn to it and have time, I will definitely file defamation lawsuits.
"In the beginning I said that we should not address this, and certainly as journalists we should be in favor of broad freedom of expression, but this is no longer a matter of freedom of expression, but of lies that change the discourse in Israeli society, and this is something that has not been here until now. It is important that we know that there is a sword over our heads turns upside down, and that we are obliged to check the facts we publish all the time and to be careful about it."
But unlike well-known figures or various members of the media, some of whom, as mentioned, are not moved at all by the legal process, for the average person who is sued for libel, this is not an easy business for the pocket as well as for the soul.
C. Megush Dan was a guest on an amateur podcast of his friends.
During the broadcast, he called a well-known media person several insulting adjectives.
The same media person decided to sue G for libel, even though it was only a podcast, with a small number of listeners.
"I apologized, I offered him direct financial compensation without needing the legal process, I told him he could choose any association he wanted and I would donate to it, but he is not ready to hear about it," says C.
"Currently, I already have 25,000 NIS in expenses. In my estimation, I will eventually reach 40,000 shekels. But I must say that the financial issue, despite the high amount, is less influential than the sleepless nights, the thoughts about it. It's annoying and not Let go, and you want it to be behind you. I've never been in court, I've never sued or been sued, and I didn't think it would look like this the first time."
How different is Israel from the world in the field of defamation and lawsuits?
Is our hand lighter on the keyboard and our tongues looser than those of our European and American colleagues, which leads to a constant increase in recent years in defamation lawsuits?
According to Dr. Esther Loftin, an expert on Europe from the Department of Foreign Languages at Tel Aviv University, the answer is clear: "Although there is a difference between Eastern Europe and Western Europe, between Northern Europe and the South, and even within the countries of the continent themselves, Europeans in general tend to be very refined and polite in conversation with the other
They tend to be careful about the respect of people and show sensitivity towards them, and are careful not to cross the boundaries and make offensive statements and ask personal and invasive questions.
"The average European will usually not ask your age, how much you earn and why you are not married and have no children. The sensitivity towards the other has only grown stronger over the years and especially in the age of social networks. In the world of the 21st century, and in an age that sanctifies human rights, The rights of women, LGBT people and minorities, should be shown with extra caution and show extra sensitivity towards the other person so as not to harm him or her."
The silencing and the circle of deterrence
The term SLAPP - silencing lawsuit - was coined about 30 years ago by the jurist George Fring and the sociologist Penelope Kannan from the University of Denver.
In their research, the two reviewed many cases in the previous decades, in which citizens who engaged in public activities and public struggles were sued in civil lawsuits, mostly defamation lawsuits, which have little chance of success, in order to fight against them legally.
The goal was clear: even if the lawsuits were finally rejected, the very act of filing them robbed the little ones of all their resources - time, money, and mental energy.
In many countries in the world, such as the USA, Canada and Australia, laws have been enacted whose role is to prevent a silence claim. And what about us? The Supreme Court judge, Judge Solberg, previously expressed his opinion that in Israel there is no need for this because "in the current law there are the necessary balances to deal with with idle claims.
The court must be aware of this and thwart moves that only have a heavy purpose, but the starting point is that a person or a corporation should not be denied to claim their damages, including defamation damages.
Threatens to sue whoever tweeted against him.
Bennett, photo: Mark Israel Salem
Recently, it seems that maybe-maybe we are seeing the buds of an awakening on the subject among Israeli judges and an opening to the possibility that a libel suit is actually a silence suit, as in the defamation suit filed by MK Miki Zohar against the Movement for the Quality of Government after the latter published his picture with the caption "A mobster needs to be investigated" .
The movement asked to delete the lawsuit on the grounds that it was a silence lawsuit, and even demanded compensation.
Judge Arnon Darel of the Jerusalem district did reject this, but wrote that "Although it is possible that the principal position of the applicant (the movement for the quality of government) is that the conduct of the procedure to the end may lead to 'silencing' in the appropriate cases; and although it is possible that this can be seen as a justification for deleting such a claim Or otherwise at an early stage of the procedure - this does not mean that the correct way is to discuss this question before the submission of the statement of defense, and before the exact dispute between the litigants has been clarified."
The lawsuit ended in a compromise between MK Zohar and the movement.
Judge Azaria Alkalai from the Magistrate's Court in Bat Yam relied on the words of Judge Darel, and for the first time recently dismissed a defamation suit outright due to it being a silence suit.
This is a lawsuit filed against a candidate for the leadership of the Lehavim Regional Council, who criticized a civil society whose services the previous council leader hired, according to him, in a conflict of interest.
"Freedom of expression is one of the most important of human rights," wrote Judge Alkalai, "the right to express oneself freely and participate in civil discourse is one of the conditions for the existence of a democratic society. A silencing lawsuit does not only threaten the freedom of expression of the specific defendant, but it may result in many other participants in the discourse The public will reluctantly 'enter' the circle of deterrence and refrain from going against the plaintiff.
"In other words, the 'chilling effect' created has the power to affect anyone who may consider criticizing that plaintiff in the future, and not just the individual defendant. The deterrent effect works even more strongly on individual citizens, such as social activists or bloggers, who wish to express themselves on various public platforms , and there is not behind them the legal and financial backing that, for example, a newspaper provides to its working journalists. Therefore, the same 'chilling effect' may certainly also bias and affect the publications of the investigative and reporting press, and the consequences of this bias are dangerous for academic freedom, public discourse and society as a whole."
"In the end, a brave Supreme Court judge will come and set the precedent that will change the absurd situation we are in," concludes Levinson.
"But until then I don't intend to shut up and I won't let them shut me up, and of course I have no intention of leaving social networks."
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us