The Family Court in Rishon Lezion recently ruled that a man must compensate his estranged partner with NIS 55,000 (~$16,000) after writing online that she had tried to murder him. Judge Michal Saar agreed with the woman that the statements constituted defamation.
The case involved two divorcees with children from previous marriages who had been in a second-life relationship together. According to the 72-year-old man, he suffers from multiple illnesses, including heart problems, depression and a shoulder disability. He said he is recognized as 100% disabled and lives on benefits. In 2020, a dispute erupted between the couple and he left their shared apartment.
At the height of the conflict, he published posts on an unspecified social media platform visible to 225 friends, accusing her of trying to murder him with pills. “This is not a woman! This is the Angel of Death!!!” he wrote. “A potential murderer, even a prostitute has more honor than you!!!” He later added, “The junkie who tried to murder me.”
In the lawsuit she filed, the woman sought NIS 100,000 (~$27,000) in damages. She said the defamatory posts were seen by all her friends, who reacted with shock. According to her, the publications were offensive and humiliating, accusing her of the serious criminal offense of attempted murder, damaging her reputation and constituting defamation.
The man argued in response that he was protected by the legal defenses of good faith and truth, claiming he genuinely believed his former partner had tried to poison him and that he had even filed a police complaint on the matter. He also argued that the posts were protected as free speech because they were published in a limited forum and were later deleted. He said he wrote them while angry and emotionally distressed.
Judge Saar ruled, however, that the offensive posts amounted to defamation and that none of the legal defenses exempted him from paying compensation.
“I found that this publication included slanderous statements against the woman, portrayed her negatively and cast aspersions on her character,” the judge wrote. “Within the publications, the man attributed serious criminal acts to the woman, insulted and cursed her, wrote about her in crude language and even threatened her.”
The judge rejected the “truth” defense because the man failed to prove that the woman had in fact tried to poison him or cause his death. She also found that another necessary condition for the defense — public interest in the publication — had not been met.
Attorney Ora ZimbergThe ruling stated that posting the remarks online, even before a “limited” circle of friends, fulfilled the legal requirement for publication, particularly since, according to the woman, her former partner tagged additional people and thereby expanded exposure to the defamatory content.
Still, the judge ruled there was no basis for awarding the full amount sought, partly because the man had expressed regret over publishing the offensive remarks. She stressed that “this does not legitimize the publication of defamatory statements of any kind, however, it was taken into account when considering the amount of compensation.”
She ordered the man to pay NIS 50,000 ($14,500) in damages plus NIS 5,000 ($1,450) in legal expenses.