Defamation in a WhatsApp group – receiving high financial compensation

עם התקדמות הטכנולוגיה נוצרים עוד ועוד אפיקים בהם בהם ניתן לפגוע ולהשמיץ. פרסום לשון הרע בקבוצת וואטסאפ הוא אחד מאותם אפיקים חדשים שלאחרונה מגיעים רבות לפתחו של בית המשפט, ולאחרונה ניתן פסק דין נוסף בעניין לשון הרע בקבוצת וואטסאפ במסגרתו נפסק פיצוי כספי משמעותי (ת"א 19527-08-17 נביל זגל נ' אוסנת פרסק).

To understand what is considered defamation (slander) and what the amounts of compensation that can be received in court are, click here.

As part of the defamatory posting in the WhatsApp group, the defendant wrote, among other things, the following:

"בטח הפלסטינים רגילים לא להגיב? נשמע גזעני?… הם באים מתחת לבלוקים, מתחת לאדמה הם רוצים לצאת. כמה פעמים התפללת במסגד?"

…

"אתה לא יהודי

Are you Muslim?

point

Be whoever you are.

אתה ערבי"

…

"אני בשלום עם עמי

You are pretending.

…

כדי לשכב עם בנות יהודיות"

Later, despite the pleas of some of the group members, the defendant continued to insist that the plaintiff leave the group, otherwise she would ensure that the group manager removed him, and she continued to urge him:

"תצא לבד.. במקום שיוציאו אותך.. קדימה נביל.. עכשיו… אני לא צריכה אותך נביל.. תבין אתה מיותר כאן עבורי… ואל תגיד ליהודיה מה לעשות. תצא.. חצוף… נביל הייתי נחמדה. יש לך 10 שניות לצאת… נתתי לו זמן לצאת לבד… הוא אדם רע. הוא עשה נזקים…"

Some time later, the group administrator removes the plaintiff from the group.

The statement that is alleged to be defamatory in the WhatsApp group is the same statement according to which the plaintiff allegedly pretended to be a Jew in order to sleep with Jewish women. Regarding most of the statements, the court ruled as follows:

ואכן, מרבית האמירות שצוטטו לעיל, הגם שהן מכוערות ומשפילות, ונועדו לפגוע בתובע ולבזותו, ספק אם הן מהוות לשון הרע כמשמעותה בחוק ובפסיקה. כך או כך, חשוב להבין את הרקע ואת ההקשר בו נאמרו הדברים, ולכן יש משמעות למכלול הדברים שנכתבו, גם אם לא כל אחד מהם כשלעצמו מהווה לשון הרע עפ"י החוק.

Saying that a person pretends to be a Jew in order to sleep with a Jewish woman constitutes slander.

Regarding the publication of defamation in a WhatsApp group, the court ruled as follows:

There can be no dispute that the statement that the plaintiff is an impersonator in order to sleep with Jewish girls, and particularly in the context and manner in which it was written, constitutes defamation, since it is capable of harming the plaintiff's good name, humiliating him, and disparaging him.

There can be no dispute that these are matters for which liability should be imposed by law, and the defendant has no defense.

It was not alleged before me, even in passing, that there was any factual basis for the claim that the plaintiff was impersonating (a Jew, it seems) in order to sleep with Jewish girls, and the defendant did not even claim that there was a shred of truth in the statements.

The court did not accept the argument that it should not be determined that this was a defamatory posting in a Facebook group because importance should be given to freedom of expression:

at any rate, The defense הוגש שעה שהייתה מיוצגת ע"י עו"ד ובמסגרתו נטען כי אין מקום להטלת אחריות בגין הפרסומים, וזאת, בין היתר, לאור חשיבותו של Freedom of expression, בפרט בכל הנוגע לפרסומים ברשת, אשר הולכת והופכת ל"כיכר העיר החדשה". ב"כ הנתבעת טען, כי אין מקום להטלת אחריות בלשון הרע בגין כל התבטאות בוטה שפורסמה ברשת.

I cannot accept this argument in our case. Indeed, freedom of expression has a primary status in our law, and there is no doubt that not every expression that is jarring to the ears of its listeners (or to the eyes of its readers) justifies imposing liability for defamation. However, one cannot accept slanderous and unbridled language that is intended to harm, insult, and humiliate a person because of their origin, without any wrongdoing on their part.

The things published constitute slanderNor can I accept the claim made in the defense as an expression of opinion in good faith. The statement that the plaintiff is posing as a person in order to sleep with Jewish girls is not an expression of opinion but a statement of fact. A review of the discourse that took place earlier shows that its entire purpose was to incite and create a negative atmosphere towards the plaintiff, while the defendant reiterates that she bases her positions on facts and prior acquaintance with the plaintiff (as well as on her moral perception that the purity of Jewish girls must be protected).

However, in the context of the statement in question, it was not claimed (and certainly not proven) that there was a factual basis for the statements. As I noted above, even the facts that the defendant alleged were behind her attacks on the plaintiff (namely, the claim that he was the one who spread lies about her and incited her) were not proven even narrowly.

Regarding the financial compensation in the context of publishing defamation in a WhatsApp group, it was determined as follows:

On the other hand, one must consider the fact that the posts were made within the framework of a WhatsApp group, which, although has many members, does not know each other, and it must be assumed that, accordingly, most of the group members regarded the statements made as racist statements devoid of content.

In addition, the fact that although this is a series of racist and offensive statements, the publication was focused on time must be considered. Certain weight, albeit limited, must also be given to the fact that the defendant expressed – even if only in the context of the legal proceedings – regret for the words and apologized to the plaintiff.

Finally, the court ruled for the plaintiff. Financial compensation בסך 20 אלף ש"ח, ובנוסף, חמשת אלפים ש"ח הוצאות משפט.

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Defamation in the WhatsApp Group