The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court recently upheld the defamation lawsuit filed by Prof. Shikma Bressler against Panya (Fanny) Michaeli, ruling that a series of posts published by the defendant on Facebook and Twitter constituted libel. The case stems from the period following the October 7, 2023, attacks, during which Michaeli posted dozens of messages claiming that Bressler, a physicist and leader of the judicial reform protests, was involved in treason, assisted the Hamas organization, and knew of the massacre in advance.
According to Bressler, the posts also included grave calls to prosecute her, pull out her fingernails, and lead her to the gallows. Bressler sought 600,000 NIS in damages. Conversely, Michaeli argued that the lawsuit was a SLAPP suit and sought to rely on legal defenses including truth in publication, good faith, and expression of opinion. In her ruling, Senior Judge Dorit Feinstein rejected Michaeli’s defense arguments. The judge determined that the defendant failed to present an evidentiary basis for her serious allegations, could not explain the source of the information she relied upon, and rejected the claim that the posts were accidental or a SLAPP suit intended to intimidate.
The court noted that these posts fall into the most severe category of defamation, as they were repeated over a month and were inflammatory in nature. Although the suit was filed regarding 26 different posts, the judge ordered them to be treated as a single publication for the purpose of calculating damages due to their similarity and target audience. However, due to the nature of the claims and the proven intent to harm, the court awarded double the statutory maximum damages, totaling 100,000 NIS.
In addition to these damages, Michaeli was ordered to pay 35,000 NIS in attorney fees and 5,500 NIS in court costs. Beyond the financial aspect, the ruling requires Michaeli to immediately remove all the aforementioned posts from social media. Furthermore, within 30 days, Michaeli must publish an apology and clarification stating that the posts were defamatory and lacked any factual basis. The ruling serves as a significant reminder regarding the boundaries of free speech on social media, clarifying that false claims attributing serious criminal offenses are not protected, even under the guise of an opinion.
For the general public, this decision highlights the personal responsibility of social media users and the heavy legal and financial price that may stem from offensive and baseless content.