The “Truth in Publication” Defense (“I Spoke the Truth”) under the Defamation Prohibition Law

Conditions, Risks, and Legal Strategy

General Overview

The Defamation Prohibition Law, 5725–1965, lies at one of the most delicate and complex intersections in Israeli law: the balance between the constitutional right to reputation and privacy, on the one hand, and freedom of expression and the public’s right to know, on the other.

When an individual or corporation faces a civil defamation claim or a private criminal complaint arising from an allegedly harmful publication, the most familiar and commonly invoked line of defense is the “truth in publication” defense, legally known in Hebrew as “I spoke the truth.” However, contrary to common public perception, the assertion “but what I said was true” is not, in itself, sufficient to shield the publisher from civil or criminal liability.

This article provides an in-depth analysis of Section 14 of the Defamation Prohibition Law, the two cumulative conditions required for the defense to apply, the allocation of the burden of proof in court, and the strategic implications for both publishers and injured parties.

What Is the “Truth in Publication” Defense under Section 14 of the Defamation Prohibition Law?

Section 14 of the Defamation Prohibition Law, 5725–1965, establishes the “truth in publication” defense as follows:

“In any criminal or civil proceeding for defamation, it shall be a valid defense that the matter published was true and that the publication was of public interest. This defense shall not be denied solely because the truth of an incidental detail that did not cause substantial harm was not proven.”

The wording of the section makes it clear that, in order to rely on this defense, the publisher must prove two cumulative conditions:

1. The factual condition: The published matter was true.
2. The public-interest condition: The publication was of public interest.

If either of these conditions is not met, the defense will fail, and the publisher may be liable for substantial monetary damages and may even face criminal sanctions.

In-Depth Analysis of the Two Cumulative Conditions

1. The First Requirement: “The Matter Published Was True” (Objective Truth)

The Reasonable Reader Test and Objective Truth

The truth required under Section 14 is objective truth, assessed as of the time the publication was made. The courts do not examine the publisher’s subjective belief, but rather the meaning that a reasonable, ordinary reader would attribute to the publication, based on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in the context of the publication as a whole (CA 751/10 Anonymous v. Dayan-Orbach).

The Burden of Proof

• Who Bears the Burden? The burden of proving that the publication is true rests entirely with the defendant (the publisher).
• Standard of Proof
  In civil proceedings, the applicable standard is the balance of probabilities (i.e., more likely than not). However, where the publication attributes particularly serious misconduct to the plaintiff—such as criminal offenses, fraud, or corruption—the courts generally require stronger and more persuasive evidence to establish the truth of the publication (CA 10281/03 Koren v. Sharvit).

Good Faith Alone Is Not Sufficient Under Section 14

Reliance on rumors, intuition, or a genuine belief that the published statements are true does not satisfy the “truth” requirement under Section 14.
A publisher who is mistaken about the facts—even if acting honestly and in good faith—cannot rely on the truth in publication defense. In such circumstances, however, the publisher may be able to invoke one of the statutory good faith defenses under Section 15 of the Defamation Prohibition Law, such as the defense of responsible journalism, where applicable.

Incidental Details and Minor Inaccuracies

The legislature recognized that a publication need not be accurate in every insignificant detail. Accordingly, the concluding provision of Section 14 states that the truth in publication defense will not be denied merely because the truth of an incidental detail that does not materially affect the defamatory nature of the publication has not been established.

• Example: If a publication states that a person stole property at 2:00 p.m. on a particular date, but the court later finds that the theft actually occurred at 4:00 p.m., the discrepancy relates to an incidental detail. It does not undermine the availability of the defense, because the core defamatory allegation—the fact that the theft occurred—has been proven to be true.

2. The Second Requirement: “The Publication Was of Public Interest”

Establishing the factual truth of a publication is only half the battle. Even a publication that is entirely true may still constitute defamation if its publication did not serve a public interest.

What Constitutes a “Public Interest”?

Israeli case law has consistently drawn a clear distinction between public interest and what merely interests the public(see CA 214/89 Avneri v. Shapira; CA 670/79 Haaretz Publishing Ltd. v. Mizrahi).

• Public Interest: A matter that provides a genuine public benefit by enabling the public to form informed opinions on issues of public concern, uphold the rule of law, protect public health or safety, expose corruption, or safeguard the interests of consumers and service recipients.
• Public Curiosity: Mere curiosity, gossip, or voyeuristic interest in a person’s private life, medical condition, or personal relationships, where such information has no bearing on the individual’s public role or on any legitimate public interest.

Practical Examples of the Distinction:

• Public Officials and Senior Office Holders: The publication of truthful facts concerning the performance, integrity, or conduct of an elected official or senior public servant will almost always be regarded as serving a clear public interest.
• Private Individuals: By contrast, publishing verified information from a private individual’s medical records or personal relationships—even if entirely accurate—will generally fail the public interest test where the individual holds no public office, and may expose the publisher to liability for damages.

Application of the Defense: Civil Proceedings vs. Criminal Proceedings

The truth in publication defense serves as a complete legal defense in two principal contexts:

1. Civil Proceedings (Defamation Claims)

A person harmed by defamatory statements may bring a civil action seeking monetary compensation. Under Section 7A of the Defamation Prohibition Law, the court may award statutory damages without proof of actual harm, as follows:

• Up to ILS 70,000 (indexed to the Consumer Price Index) for the publication itself.
• Up to ILS 140,000 (indexed to the Consumer Price Index) where the plaintiff proves that the publication was made with intent to cause harm.

Where the publisher successfully establishes the requirements of Section 14, the defense operates as a complete bar to liability, resulting in dismissal of the claim and, in appropriate cases, an award of legal costs against the plaintiff.

2. Criminal Proceedings (Private Criminal Complaint or Prosecution)

In more serious circumstances, the publication of defamatory material to two or more persons with the intent to cause harm constitutes a criminal offense under Section 6 of the Defamation Prohibition Law, punishable by up to one year of imprisonment.
In addition to prosecution by the state, the injured party may initiate a private criminal complaint against the publisher.

A defendant who successfully establishes both cumulative requirements of Section 14—truth and public interest—will likewise be entitled to a full acquittal in criminal proceedings.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: What happens if I published information that I genuinely believed was true, but the court later determined it was false?

A: The defense under Section 14 (truth in publication) will not be available, as it requires objective factual truth, not a subjective belief in the accuracy of the publication. However, if you conducted a thorough investigation and acted reasonably, you may be able to rely on one of the good faith defenses under Section 15(2) of the Defamation Prohibition Law, or on the defense of responsible journalism, where applicable.

Q: Can a negative review or opinion about a business amount to defamation?

A: Yes. A negative review posted on social media or platforms such as Google may constitute defamatory publication under Israeli law. The reviewer may nevertheless have a valid defense if they can substantiate the factual basis of the review—for example, through photographs, receipts, or documented communications—and demonstrate that the publication served a legitimate public interest by informing or warning other consumers.

Q: What standard of proof applies when a defendant relies on the “truth in publication” defense?

A: The burden of proof rests with the defendant. In civil proceedings, the applicable standard is the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). The more serious the allegation—for example, an accusation of criminal conduct—the stronger and more persuasive the evidence the defendant will generally be required to present.

Practical Recommendations and Legal Strategy

For Publishers (Before Publication)

1. Secure Supporting Evidence Before Publication: Never rely on hearsay alone. Obtain documentary evidence, admissible recordings, and tangible proof before pressing the “Publish” button.
2. Assess the Public Interest: Ask whether the publication serves a genuine public benefit or merely intrudes upon someone’s privacy.
3. Seek Pre-Publication Legal Advice: In sensitive matters, consulting an attorney experienced in defamation law before publication can help prevent costly litigation.

For Individuals Harmed by a Publication:

1. Preserve the Evidence: Take complete screenshots, save the relevant URLs, and document the scope and reach of the publication.
2. Evaluate the Legal Risks and Prospects: Before commencing legal proceedings, assess whether the publisher is likely to possess evidence establishing the truth of the publication, and whether filing a claim may inadvertently trigger the Streisand Effect by drawing greater public attention to the defamatory material.

Conclusion and Legal Assistance

Defamation law—and, in particular, the truth in publication defense—requires a thorough understanding of the statutory framework, Supreme Court precedent, and careful evidentiary analysis. Whether you are defending a publication or seeking redress for reputational harm, a successful legal strategy begins long before the matter reaches the courtroom.

Have You Been the Target of a Defamatory Publication? Have You Been Sued for Defamation?

Cantor & Co. Attorneys & Notaries represents corporations, public officials, business owners, and private individuals in complex defamation, privacy, and reputation-related disputes. If you require experienced legal advice tailored to your circumstances, we invite you to contact our office.

Cantor & Co. Attorneys & Notaries provides comprehensive legal representation in defamation matters throughout Israel.