Facebook, like many other social media, has become a major factor in courts worldwide; unfortunately, in Israel too. Slander, lies and personal attacks on others abound – and all for free! As a result, people are becoming increasingly aware and far more careful about how and what they write. Freedom of expression is not by any means freedom to slander or libel others.
The following case was decided by His Honor, Judge Naftaly Shilo in the family law court of Ramat Gan (תמ”ש 35326-12-10) on October 17, 2012.
The three plaintiffs
A (the father) and R (the mother) are the parents of P (the daughter). Y is another daughter involved in the case, but is not one of the plaintiffs.
The four defendants
T and L are R’s brothers. M and S are R’s parents (grandfather and grandmother of P and Y).
The claim
The plaintiffs sued the defendants for over 1 million shekels for damages, libel and slander. The defendants countersued for slander and libel in the amount of 150,000 shekels.
The case
In July of 2009, P (and Y) told their grandparents (M and S) that A (their father) was physically and emotionally abusing them. The grandparents advised their grandchildren to complain to the police and, a few months later, Y and P moved into their grandparents’ home.
The written description of A’s alleged abuse was pretty ugly. It included punishments, verbal and emotional abuse, and threats against the children’s lives.
A few months later (in October 2009), the grandparents allowed their grandchildren to return to the parental home after the girls’ parents (A and R) had threatened that they would take the grandparents to court.
A few months later, P was evaluated by a psychologist and by a psychiatrist, both of whom found the family to be dysfunctional. However, they also found that P was exaggerating her descriptions of the abuse inflicted on her.
A was arrested in May 2010, as a result of the complaints filed against him by his children (P and Y).
P and Y then requested help from The Israel National Council for the Child. The situation deteriorated from that point forward because of the involvement of the council in addition to the social workers and the police.
A and R (the parents) accused M and S (the grandparents) of inciting the children (P and Y) against them. A and R claimed that their lives had become miserable since the grandparents had started their incitement on Facebook, and asked the court for a restraining order against the grandparents.
All family relationships fell further into disarray. The children were placed in foster homes and started going to boarding school.
After speaking to each side and reading the incitement that the grandparents had posted on Facebook against their own children (the parents of P and Y), Judge Shilo ruled the posts hurtful and damaging, and ordered them to cease. As a result, he agreed partially with the request for a restraining order, giving the social worker the legal power to arrange contact between the grandparents and the grandchildren.
In December 2010, after causing trouble at her boarding school, P moved permanently to her grandparents’ home.
In the same month, the plaintiffs brought their 1 million shekel law suit against the defendants. The first court hearing was held in March 2011. During the course of proceedings, evidence was shown that the defendants had used Facebook to defame and slander A, citing details about his personal life, his career and his jobs.
There is no doubt that every one of P’s friends could have read all of the incitement by the defendants on her Facebook page.
Included in the monetary complaints, A claimed that he could not run for public office, as he had intended, in addition to the damage caused by the slander and libel, including the family’s forced move to another city.
The defendants counter sued, claiming that the plaintiffs had humiliated them in front of the grandchildren, citing A’s accusations that M was a homosexual.
In the meantime, P became a legal adult, which caused changes in some of the legalities. The criminal case against A was dismissed by the police for lack of evidence. Finally, P told the DA that she had lied to the police, having been influenced by the defendants.
L (the uncle) admitted to responsibility for the slander on Facebook, but claimed he felt regretful. However, he repeated his hateful accusations in court.
In an 18-page decision, Judge Shilo ruled that:
- T and L would pay the plaintiffs a total of 40,000 shekels.
- The counter claim (by T and L, M and S) against the plaintiffs was dismissed.
- Each side would pay its own expenses.
The moral of the story
Judge Shilo explained at the beginning of the trial that the family law court was not the appropriate forum for such a dispute and that a case of this nature required professional mediation.
He stated that it was almost impossible to find a solution to a family problem in a courtroom. A courtroom might help parties to move in the right direction, but – faced with their refusal – the judge would be left with no other option but to make a decision.
Judge Shilo concluded that the best solution to a family problem was discussion, accommodation, consensus, common sense and a lot of professional help.
As adults, we are responsible not only to be good examples to our children and to use the media wisely, but also to be on top of what our children are doing.
The use of the media, including Facebook, is not a license to slander; and people shouldn’t think for a moment that what they upload or write there will “stay among friends”. It won’t! Facebook and all other media are open to the public and, if necessary, a subpoena will be issued and the police will have free access to every word posted in the past.
