Denigrated Haredi officer to be restituted NIS 500,000
Three anti-IDF conscription activists to pay Haredi officer they defamed NIS 500,000; publication featured officer's name, photo, caused him and his wife 'significant mental duress'; 'Pamphlet's sole purpose was libel, denigration of plaintiff and is as far removed as anything could be from right to free speech,' says judge.
Three ultra-Orthodox activists who campaign against the Conscription Law were ordered on Monday to pay NIS 500,000 and an additional NIS 100,000 in legal expenses to a Haredi officer harmed by publications they had put out against him.
The three defendants were ordered to pay the fines by the Ramla Magistrates' Court for their part in the anti-Hardak (a derogatory term meaning "treacherous Haredi" used within ultra-Orthodox society to describe Hardeim who have joined the IDF) campaign.
The court's deputy chief justice Menahem Mizrahi accepted the suit, made by Major Yehuda Glickman against Yona Martzbach, Shlomo Fein and Yehiel Balevy, ruling the first two will pay Glickman restitution of NIS 200,000 each while Balevy will pay NIS 100,000. The suit against a fourth activisit, Binyamin Hayat, was rejected.
Glickman was able to file his suit after hiring private investigators to track down and ascertain the identities of the people behind a flyer dubbed "The hunters", which besmirched his name, exposed his and his family's personal details and called on the public to condemn and harass him personally for his contribution to Haredi IDF enlistment.
Glickman's attorney Shlomi Weinberg voiced his satisfaction with the court's ruling. "This is one of the first verdicts to make it plain Haredi society is not insular and bloodletting of Haredi soldiers will not be permitted," he said.
He claimed publications—on three separate occasions—have caused him and his family to be ridiculed in Haredi society and the general public and were aimed to publish libelous information and ostracize him from his community.
His children were traumatized, Glickman said, after dozens of daily phone calls were made to his residence, including ones made late at night, by stalkers who would call, curse and hang up.
According to Glickman, the situation he had been forced to suffer had caused him and his wife "significant mental duress" and that after his name and photo were publicized, he refrained from walking around main Haredi areas wearing his army uniforms.
The respondents, some of whom denied any involvement in the publications, claimed the suit's sole goal was to deter those objecting to Haredi conscription while harming both their freedom of speech and democratic discourse.
One respondent confessed to his role and said he was merely presenting the stance made by prominent rabbis while voicing his own legitimate opinion and criticism on a matter of public interest of great importance.
It was further claimed by the respondents that Glickman himself besmirched his and his family's names in Haredi society by the mere act of joining the IDF, a decision made in defiance of his community constituting abnormal behavior.
In his decision, Judge Mizrahi said, "The sole purpose of 'The hunters' pamphlet was libel, denigration, slander and humiliation of the plaintiff and is as far removed as anything could be from the right to free speech. Freedom of speech does not equate to the freedom to incitement or to commit libel … Using 'The hunters' as a headline with a sub-headline saying 'The faces and names of the hunters of souls' does not require much scrutiny. The text at face value, considering its target audience, speaks for itself.
"The people behind creating, printing and disseminating the pamphlet intended to degrade, humiliate and denounce the people mentioned therein, to make a mockery of them and to turn them into a target of hatred within Haredi society, especially considering the people mentioned—including the plaintiff—are part of it," Mizrahi added.
Mizrahi concluded by ruling the offense committed against Glickman was "of the highest magnitude," and therefore ruled he should receive the maximal restitution allowed by law.
