Lucy Aharish Sues for 2.8 Million Shekels; Defendant Cites Freedom of Speech
Journalist Lucy Aharish and actor Tsahi Halevi are seeking damages from Likud activist Rami Ben Yehuda. In his defense against the libel lawsuit, Ben Yehuda argues his comments were part of protected political discourse.
Likud activist Rami Ben Yehuda has filed a statement of defense in the libel lawsuit brought against him by journalist Lucy Aharish and her partner, actor Tsahi Halevi. Ben Yehuda contends that his posts regarding Aharish were part of legitimate political discourse protected by freedom of speech, and he argues the lawsuit is a SLAPP suit that should be dismissed.
The dispute began last February after Aharish delivered a monologue on News 13, calling on Arab citizens of Israel to exercise their democratic right to vote.
Shortly thereafter, Ben Yehuda published several posts labeling Aharish a "terrorist," a "media terrorist," and an "enemy within." The lawsuit further alleges that he published edited photos of her and approached the couple's home on two occasions.
Represented by attorney Amit Mor, Aharish and Halevi are seeking 2.8 million shekels in damages. They claim Ben Yehuda published 16 defamatory posts and, on one occasion, arrived at their apartment door while their minor son was inside.
The court previously issued a six-month restraining order prohibiting Ben Yehuda from approaching or harassing the couple. Ben Yehuda appealed the decision through attorney Haya Malul Gaz. The District Court partially granted the appeal, shortening the duration of the social media ban, but upheld the prohibition against approaching or harassing the couple.
In his statement of defense, filed by attorney Yaniv Lankri, Ben Yehuda argues:
"All of the defendant's expressions were made in a distinctly political context and are covered by the broad protection of the right to freedom of political expression."
He further claims that Aharish knew her words would trigger a public outcry and that her use of "the Arabic language with a very emphasized accent" during the monologue "appeared to be a real provocation."
Ben Yehuda maintains that his posts were good-faith expressions of opinion and caused no damage to the plaintiffs. He asserts that "in practice, the plaintiffs gained great benefit from the turn of events," as Aharish was invited to multiple interviews to respond to the controversy.
