Service page: Defamation lawyer: protecting your reputation.
Freedom of the press in Israel: strong on paper, complex in practice
Israel has no specific press law. There is no legal definition of a “journalist”. Freedom of expression, from which freedom of the press is derived, is protected under Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, but not as an absolute right. It is in constant conflict with other rights: privacy, state security, human dignity. Every journalistic publication that may harm another right is subject to balancing, and it is the court that decides. What such a lawsuit looks like from the injured party’s side: Defamation claims in Israel: how much is awarded, and what you must prove.
The defamation law: the first and sharpest limit
The Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965 is the greatest legal risk for journalists. Defamation is something whose publication may humiliate a person in the eyes of others, hold them up to contempt, or harm them in their position, business or occupation (section 1). Publishing it to one or more persons other than the injured party is a civil wrong (tort) (section 7), and the court may award compensation even without proof of damage, up to an index-linked ceiling (section 7A).
Possible defenses: truth in the publication, when the publication is of public interest (section 14), and publication in good faith in one of the circumstances in section 15, for example expressing an opinion on a person’s conduct in a public role or in connection with a public matter (section 15(4)), or criticism of a work they published or of an act they did in public (section 15(6)). But the defenses are not immunity: they are facts that must be proved in court. A major newspaper that published a harsh story about a businessperson and failed to prove “truth” may be ordered to pay compensation. Without proof of damage, the compensation is limited by the ceiling in section 7A, and if the damage is proved, the Law sets no ceiling for it.
Military censorship: a tool that is still in force
Israel keeps a military censorship mechanism from the British period (Part VIII of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945), and it is still active today. The Censor may require by order that an owner, editor or publisher, or anyone about to publish material, submit it to the Censor before publication (regulation 97), and there is a list of subjects that must be submitted in advance. The Censor may prohibit the publication of material that, in the Censor’s opinion, may harm the defense of the State, public safety or public order (regulation 87).
A person who publishes material in breach of the Censor’s order commits an offense, and so do the owner and the editor of the publication in which it was published (regulation 87(2)).
Gag orders: the restriction from the court A court may prohibit publication in connection with a hearing, for example to protect the safety of a party or a witness, or to prevent serious harm to their privacy (section 70(d) of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984), and may prohibit publication of a suspect’s name or of details from the investigation, if publication may harm the investigation (section 70(e)). Some prohibitions apply by force of the law itself, such as the ban on publishing anything about a hearing held behind closed doors without the court’s permission (section 70(a)). The prohibition binds everyone, including journalists who are not parties to the proceeding, and breaching it is a criminal offense (section 70(f)).
Was something hurtful published about you, or did you receive a warning letter?I will get back to you within one business day.
Calls and replies in English or Hebrew
What happens after you write to me
- You write what happened and with whom. No documents.
- I get back to you within one business day for a short call of a few minutes.
- If it is a matter I handle: after the call you will receive, in writing, what will be done and what the next step is. Work starts only after you approve.
At the end of the call you will know one of three things: it is a matter I handle, and what the next step is; you can manage without a lawyer, and which guide fits; or it is outside my field, and where to turn.
Journalistic privilege: it exists, but it is not absolute
Israel has a certain journalistic privilege: a journalist does not have to reveal their sources in court, except in cases where the need for disclosure outweighs the public interest in protecting the source. The problem: this criterion is open to interpretation. A journalist who is examined in court and refuses to reveal a source may find themselves facing a court decision that requires them to disclose it.
What happens when the line is crossed?
A journalist who published defamation may be liable for compensation: without proof of damage, up to the index-linked ceiling in section 7A(b), NIS 84,038.36 as of the update of 16 October 2026, and double that if it is proved that the publication was made with intent to harm (section 7A(c)); and with proof of damage, beyond that too. A journalist who breached a security order may face criminal proceedings. Alongside the reporter, the editor of the media outlet and whoever actually decided on the publication are also liable, and for civil liability the publisher as well (section 11 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law).
For the consumer of information, a citizen harmed by a publication, this means they have tools: the defamation law, going to court, and in some cases also an application for an order to remove the publication from the internet.
When is it worth contacting a lawyer?
- You are journalists or run a news website, and you received a warning letter, a demand to reveal a source, or a gag order.
- A story about you was published, and the media outlet refuses to publish your response or a correction.
- The publication keeps spreading, and you are considering asking the court to order its removal.
- You are considering suing for compensation without proof of damage under section 7A of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, and want to know what has to be proved and what defenses the other side will have.
You can also do it without a lawyer: you can report to the platform and ask the writer to remove the post yourself, after you have documented the publication. An individual may also file a claim of up to NIS 39,900 (as of 1 January 2026) in the Small Claims Court (section 60(a) of the Courts Law). A defamation claim between an employee and an employer in connection with the employment relationship is heard only in the Regional Labor Court (section 24(a)(1d) of the Labor Court Law, 5729-1969 (חוק בית הדין לעבודה, התשכ״ט-1969)).
Frequently asked questions
Must a journalist reveal their sources in court?
As a rule, no, but the privilege is not absolute. A journalist does not have to reveal their sources in court, except in cases where the need for disclosure outweighs the public interest in protecting the source. This criterion is open to interpretation, and a journalist who refuses to reveal a source may find themselves facing a court decision that requires them to disclose it.
Who is liable when a media outlet publishes defamation: only the reporter?
Not only the reporter. Alongside the reporter, the editor of the media outlet and whoever actually decided on the publication are also liable, and for civil liability the publisher as well (section 11 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law).
When can a court prohibit publication?
A court may prohibit publication in connection with a hearing, for example to protect the safety of a party or a witness, or to prevent serious harm to their privacy (section 70(d) of the Courts Law), and may prohibit publication of a suspect’s name or of details from the investigation, if publication may harm the investigation (section 70(e)). The prohibition binds everyone, including journalists who are not parties to the proceeding, and breaching it is a criminal offense (section 70(f)).
Has something similar happened to you?You can write to me what happened and with whom, without documents.
Calls and replies in English or Hebrew
Is military censorship still active?
Yes. The censorship mechanism in Part VIII of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 is active to this day. The Censor may require by order that material be submitted before publication (regulation 97) and may prohibit the publication of material that, in the Censor’s opinion, may harm the defense of the State, public safety or public order (regulation 87). A person who publishes in breach of the Censor’s order commits an offense, and so do the owner and the editor of the publication (regulation 87(2)).
Sources
- Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981
- Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965
- Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984 (section 70)
- Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 (Part VIII: censorship)
The links lead to the original legislation (in Hebrew). The binding text is the one published in Sefer HaHukim (the official gazette of statutes).
Checklist
- Practical tip: when representing a client harmed by a publication, first check whether it is defamation (section 1 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law), an invasion of privacy (section 2 of the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981) or both. Each law has its own defenses (sections 14–15 versus section 18) and its own ceiling for compensation without proof of damage (section 7A versus section 29A).
- Relevant legislation: Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965; Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981; Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 (Part VIII: censorship); Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984 (section 70); Courts and Labor Courts Regulations (Inspection of Files), 5763-2003 (תקנות בתי המשפט ובתי הדין לעבודה (עיון בתיקים), התשס״ג-2003).
- Common mistake: confusing a gag order (which restricts journalists) with journalistic privilege (which protects sources). These are two completely different mechanisms: breaching the first is a criminal offense (section 70(f) of the Courts Law), while journalistic privilege is a claim examined in the disclosure proceeding.
- Tactical point: in a defamation claim against a newspaper, consider including both the reporter and the editor, since section 11 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law imposes liability on both, and for civil liability on the publisher as well.