Court Orders Channel 14 and Bardugo to Pay Damages for Defaming Langotsky
A Tel Aviv court ordered commentator Yaakov Bardugo and Channel 14 to pay 75,000 shekels to retired Col. Yossi Langotsky for defamatory statements.
A Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court has partially upheld a defamation lawsuit filed by retired Colonel Yossi Langotsky against commentator Yaakov Bardugo and Channel 14. Judge Dalit Vered ruled that Bardugo falsely portrayed Langotsky and his son as intending to harm him and his family, despite the fact that an interview given by Langotsky contained no such statements.
Bardugo and Channel 14 were ordered to jointly and severally pay Langotsky 75,000 shekels in compensation, plus interest. Additionally, they were ordered to pay 30,000 shekels in legal costs and attorney fees. The lawsuit, originally filed for approximately 475,000 shekels, centered on a monologue broadcasted by Bardugo in February 2023 on Channel 14's "Seven" program.
Background of the Dispute
Hours prior to the broadcast, Langotsky had been interviewed by Ben Caspit and Yinon Magal on 103FM radio following his signing of a petition by Israel Security Prize recipients against the judicial reform. During the interview, Langotsky warned that the situation in the country could deteriorate into a civil war and bloodshed. He also addressed remarks made by attorney David Hodak and Zeev Raz, stating they should not have made those statements and that it was a pity they "slipped up."
Later that day, Bardugo addressed the remarks on air, addressing Langotsky directly: "Your kid is going to take a gun and shoot at me? […] He's going to take a gun and come what, to kill?" He further asked, "Why aren't you under arrest tonight?" and stated, "You are a person who threatened my children, me, my family."
Court Findings and Legal Defense
Bardugo and Channel 14 argued in their defense that the statements were made against the backdrop of previous remarks by Hodak and Raz, and that Bardugo felt a genuine threat to himself and his family. They sought to rely on defenses of truth in publication, good faith, and the expression of opinion.
The court rejected these arguments, establishing that Langotsky did not call for or support civil war, but rather warned against it. The judge noted that Bardugo turned a legitimate political debate and a general warning into a personal attack, falsely depicting Langotsky as intending to cause physical harm.
However, the court ruled that insults such as "idiot" and "shallow," as well as claims that Langotsky did not understand the judicial reform, did not constitute actionable defamation under the circumstances, categorizing them as mere vulgarities rather than legal torts.
