The Farcical Defamation Lawsuit of Akiva Glickman vs. Avi Dubitzky
Akiva Glickman Defamation Lawsuit Targets Avi Dubitzky’s Truth-Telling
In the high-profile defamation lawsuit of Akiva Glickman vs. Avi Dubitzky, the plaintiff claims defamation where facts dominate. Glickman has cast Dubitzky as the villain for one simple reason: Dubitzky dared to share the truth. He exposed credible public allegations about Glickman that had already been aired in Israel.
The statements Dubitzky posted in December 2023 were lifted from a 2019 Israeli TV broadcast describing a day camp director “suspected of pedophilia”. Glickman was the subject of that report. Dubitzky’s so-called offense? Sharing a link to the story and warning the community.
Rather than inventing anything, Dubitzky shared an already-public report, which truthfully depicted Glickman as a person “under suspicion.” The show aired in a “To Catch a Predator”-style format. Under Israeli law, the burden is on Glickman to prove the statements were false.
It’s also worth noting that Glickman frequently laments the emotional toll on his wife in his lawsuit— despite the fact that she is not even a party to the suit. This tactic appears more emotional than legally relevant.
Direct Evidence from the Source: The Israeli Report on the Defamation Lawsuit
“A 21-year-old man, previously the subject of complaints by parents over behavior related to pedophilia, opened a boys-only summer camp that included horseback riding, martial arts, and snake petting. In a conversation with a 14-year-old (actually a decoy), the suspect wrote: ‘We can just go straight to bed, as a fling. Maybe hang out, movies, fun—and if it flows, sex.’”
You can read the full original report here: MAKO: The Suspected Pedophile Opened a Summer Camp.
Glickman’s Damages Demand and Internal Contradictions
Glickman’s lawsuit demands an astonishing $10 million in damages—not because he was formally charged, but because Dubitzky reposted a verified public broadcast. Even more alarming, Glickman wants a permanent injunction to prevent Dubitzky from ever speaking about him again.
Such an order would amount to unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment. U.S. courts consistently reject gag orders like this—especially when they aim to silence truth-based commentary on public safety matters.
Internal Contradictions in Glickman’s Defamation Lawsuit
The complaint is riddled with contradictions. Glickman insists he was not named in Dubitzky’s posts, yet claims everyone somehow knew the post was about him. He claims his life has been ruined—by a broadcast that aired in 2019 and by statements made years later that simply echoed it.
Glickman denies everything, but provides no real refutation of the facts. Instead, he banks on emotional persuasion and vague claims of reputational harm—without proving actual falsity or malice.
Legal Resources and Related Cases
To better understand protections against this kind of abuse, read our primer: Florida’s Anti-SLAPP Law Explained.
For another case example, see How Courts Handle Frivolous Defamation Claims.
want to enroll your kids to his summer camp? Click here or here!
