This is the case in general and so in the book. The description of the villain in relation to the overweight is repeatedly presented by the defendant, as noted above but will be brought again, as follows:
"His fat fingers were drumming awkwardly on the table. He feels the weight of all his excess weight..."
And later on:
"His fat fingers trembled like during one of his bouts of diabetes..."
Had the details of the plaintiff's health condition been presented incidentally and as a minor detail, one might wonder whether this could be seen as an invasion of privacy. When these details of information are presented as a central motif in the description of the plaintiff's character, "the villain", that disclosure is no longer marginal. When the disclosure of the information is done in mocking language and by tying the details about the plaintiff's situation to his personality presented - it is no longer a matter of marginal and negligible exposure.
Therefore, I accept the plaintiff's argument and determine that the information about the plaintiff's health condition, the overweight for which he underwent gastric bypass surgery and diabetes, constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's privacy.
- Lack of Defense Arguments
- Once it is found that the defendant committed torts of defamation and invasion of privacy against the plaintiff, it is necessary to examine whether the defendant has a defense claim.
The Prohibition of Defamation Law recognizes various defenses that may, if proven, lead to the dismissal of the lawsuit even though it was found that the published statements were defamatory. Thus, for example, the defense of truth in publication (section 14 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law) and the defense of good faith (section 15 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law).
An examination of the defendant's summaries shows that they do not even attempt to argue the defense available to the defendant. They do not attempt to claim that any of the derogatory epithets used in the book and in the publications can be attributed to the plaintiff. There is not the slightest attempt to claim that the publication was made in good faith and in one of the alternatives set forth in the Prohibition of Defamation Law.