Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 2810-08-23 Prof. Shikma Bressler-Schwartzman vs. Ronit Levy

The main points of this judgment

1. In three publications that the defendant uploaded to her account on the social network "X", the plaintiffs' mobile phone books appeared. The defendant urged its readers to contact the plaintiffs - through calls and messages - and to purchase various retail products from any of them: eggs, oil, honey, diapers, baby wipes or security, cleaning and maintenance services.  The defendant praised these products and they are very fresh, offered on sale and their prices are cheap.
2. The plaintiffs, who are not engaged in the supply of goods and services - their sin is mainly in the protests against the government's policy - found themselves severely harassed, and also humiliated, in the dozens and perhaps more phone calls and messages they received.

• In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs petitioned to impose liability on the defendant in torts, torts of invasion of privacy and defamation.  They demanded monetary compensation, in the legal tracks that do not require proof of the details and extent of the damage, as well as orders to remove the publications and prevent them in the future.

1. There is room to accept the claim on its grounds. The publications violated the rights of the first order - the right to privacy and the right to a good name.  They did so without any justification and with the intention of harming the plaintiffs on the basis of their positions.  They did not serve any legitimate interest of the defendant or the interest of the public.  They did not enrich the public discourse, but quite the opposite.  Their entire essence was the fuels of strife and enmity and the cause of harassment.  In the balance that private law requires, the protection of the plaintiffs' rights must prevail over this freedom of expression, of the defendant.
2. There is no room to accept the argument that the plaintiffs are "public figures" and therefore they should be seen as having waived their rights to privacy and good name. The plaintiffs, of course, are no more "public figures" than the defendant.  Even if one of them gave publicly, in other places, his telephone number, he did not do so in order to expose himself to messages of ridicule and contempt, or even to harass him in the Dalat of his mothers.
3. The claim is not tainted by a lack of good faith. There is room to distinguish between the conduct of the defendant, which violated the privacy of the plaintiffs in connection with their public activity, and the calls of any of the plaintiffs to visit the torturers of elected officials and their appointees and to protest their positions before them.  In any case, the law applies tools from public law to protect these public figures.

• In terms of remedy, since the publications have already been removed, there is no need to order their removal. The court is not authorized to compel a person to apologize for things he has published or to instruct him not to republish them.  The amount of the claim is too high and does not fit the criteria in case law.  The defendant must compensate each of the plaintiffs for the injury to him and for the expenses of the proceeding in the sum of approximately ILS 35,000.

The Proceeding and Publications

1. The four plaintiffs are taking part, each in his own way, in the protest that has been plaguing the streets of Israel in recent years against various elements of the policy and conduct of Israeli governments, which the plaintiffs consider unacceptable. Plaintiff 1, Prof.  Shikma Bressler-Schwartzman, an expert in particle physics from the Weizmann Institute of Science, testified that she is "the initiator and leader of the 'Black Flags' protest" (the second paragraph of her main testimony).  Plaintiff 2, The engineer, Lieutenant Colonel Oren Shvil, is a battalion commander in the reserves of the IDF's Special Fire Brigade and "one of the leaders of the reservists' protest - 'Brothers in Arms'" (the second paragraph of his affidavit).  In his civilian life, he is an engineer in a company that manufactures products for the construction industry (Protocol, at p.  21, paras.  27-29).  Plaintiff 3, Mr. Moshe Radman Abutbul, an entrepreneur of elite technology (or elite industry) - The Hebrew terms for "high-tech"), an expert in artificial intelligence, "one of the leaders of the high-tech protest" (the second paragraph of his affidavit).  In the discussion room, he added: "I am active in an association called: 'Embarking on a New Path.'"Name, at p.  42, para.  19).  "One of the leaders of the high-tech protest", said the fourth prosecutor about himself (in the second paragraph of his affidavit), Mr. Ami Dror - Elite technology entrepreneur, educator and leader of social ventures in Israel and around the world.
2. It concerns the claim in three publications published by the defendant, Ms. Ronit Levy, on her social media account "Twitter", in the first week of July 2023 (a few weeks later, the name of the platform was changed to "X"). "I," the defendant introduced herself before this court, "an ordinary citizen whose all my sins I express from time to time and/or respond to the publications on the public agenda" (paragraph 23 of her affidavit-main testimony).  The defendant is identified on social media by the nickname: "Ronit the Bibiist".  Her activities earned her the status of a well-known and some would say influential person.
3. On July 7, 2023, the defendant "tweeted" under the pseudonym "Ronit the Bibiist" and next to her miniature picture, the following entry:

"If you need fresh eggs, olive oil