| "Plaintiff 4: | She [the defendant] advertised there very broadly that I sell diapers. I'm a respectable businessman and I suddenly wake up in the morning and I start getting dozens of calls and messages from people: 'Where's the deal? How do you buy it?' Listen, I have a reputation, I'm known as an educator and I don't sell diapers. |
| The Court: | If it were written there that my lord sells oranges, for example, would my lord see this advertisement in a different way? I mean, is it the diaper issue that my lord finds offensive? |
| Plaintiff 4: | If it were 'oranges,' it would still hurt me. I guess if it were 'oranges' I might have been hurt less, but it still hurts. |
| The Court: | What is defamation in this? What did this thing do, in his opinion, damage his good name? The diaper issue or something else? |
| Plaintiff 4: | I'm a high-tech entrepreneur, I have hundreds of students all over the world, they know me [as] that. And as soon as it's announced that I'm a person who sells diapers, it's just a lie about who I am. Suddenly [people] need to hear that Ami Dror is also a diaper seller. I see it as defamation. I guess [if] it was something like 'oranges,' it would also hurt, but maybe from a smaller angle..." (ibid., p. 13, para. 10). |
Plaintiff No. 2, Mr. Shabil, made similar remarks: "The tweet indicates that I deal with things that are not my real occupation. It's not my profession, I don't deal with it, it erases my occupation and status and changes it into something I don't engage in" (ibid., at p. 26, paras. 1-17). "[The publication] says that I sell diapers and wipes," also testified to Plaintiff 3, Mr. Radman Abutbul, "[the use of my name is made] along with a profession that is not my profession, in which of course there is nothing wrong with it, every job respects its owner of course [but] it is not my job" (ibid., at p. 40, paras. 7-16).
- I considered things thoroughly. I have come to the conclusion that the defendant's publications did indeed damage the plaintiffs' good name. My conclusion is based on two reasons, and I will try to explain them now. Taste Sunday It is found that the publications, in which the foundation of the institution referred to areas of occupation, blatantly ignored the aspects that define the plaintiffs' occupation and personality. They have replaced these aspects with things that are clearly not relevant to the matter. The defendant did not devote any part of the phrases she published to the description of the plaintiffs according to the manner in which they perceive themselves. Her words ignored the way in which prosecutors are perceived by a "reasonable" person, that is, by objective observation. This was even a mistake in the way the defendant sees each of the plaintiffs, since even according to her opinion, it is clear that they do not sell eggs, diapers or barbed wire fences.
The purpose of the publication, other than harassing the plaintiffs, was to express contempt for the plaintiffs and the occupations they chose for themselves. I agree, therefore, that it does not matter substantially if it had been written "eggs", "diapers" or "oranges". The main thing is that it is not written that plaintiff 1 should be called in order to clarify with her questions from the field of particle physics, nor questions in connection with the protest in which she is involved. It was not written, if only for the purpose of violating privacy, that it is possible to harass plaintiff No. 2 with questions about his duties in the reserves. It was not suggested to call any of the plaintiffs 3 and 4 in order to be interested in their social, business or political initiatives, in Israel or around the world. This contempt, this disregard for the way the plaintiffs define themselves and the replacement of the definition with something else, far from the plaintiffs' hearts, is, in my view, an affront to their good name.