VIII. Damage to the Good Name
- The presentation, in ridicule, of the plaintiffs whose occupations are not the correct ones, and the reduction of their image and reputation to matters in which they are not engaged - The same is true of urging others to do the same. - They damaged the plaintiffs' good name. In this case, too, the damage is severe for plucking, as well as for quantity. The defendant did not prove, on the other hand, that no damage was caused to the plaintiffs in its publications. Again relevant is the determination that the defendant did not prove that the plaintiffs have good access to the media, than other victims of defamatory publications have. Such accessibility has been recognized in case law as something that is likely to detract from the damage caused by virtue of the fact that the beneficiary of it It is easier, compared to an ordinary person, to deal with offensive information that has been disseminated about him and to publicly correct them (Civil Appeal Authority 3614/97 Adv. Avi Yitzhak Ibid., at p. 81 (The Honorable Judge Theodor Or)). Such a principle was not proven, as stated, in the case before.
The refinement of the elements of damage and of a causal connection between it and the defendant's publications complements, in this case as well, the finding of the defendant liable in tort in tort.
Good faith in filing the lawsuit?
- However, one more argument was put forward for examination by this Court. It deviates from the book of tort law alone. It is found on the general level of good faith laws, whose initial vitality will be cleansed of various provisions of civil law (in particular, Article 39 of the Contracts Law (General Part), 5733-1973 and Article 14 The Real Estate Law, 5729-1969), but since then they have been granted the status of an independent legal branch (Civil Appeal 2792/03 Yitzhari v. Tal Import, in the judgment of President (Ret.) Barak (Published on the website of the Judiciary, December 14, 2006). "Good faith" is also a valve-concept. In our case, he refers to the demand that any person who claims a right from civil law, including tort law, do so fairly, with cleanliness and without abuse of the judicial process.
- Before that, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs' claim of invasion of privacy was not made in good faith. After all, it was none other than the plaintiffs who published the personal details of others, in order to disturb the public with conversations and messages of the kind that they complain about today, before the court. "The plaintiffs," the defense claimed, "published the telephone numbers of ministers and members of Knesset, individuals and/or public figures, while the plaintiffs called on the public to come to their homes and demonstrate and make their lives miserable day and night, all in order to intimidate them into abusing their duties" (Introduction to the Defense Report). Not only from phone numbers, it was claimed, the plaintiffs also published the private addresses of ministers and Knesset members and their whereabouts, along with a call to demonstrate and protest in these places. In their public response to a warning letter sent to the defendant, the plaintiffs even published the latter's private address. The defendant did not claim that it sought to respond to the plaintiffs in the same currency, but rather that it is unreasonable for the court to suspend their admissibility at a time when they themselves did this wrong to others.
- As you know, Argument of the type "Whataboutism" Or, in other words, "he also did evil," he suffers from a logical fallacy and it is difficult to see him contributing anything to the position of the claimant. However, in the realm of good faith, he may find weight if the misconduct of a certain plaintiff reflects his denial of the right of another to complain about the things about which he, the plaintiff, complains before the court. In order to answer the question of whether such a difficulty adheres to the plaintiffs, the facts must first be clarified accurately. Afterwards, it must be asked whether these facts lay the groundwork for such a serious flaw in the conduct that it omits the basis under good faith in the filing of this claim and justifies its dismissal, if only because of it.
- I examined, one by one, every element of the evidence that she placed before the defendant. Here it is important to be precise, because unlike social media posts, in court something rises and falls according to the evidence and its analysis. It is clear from the evidence, first, that plaintiff 2 did not publish anything that calls for an invasion of the privacy of others. There is no evidence to support the defendant's claim that Mr. Shabil Led friends from"Brothers in Arms" to harass "the ultra-Orthodox leader Rabbi Gershon Edelschein" in his home (sic., paragraph 61 of the defendant's affidavit) and that he further called for a "protest tent" near the home of the defendant Member of Knesset Yuli Edelstein. Publications in which it was reported that this did happen or called for it to be done, including near the home of Minister Gamliel (Appendices 20 to 23 of the defendant's affidavit), were from "Brothers in Arms". While in some of these publications the names of activists appeared, individually and explicitly, the name of plaintiff 2 was completely absent from them. No evidence made it possible to link this plaintiff, even a hint, to the making of those publications.
In Appendix 18 to the affidavit, the defendant attached a copy of a tweet, which was predicted - and not concealed - that plaintiff No. 4 had published, alone, with a list of the private addresses of 11 of the heads of government: the President of the State, the Prime Minister, ministers and members of Knesset, as well as one of the heads of Channel 14 on television. The list was accompanied by a call to "adopt a dictator's collaborator" and to stand near his home. This tweet, when it was presented to the court, received nearly 23,000 views. In a second tweet (ibid., ibid.), plaintiff No. 4 called to appear near the private home of someone, who also appears to be one of the managers of Channel 14, while publishing his address. In a third tweet, Plaintiff 4 posted a photograph of Minister Nir Barkat, standing with others at the "Little Zion" eatery on Kanfei Nesharim Street in Jerusalem. "Let's say with appetite to the destroyer of the economy," the prosecutor wrote, "we will persecute you everywhere!" (ibid., ibid.). A fourth tweet attributed a similar fate toSara May Golan: "In the green dress, in the lobby of the Kfar Maccabiah Hotel, won't you say good evening if you are in the area?" (ibid., ibid.). In a fifth tweet, Prosecutor No. 4 called on the public to go for a private tour "at 33 [HaMetzuda Street], Ramat Gan," in which he located the Speaker of the Knesset, MK Amir Ohana.