"I received dozens and hundreds of messages and phone calls after that," also testified Plaintiff 3, Mr. Radman Abutbul, "for days" (ibid., at p. 40, paras. 13 and 26). Plaintiff No. 4, Mr. Dror, added: "She [the defendant] advertised there in a very broad way that I sell diapers. I'm a respected businessman and I suddenly wake up in the morning and I start receiving dozens of calls and messages from people... To wake up in the morning and receive these dozens of messages and phone calls is not a sympathetic thing" (ibid., at p. 13, paras. 10-12; pp. 14, 2-3).
- The same harassment by means of mobile phones, as well as what the plaintiffs argued was a blow to their good name, led them to file this lawsuit. The plaintiffs attributed to the defendant a tort of invasion of privacy, according to The second section of the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981 together with The Fourth Section to the law and also the tort of defamation, according to Section 7 Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965. Each of the plaintiffs petitioned (even when represented by previous counsel) to obligate the defendant to pay him damages in torts, in a variety of alternatives, the lowest of which was ILS 66,542 and the highest - 154,831 ILS. Together, the claim was set at a maximum of ILS 619,324. The plaintiffs also sought to compel the defendant to publish a notice of correction and denial of its publications, which is also a notice of apology; instruct her to immediately remove all of her publications regarding the plaintiffs and any "defamatory and offensive response" to these publications; and to oblige it to "cease defaming the plaintiffs, in any forum whatsoever, and not to repeat it in the future" (paragraph 12 of the statement of claim).
A silencing lawsuit?
- If any lawsuit is called defamation, the purpose of which is to prevent a person from slandering another or holding him accountable for having done so - "Silencing lawsuit", because then all the lawsuits were defamatory - Of silencing. This, but understandably, is not a correct understanding of this legal concept. The mind cannot tolerate its ease of use and reveals itself, unfortunately, frequently in letters of defense. This term revealed itself, as the first, in the statement of defense of the defendant here, alongside a motion to dismiss the claim in limine. Elsewhere I set a lighter:
"A suit for estoppel is a legal concept of defamation law and is made up of several cumulative characteristics. This is not the 'popular' sense of the term that is common in the public, since, at the end of the day, every defamation lawsuit seeks to 'silence', to one degree or another, a statement that has been made or will be made. A suit for estoppel hears, in particular, the exploitation of real power disparities between the parties; a petition for relief in the sum, which has nothing to do with the publication; Reference to the matter, which deviates from the relations of the particular parties to the proceeding and other characteristics, as stipulated in case law. What they have in common is that the purpose of the lawsuit is not to claim the benefit of harming a person's good name, but rather to deprive the person who expresses himself or others, without justification in law and to the extent that cannot be satisfied, of their freedom of expression, especially in the future" (Civil Case (Shalom Tel Aviv-Jaffa) 45277-03-19 Tzur Shushan v. Sarah Fields, at paragraphs 15-17 of my judgment (published in the databases, August 17, 2024)).
- The argument that we have before us a suit for estoppel, in the legal sense that justifies not being required to do so, relied on a number of subordinates. First It was alleged that there are power disparities that supposedly stretch between the defendant and the plaintiffs, in terms of access to the means of communication: "The plaintiffs are public figures leading protests and demonstrations to whom the media is accessible. [The defendant is] an ordinary private civilian" (the first paragraph of the introduction to the statement of defense). Second It was claimed that the plaintiffs intended to "try to silence another/different/additional voice and/or [all in the original] what they call the 'poison machine' of the right and/or the prime minister."Namein the second paragraph). The phrase "and/or" has already been written in the past (see "Foolishness and/or stupidity" Our tongue is for the people 32 (1981). Viewable On the website of the Academy of the Hebrew Language) But it is not the main thing here. These claims are factually incorrect.
- Estoppel lawsuits may indeed be characterized by real power disparities between plaintiffs and defendants, in favor of the former (Civil Appeal Authority 1954/24 Vaknin v. Kibbutz Nir David - Cooperative Society, in paragraph 19 of the judgment of Honorable Acting President Yitzhak Amit (Published on the Judiciary website, January 7, 2025). But the powers, including the gaps, must be such that they make it easier for the plaintiffs to approach the court, take a lawsuit before it, and conduct a lawsuit, which requires knowledge, skill and financial resources, while it is more difficult for the defendants to deal with the courts and on the legal level (Civil Appeal 7426/14 Anonymous v. Adv. Daniel, in the seventh paragraph of the judgment of the The Honorable Judge Dafna Barak-Erez (Published on the Judiciary website, March 14, 2016). A gap in access to "media" does not seem to me to be much more of a silencing lawsuit, just like the gap, for example, between someone who has been given a place of honor in the "hall of fame" of a social network and someone who does not know where its on-button is.
- Even if I went with the defendant's argument, it was not proven before the court, by any evidence whatsoever, that the plaintiffs have a unique approach to "communication", better than that of the defendant. The term "communication" cannot be read as a single entity in any case - Be it demonic and evil-seeking; This will be the "watchdog" of democracy, certainly not in the age of social media. The evidentiary material, which was placed before the court in this lawsuit, reveals that the defendant's access to the extensive "communication" that takes place on social networks, including on the platform.X"The popular one is not inferior in any way to that of any of the plaintiffs.
This is evidenced by the frequent use made by this defendant of the online platform. This is evidenced by the extensive scope of monitoring of her publications there. The expressions of interest and affection that the defendant raised, at least those that are the subject of the hearing before us, will testify to them as detailed above. I will admit that I did not know what that "line" was, in which the defendant modestly positions herself. It is not clear to me how this "ordinary private citizen" differs from any of the plaintiffs. If we are referring to a line that has thousands of "followers" and more; that it gave some of its members an entrance ticket to high-ratings television programs during peak viewing hours; And if one of its adherents has published a well-known "pseudonym," which is also a source of pride for them, and no less - a source of self-determination and belonging, then there is no reason, not even justification, to dwarf any of the members of this rank. There is no room to see it falling, as far as access to free expression is concerned, from any of the plaintiffs or from all of them combined.