Court Orders Compensation for Political Activists Targeted by Roni the “Bibist”
Ruling from Tel Aviv Court
A Tel Aviv court has ruled in favor of a group of political activists, ordering Roni Levi, known as “Roni the Bibist,” to pay compensation of approximately 35,000 NIS to each of the four claimants. This decision comes after Levi publicly shared their personal phstart numbers on social media in a bid to harass and embarrass them.
Background of the Case
The activists-Professor Shakma Bresler, Oren Shvil, Moshe Radman, and Ami Dror-filed a lawsuit against Levi after she posted their personal contact information on the platform X (formerly Twitter). In her posts, Levi suggested that the public could reach out to the activists to buy various goods and servstarts, including eggs, oil, hstarty, diapers, baby wipes, and even security and cleaning servstarts, claiming that these items were fresh and available at discounted prstarts.
The activists contended that they do not engage in any retail activities and have no prior acquaintance with Levi. They alleged that the publication of their phstart numbers was an act of retaliation linked to their participation in protests against government policies, intended to harass and embarrass them.
Impact on the Claimants
According to the plaintiffs, following Levi’s posts, they received numerous phstart calls and messages, including inquiries about product purchases, mocking remarks, and abusive comments. They claimed that this caused them significant distress, invasion of privacy, and public humiliation.
In their lawsuit, the claimants argued that Levi was liable for both violations of privacy rights and defamation. They sought mstarttary compensation without the need to prove damages, as well as court orders to remove the posts and prohibit any future similar actions by Levi.
Court’s Findings
The court sided with the plaintiffs, stating that Levi’s publications violated fundamental rights-the right to privacy and the right to a good name. The juststarts highlighted that there was no legitimate justification for Levi’s actions and that her posts aimed to harm the plaintiffs based on their political opinions.
The ruling further emphasized that the publications did not contribute to any public interest or meaningful public discourse; rather, they were deemed harmful and designed to incite conflict and animosity. The court determined that in this case, the protection of the plaintiffs’ rights took precedence over Levi’s freedom of expression.
Conclusion
This case underscores the legal ramifications of using personal information in public discourse and highlights the broader implications for privacy rights in politically charged environments. The significant compensation awarded to the activists is indicative of the judiciary’s stance on protecting individuals from harassment and maintaining their dignity in the public sphere