Business
Accountability
"Comes, goes and goes": the profile in the grinder that cost its owner a lot of money
The man sought revenge and posted a picture of the ex on the daring dating site with the derogatory nickname.
The ex revealed, filed a defamation suit - and will receive six-figure compensation
Tags
Grinder
David Rosenthal
Thursday, 21 January 2021, 12:32
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments
Grinder has no limits, but if you offer something, offer on your own behalf (Photo: ShutterStock, ShutterStock)
A few days ago it was reported that a guy who worked in the Ministry of Health was arrested on suspicion of forcing the ex to go into solitary confinement 4 times after sending her fictitious messages from the computer system in the ministry.
The story before us is no less serious and also demonstrates the power of the revenge instinct: a guy opened a fictitious profile on the dating site Grinder called "Come, Suck and Go 24" and offered men to give them oral sex, while impersonating and sending them a picture of his ex.
'Grinder' is known for its boldness but especially for its purposefulness - finding partners for casual sex.
The protagonist of the affair decided to take revenge on the ex, and for a considerable time created a false impression in front of those men he caught on the net, as if the ex was the one to come to bring them to their satisfaction.
After a while, Lax learned that someone was impersonating him and offering sex services as if it were him and decided to put an end to the embarrassing saga - he initiated 'Ambush', meaning he sent a friend to contact the profile owner, who, as mentioned, sent him pictures of his ex-boyfriend.
These, of course, did not include much clothing: one exposing his upper body and the other a close-up of the face.
Next, the two arranged to meet in order to fulfill the said purpose.
And the meeting did take place, but the friend whose picture was distributed came to him, and only then did he realize that the person who was doing the nasty prank on him was none other than his ex.
In light of the seriousness of the act, the spouse filed a tort claim demanding monetary compensation on the ground of serious invasion of privacy, contempt and impersonation.
And what did the ex 'Helz' claim in his defense?
He did not deny the matter, but claimed that it was done only about three times and in any case, it never came to a relationship.
It was further argued that it is not at all a matter of defamation (evil), since there is nothing wrong with mutual pleasure through oral sex for men and in any case also the claim that it is a violation of privacy - to be rejected.
why?
Because the pictures themselves are not degrading and they are trivial at all.
More on Walla!
NEWS
The treatment for knee pain that returns to full function - without pain
To the full article
Trivia?
Definately not
Are things really trivial?
The court ruled no.
Judge Gilad Hess ruled that this was defamation and invasion of privacy in their clear configuration, and that the defendant's conduct amounted to a very serious act of impersonation while materially infringing on the plaintiff's sexuality and his basic right to autonomy over his body.
Indeed, the judge also believes that as long as things are done with consent, there is no impediment to this, but in the said case, it is a false representation of the plaintiff as if it is putting itself in favor of providing oral sex services.
The problem, therefore, is not moral, the judge writes and not for that he was tried, but in light of the fact that he attributed the commission of the act to the plaintiff.
The judge also sided with the claim that the pictures are clear and it is easy to identify that it is a plaintiff.
Regarding the invasion of privacy, the judge also ruled that although they do not despise or humiliate per se, the problem is that they cannot be detached from the context in which they were sent - for the purpose of communicating with foreign men for the purpose of having oral sex.
But what infuriated the judge was the claim that these were trifles and nothing more.
According to him, not only are his actions extremely serious but they also include a criminal aspect.
At the end of the day, the court ruled that the plaintiff would be compensated in the amount of NIS 100,000, plus attorney's fees and legal expenses in the amount of NIS 24,000.
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments