Here an attempt is made to find a legal solution to a principle problem together with analysis of a concrete example. There is confrontation between two indisputable but partially mutually exclusive rights. On the one hand, freedom of speech privately and /or publicly and this opinion need not be at all positive, and on the other hand there is every individual’s right to be free of any insult both private and public including expressing one’s own opinion which offends another. It is necessary to establish the limit of illegality. This depends on which right takes precedence. This involves an actual event in which various female tennis players publicly protested, and in this way put pressure on tournament organizers against inviting to the tournament a female tennis player who had just finished “serving” her punishment of a 15 month ban on playing at tournaments. This punishment was the result of her being caught under inspection of her as an athlete and whether she had consumed some substances from the list of forbidden substances. After thorough analysis, it was concluded that a mild display of opinion was involved which did not in any way offend another’s honour nor threaten or damage another’s personality rights. However, if this were exaggerated, then the limit has been violated– a line has been crossed which divides illegal from legal behaviour. In this second case, if other legal conditions are met, there is a case for damages lability. In the first instance, because cumulative fulfilment of all conditions is necessary, no civil damages liability exists.