Here we feature people who have been sued for what they have said or written, with the motive of silencing them or to deter others.
For example, this article about UK Lawyers for Israel says
The ‘lawfare’ organisation has especially targeted organisations promoting the Palestinian-initiated Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement – from academics to students unions, architects to local councils – by lodging complaints with regulatory bodies and sending letters threatening legal action.Likewise, this article, Using the law to delegitimise the left also discusses "lawfare".
This article, by Jonathan Cook, archived here, discusses several cases, and specifically UK Lawyers for Israel
The Public Interest Law Centre and the European Legal Support Center have made a complaint against the Director of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) for for “…intimidation dressed up as law.”, also here, about letters "which demonstrate a seeming pattern of vexatious and legally baseless correspondence aimed at silencing and intimidating Palestine solidarity efforts". This article, Pro-Israel lawyers investigated over alleged legal threats to suppress support for Palestine, gives some more detail.
BBC Editor Sues Journalist For Calling Out Zionist Bias, also reported in BBC editor sues Owen Jones over Israel bias claim. It concerns Jones's article The BBC's Civil War Over Gaza, archived here, (and there is more about Berg at Raffi Berg: BBC Middle East Editor Exposed as CIA, Mossad Collaborator).
Here is some further commentary from the Canary, BBC editor accused of Israel bias set to sue Owen Jones, which concludes "If the case goes to court, we look forward to learning more about what’s been going on at the BBC under Berg’s watch." Indeed.
UPDATE Mar 2026: Jones reports a judgment of preliminary issues in this case, archived here, said to be in Jones's favour. Jonathan Cook writes in more detail about the case, Berg, and the BBC, archived here
Campaign Against Antisemitism loses "vexatious" court case against Reginald D. Hunter, archived here. The article discusses the issue of "lawfare", and how in this case the private prosecution was found to be vexatious, the judgment is here.
The article mentions other cases, one of which is discussed next.
Shaun Lawson published a long article called "Enough is Enough: Rachel Riley, GnasherJew, and the Political Weaponisation of Antisemitism", archived here (also here). It discusses many aspects of British politics, with a particular focus on accusations of anti-semitism (a topic which I discuss at length here), and individuals involved.
This resulted in a rebuttal and response by Lawson, and a threat to sue him by an actress Tracy Ann Oberman. So Lawson wrote a second long article, called "Beneath Contempt: How Tracy Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley harassed, dogpiled and slandered a 16-year-old child and her father", archived here (also here). This second article discusses antisemitism in Britain, criticising media coverage of it, and the ignorance of the British public on several matters, which he blames on the media. But most of the article is about Tracy Ann Oberman's conduct repeatedly tweeting a girl (described as harassment).
It appears that a barrister Jane Heybroek was sued by Olberman and another media figure Rachel Riley for "retweeting a link to" the second Lawson article, the case being described at [2020] EWHC 1259 (QB). It was later dropped, see Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman drop libel case against barrister. There was no indication of why this particular person was sued, among the “hundreds of people” who retweeted or shared the article, or rather than the author of the article.
Ms Heybroek said that – notwithstanding being a barrister – it had been “a long, and at times exhausting experience, and I would not wish anyone to find themselves on the receiving end of legal action”.Which goes to show that it is far too easy, for those who are in a position to take action like this, to clamp down on unfavourable commentary.
She noted too that the claimants were represented under a conditional fee agreement backed by after-the-event insurance, meaning “there was almost no risk to them in bringing the claim”.
She spent £30,000 herself defending the claims and then raised £45,000 through crowdfunding website CrowdJustice.
This litigation contained various complaints, many amounting to the fact that the majority of the UCU membership held differing views from the claimant on Israel/Palestine. For example, one of the complaints was the Union's rejection of the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism (which seems very similar to the later IHRA definition (paras 135, 166): the claimant described the decision to "abandon the Working Definition was just the most recent of many “insults”" (para 136). (So should the Union accept every definition of anti-semitism, and of any other sort of prejudice, which has ever been proposed??)
Here is a comment by a lawyer on the case: Racial harassment claim by Jewish teacher over union’s Israel-Palestine policies fails
Anyhow, the purpose of this website is to recommend speech or writing which people have attempted to suppress, and I can't point to anything in particular which the UCU has said or written, so I wouldn't have included this item, except to share the gem contained in paragraph 148. As a matter of fact, already in para 84 John Mann MP is described as follows:
a somewhat hostile display in which Mr Mann made no bones about his view that the union was operating in an anti-Semitic way and that those at its head must address the problem. He did not explain what the anti-Semitic behaviour was supposed to have consisted of besides referring to the boycott debate and characterising any boycott of Israel or Israeli institutions as itself anti-Semitic.But the really lovely passage is this one (para 148):
We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to anti-Semitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is ...” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.