(-) Unfounded or borderline cause of action - As will be detailed below, the purpose of a plaintiff in a silencing suit is not necessarily to receive the relief sought by him in the framework of the lawsuit, but rather to silence a 'rogue speaker' whose public activity is undesirable to the plaintiff. This is the case, and given that the silencing suits operate a significant part of their operation through the proceeding itself, regardless of its outcome, these are claims that will be filed more than once even in the absence of a solid and solid cause of action, which can lead to a victory in the trial - this matter is simply not necessary for achieving the goals of the silencing suit. On the other side of the coin: if a plaintiff has a justified cause of action, and it has been used properly, it should not be regarded as a claim for silencing; Even if the accompanying result will be a deterrent to the dissemination of similar publications, which are also unacceptable, this is a positive and desirable outcome.
(-) Excessive and Unfounded Compensation Claim - Here, too, we are dealing with a tool designed to intimidate the concrete defendant - and no less important, to potential defendants - by exposing them to liability for 'astronomical' damages, which they will not be able to afford. In this context, it is necessary to examine, inter alia, whether the plaintiff indicates actual damages caused to him, or even any explanation for the amount he chose.
(-) Problematic and unjustified choice of defendants - In situations where the plaintiff is faced with several potential defendants, as will often be the case with regard to the discourse that takes place on the Internet (this is illustrated by the facts of our case, in which the manager of an online group is sued, inter alia, for the publications of others in the group, as well as the issue discussed in the matter Mobility - The law of sharing and "affection" (Like) of publication on a social network), there is also room to take into account the identity of the defendant chosen by the plaintiff. In this context, it was noted in the matter Mobility, because you have to be careful of "Unfair use of the power of prosecution, so that it will be filed, for example, against partners who do not have the means and against whom the power of the prosecution may be, at least theoretically, more significant." (Paragraph 48; for the result of such an election, with respect to the issue of a claim by publishers, see ibid., paragraph 54; and compare: Michal Lavi "Sharing defamation on social media Sociality: Following Civil Appeal 1239/19 Shaul v. NiDaily Communications in a Tax Appeal (published in Nevo, January 8, 2020)" Sentences on the website 15 159, 183-184 (2020) (hereinafter: Lavi)). This aspect may also be important in relation to the identification of silencing claiMs. Thus, it is necessary to examine whether the plaintiff's choice of the defendant is in fact a 'strategic' choice, which is in fact appropriate for a process of silencing, as opposed to an attempt to obtain lawful compensation for the injury caused to him by the permission to speak his tongue. Possible expressions of this are, for example, the choice of a defendant who does not publish the direct publication, without a convincing explanation (for this see: Mobility, paragraph 54; Lavi, pp. 185-193); or a personal lawsuit against a private person, despite the fact that he published his publication under an entity in which he operated, such as a media outlet, an association and the like (for details of this type of election of plaintiffs, see: Aridor Hershkovitz and Schwartz Altshuler, pp. 50-52).