Chevaldina v. R.K./FI Management, Inc., No.3612-3189 (12/14/12)
STATUS:
Blogger appealing preliminary injunction.
Fla.App.: Blogger Appeals Preliminary Injunction in Libel Case
The defendant wrote critical blog posts about a shopping center owner and its leasing practices and was sued for defamation and related claims. In November a circuit court judge enjoined the defendant from writing "defamatory" blogs in the future.
Appellate Brief: Chevaldina v. R.K./ FI Management, Inc.
http://www.medialaw.org/images/medialawdaily/chevaldina.pdf
Showing posts with label Appeal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Appeal. Show all posts
Giordano v. Xcentric Ventures et al
STATUS: Appeals Court rules that website need not take defamatory comments down on December 28, 2011.
Fla.App.: Defamed Business Can't Force Comment Off the Web
News Services of Florida
A website that allows users to post opinions about businesses without regard to whether the opinions are "true" may be appalling in its invitation to slander businesses, but it doesn't have to take the post down, a appeals court ruled.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=535291
Opinion: Giordano v. Xcentric et al
http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D11-0707.pdf
Fla.App.: Defamed Business Can't Force Comment Off the Web
News Services of Florida
A website that allows users to post opinions about businesses without regard to whether the opinions are "true" may be appalling in its invitation to slander businesses, but it doesn't have to take the post down, a appeals court ruled.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=535291
Opinion: Giordano v. Xcentric et al
http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D11-0707.pdf
Stone v. Paddock Productions, Inc.
Stone v. Paddock Productions, Inc.
STATUS: The Illinois Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling on November 17, 2011.
Ill. App.: Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Anonymity of Online Critic of Political Candidate
Electronic Frontier Foundation
The Illinois Court of Appeals today overturned a lower court ruling that had ordered the disclosure of the identity of an anonymous online critic of a political candidate, ruling that the First Amendment prevented such "fishing expeditions" undertaken by "those easily offended by online commentary."
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/illinois-appellate-court-upholds-anonymity-online-critic-political-candidate
Opinion: Stone v. Paddock Productions, Inc.
https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/stonevpaddock-opinion-111711.pdf
STATUS: The Illinois Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling on November 17, 2011.
Ill. App.: Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Anonymity of Online Critic of Political Candidate
Electronic Frontier Foundation
The Illinois Court of Appeals today overturned a lower court ruling that had ordered the disclosure of the identity of an anonymous online critic of a political candidate, ruling that the First Amendment prevented such "fishing expeditions" undertaken by "those easily offended by online commentary."
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/illinois-appellate-court-upholds-anonymity-online-critic-political-candidate
Opinion: Stone v. Paddock Productions, Inc.
https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/stonevpaddock-opinion-111711.pdf
Freeman v. Swift, No. 27CV089585 (Minn. Ct. App., filed Dec. 29, 2009)
Status: Pending.
When a nonprofit corporation that operated a juvenile sex-offender treatment facility (named "Nexus") announced plans for the facility's relocation, a number of people had objections to the relocation plans. One of these people was Janette J. Swift, the founder and leader of a citizen-based group that attended numerous meetings and presented petitions to government bodies involved. Swift communicated with her state representatives, was quoted in news articles, and also established a website and blog.
On Swift's blog, she alleged that the CEO of the facility, James D'Angelo, had made "death threats," and also made derogatory comments about his character while responding to false reports about D'Angelo's suicide. She also e-mailed the supervisor of Peter Freeman, a voluntary board member of the Nexus facility, stating that her e-mail concerned "one of your faculty members who is engaging in unethical, immoral, and possibly even illegal behavior," and sought the supervisor's help in ending Freeman's activities with regard to Nexus. D'Angelo and Freeman brought suit, alleging defamation.
Initially, Swift sought to dismiss the lawsuit under the local anti-SLAPP law, Minn. Stat. s. 554.02, subd. 2(3) (2008); she argued she was immune to liability because her statements constituted "public participation." The lower court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the statements were not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, and that the plaintiffs had provided "clear and convincing" proof that her statements constituted defmation, which was exempted under the statute. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that Swift's speech was not aimed at procuring favorable government action, but rather aimed at creating ill will toward Freeman and D'Angelo. The court declined to address whether the plaintiffs had provided "clear and convincing" proof that her statements constituted defamation.
This was the first case in Minnesota to consider what constitutes "public participation" under the statute.
Links and court documents
Court rejects blogger's anti-SLAPP defense, Courthouse News Service, Jan. 8, 2010
Dec. 2009 opinion, affirming denial of Swift's motion to dismiss
When a nonprofit corporation that operated a juvenile sex-offender treatment facility (named "Nexus") announced plans for the facility's relocation, a number of people had objections to the relocation plans. One of these people was Janette J. Swift, the founder and leader of a citizen-based group that attended numerous meetings and presented petitions to government bodies involved. Swift communicated with her state representatives, was quoted in news articles, and also established a website and blog.
On Swift's blog, she alleged that the CEO of the facility, James D'Angelo, had made "death threats," and also made derogatory comments about his character while responding to false reports about D'Angelo's suicide. She also e-mailed the supervisor of Peter Freeman, a voluntary board member of the Nexus facility, stating that her e-mail concerned "one of your faculty members who is engaging in unethical, immoral, and possibly even illegal behavior," and sought the supervisor's help in ending Freeman's activities with regard to Nexus. D'Angelo and Freeman brought suit, alleging defamation.
Initially, Swift sought to dismiss the lawsuit under the local anti-SLAPP law, Minn. Stat. s. 554.02, subd. 2(3) (2008); she argued she was immune to liability because her statements constituted "public participation." The lower court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the statements were not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, and that the plaintiffs had provided "clear and convincing" proof that her statements constituted defmation, which was exempted under the statute. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that Swift's speech was not aimed at procuring favorable government action, but rather aimed at creating ill will toward Freeman and D'Angelo. The court declined to address whether the plaintiffs had provided "clear and convincing" proof that her statements constituted defamation.
This was the first case in Minnesota to consider what constitutes "public participation" under the statute.
Links and court documents
Court rejects blogger's anti-SLAPP defense, Courthouse News Service, Jan. 8, 2010
Dec. 2009 opinion, affirming denial of Swift's motion to dismiss
CRIMINAL CASE: U.S. v. Drew, Crim. No. 08-00582 (C.D. Cal. indictment filed May 15, 2008).
Status: conviction on three misdemeanor charges, acquittal on three of the felony charges, hung jury on one felony charge (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2008); felony charge dismissed (Dec. 31, 2008); convictions rev'd on post-trial motions (preliminary ruling July 2, 2009).
Lori Drew created a fake MySpace page as part of scheme to find out how a particular 13-year-old girl felt about the woman’s daughter. She posed as a boy who flirted online with Megan Meier for a month. Then another girl who had a password to the account began sending nasty e-mails to Megan, and sent an e-mail breaking off the apparent relationship. Megan then committed suicide.
In early December 2007, St. Charles County prosecuting attorney Jack Banas announced that there was insufficient evidence to file harassment, stalking or child endangerment charges against Drew. Federal prosecutors in Missouri also said there was no basis for prosecution.
But in May 2008 a federal grand jury in California issued an indictment for conspiracy and computer fraud. The indictment claims jurisdiction with the California court based on the location of MySpace’s headquarters. On June 12. 2008, Drew pleaded not guilty. In August, the Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted a brief seeking dismissal of the case, arguing that the prosecution is misapplying a federal computer fraud statute.
In late November a jury convicted Drew of three misdemeanor charges of accessing MySpace’s computers without authorization in order to obtain information about the 13-year-old, acquitted her of three felony charges of unauthorized access to MySpace's servers in order to cause emotional distress, and reached a deadlock on one felony charge of conspiracy (which was dismissed at request of the prosecutor).
In July 2009, the judge threw out the convictions in a preliminary ruling on post-trial motions, with a written decision forthcoming.
The prosecutor filed a notice of appeal in late September 2009, but requires approval from U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan before the appeal proceeds.
Links and Court Documents:
No charges to be filed over Meier suicide Prosecutor says MySpace hoax doesn't cross criminal threshold (St. Charles, Mo. Journal, Dec. 3, 2007)
A Hoax Turned Fatal Draws Anger but No Charges (New York Times, Nov. 28, 2007)
L.A. grand jury issues subpoenas in Web suicide case (Los Angeles Times, Jan. 9, 2008)
Woman pleads innocent in Myspace hoax suicide case (Reuters, June 16, 2008)
EFF urges judge to dismiss MySpace case (CNet News, Aug. 4, 2008)
Govt: Cyberbullying is a New Phenomenon, as is Social Networking (Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Aug. 13, 2008)
Judge tentatively refuses to dismiss Internet case (Associated Press, Sept. 4, 2008)
Judge Throws Out Conviction in Cyberbullying Case (New York Times, July 2, 2009)
Prosecutor Dismisses Felony Charge In MySpace Case (Online Media Daily, Jan. 2, 2009)
Drew Case May Go To Higher Court (Online Media Daily, Sept. 28, 2009)
Prosecutors Drop Plans to Appeal Lori Drew Case (Wired "Threat Level" blog, Nov. 20, 2009).
>> EFF amicus brief
Status: conviction on three misdemeanor charges, acquittal on three of the felony charges, hung jury on one felony charge (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2008); felony charge dismissed (Dec. 31, 2008); convictions rev'd on post-trial motions (preliminary ruling July 2, 2009).
Lori Drew created a fake MySpace page as part of scheme to find out how a particular 13-year-old girl felt about the woman’s daughter. She posed as a boy who flirted online with Megan Meier for a month. Then another girl who had a password to the account began sending nasty e-mails to Megan, and sent an e-mail breaking off the apparent relationship. Megan then committed suicide.
In early December 2007, St. Charles County prosecuting attorney Jack Banas announced that there was insufficient evidence to file harassment, stalking or child endangerment charges against Drew. Federal prosecutors in Missouri also said there was no basis for prosecution.
But in May 2008 a federal grand jury in California issued an indictment for conspiracy and computer fraud. The indictment claims jurisdiction with the California court based on the location of MySpace’s headquarters. On June 12. 2008, Drew pleaded not guilty. In August, the Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted a brief seeking dismissal of the case, arguing that the prosecution is misapplying a federal computer fraud statute.
In late November a jury convicted Drew of three misdemeanor charges of accessing MySpace’s computers without authorization in order to obtain information about the 13-year-old, acquitted her of three felony charges of unauthorized access to MySpace's servers in order to cause emotional distress, and reached a deadlock on one felony charge of conspiracy (which was dismissed at request of the prosecutor).
In July 2009, the judge threw out the convictions in a preliminary ruling on post-trial motions, with a written decision forthcoming.
The prosecutor filed a notice of appeal in late September 2009, but requires approval from U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan before the appeal proceeds.
Links and Court Documents:
No charges to be filed over Meier suicide Prosecutor says MySpace hoax doesn't cross criminal threshold (St. Charles, Mo. Journal, Dec. 3, 2007)
A Hoax Turned Fatal Draws Anger but No Charges (New York Times, Nov. 28, 2007)
L.A. grand jury issues subpoenas in Web suicide case (Los Angeles Times, Jan. 9, 2008)
Woman pleads innocent in Myspace hoax suicide case (Reuters, June 16, 2008)
EFF urges judge to dismiss MySpace case (CNet News, Aug. 4, 2008)
Govt: Cyberbullying is a New Phenomenon, as is Social Networking (Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Aug. 13, 2008)
Judge tentatively refuses to dismiss Internet case (Associated Press, Sept. 4, 2008)
Judge Throws Out Conviction in Cyberbullying Case (New York Times, July 2, 2009)
Prosecutor Dismisses Felony Charge In MySpace Case (Online Media Daily, Jan. 2, 2009)
Drew Case May Go To Higher Court (Online Media Daily, Sept. 28, 2009)
Prosecutors Drop Plans to Appeal Lori Drew Case (Wired "Threat Level" blog, Nov. 20, 2009).
>> EFF amicus brief
Doninger v. Niehoff, No. HHB-CV-07-4014735-S (
Doninger v. Niehoff, Civil No. 07-01129 (D.
Status: Denial of preliminary injunction upheld; defense motion for summary judgment granted in part; appeal pending.
A high school student and her mother sued the principal of her daughter’s school and the superintendent of her school district after they barred the student from running for re-election as student secretary after she posted complaints to her blog about a student-planned concert that was canceled by school administrators.
The state case was moved to federal court in late July 2007. On Aug. 31, 2007, the federal trial court denied a preliminary injunction to force school administrators to allow the girl to run for office; the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling on May 30, 2008. Doninger v. Dept. of Homeland Security, No. 07-CV-3885 (2d Cir. 2008).
The case then returned to the trial court, which partially granted a defense motion for summary judgment on Jan. 15, 2009, leaving only a claim alleging that the student’s speech was chilled when she was prohibited from wearing a t-shirt with a message on it at school. The student has appealed the partial grant of summary judgment.
Links and Court Documents:
Case information: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/doninger-v-niehoff
http://www.rep-am.com/News/438521.txt
http://www.ctcentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18616270&BRD=1643&PAG=461&dept_id=10486&rfi=6
http://www.nbc30.com/news/13385544/detail.html
http://region19.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2008/11/13/news/a3-db.txt
State complaint: http://mirandamagazine.com/joomla/images//donninger%20lawsuit.pdf
State docket: http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DispDetail.asp?DocNum=HHB-CV-07-4014735-S
Federal district court decision denying injunction: http://www.splc.org/pdf/doningerdenial.pdf
Appellate decision affirming denial of injunction: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA3LTM4ODUgLWN2X29wbi5wZGY=/07-3885%20-cv_opn.pdf
Dennis v. Watson, Civil No. 07CV05202 JFL002 (
Status: Trial on damages pending; interlocutory appeal pending before
In December 2007, Stephanie Dennis sued Teresa Watson, operator of the RomeNewsbyWatson.com web site, for comments posted on the site which alleged that Dennis was having an affair. [Although such suits are ordinarily barred by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. it, is unclear whether the argument was made in this case.]
After a short detour to federal court, which remanded the case to state court, Watson moved that the judge hearing the case recuse himself, but the judge refused; Watson then appealed the refusal to the Georgia Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the judge held two hearings in the case and on Feb. 4, 2009 held Watson in default when she did not appear, and planned to hold a trial on damages. The following day, Feb. 5, the Georgia Supreme Court transferred the case to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which on Feb. 11 declined to order the lower court to halt its proceedings.
Links and Court Documents:
http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/680/public/news948417.html
http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/680/public/news947488.html
http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?pnpid=680&show=archivedetails&ArchiveID=1325823&om=1
http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/680/public/news947926.html
http://thesummervillenews.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=244
Supreme Court docket: http://www.gasupreme.us/docket_search/results_one_record.php?docr_case_num=S09M0738
Supreme Court remand: http://www1.romenews-tribune.com/Files/Documents/020709teresawatson.pdf
Mink v. Salazar, Civil No. 04-B-23, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Colo. dismissed Oct. 26, 2004), aff’d, Mink v. Dominguez, No. 04-1496, 482 F.3d 1244, 35 Media L. Rep. 1838 (10th Cir. April 16, 2007), reh’g en banc denied (10th Cir. July 19, 2007), cert. denied, Knox v. Mink, No. 07-516, 128 S.Ct. 1122, 169 L.Ed.2d 949 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2008).
Status: Dismissal affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Thomas Mink brought a civil suit challenging the constitutionality ofColorado
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200320/200320_description.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-01-20-howling-legal_x.htm
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12451
http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20050405/NEWS/104050057&SearchID=7322286462859
http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1160&year=2006
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1672
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1789
Initial trial court dismissal: http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200320/200320_Ruling_dismissing_case_10-26-04.pdf
Appellate decision: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/04/04-1496.pdf
U.S. Supreme Court docket: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-516.htm
Status: Dismissal affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Thomas Mink brought a civil suit challenging the constitutionality of
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200320/200320_description.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-01-20-howling-legal_x.htm
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12451
http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20050405/NEWS/104050057&SearchID=7322286462859
http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1160&year=2006
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1672
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1789
Initial trial court dismissal: http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200320/200320_Ruling_dismissing_case_10-26-04.pdf
Appellate decision: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/04/04-1496.pdf
U.S. Supreme Court docket: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-516.htm
Nuewirth v. Silverstein, No. SC094441 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County dismissed Nov. 27, 2007), rev’d, No. B205521 (Cal.
Status: Grant of anti-SLAPP motion (dismissing case) reversed in part, trial on outstanding claims pending
Conservative commentator Rachel Neuwirth sued blogger Richard Silverstein for postings on his Tikun Olam blog (www.richardsilverstein.com) criticizing Neuwirth, including referring to her as "Kahanist swine" (referring to ardentIsrael Stanford University professor Joel Beinin over comments he sent to Haifa University
Links and Court Documents:
ttp://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=18589
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/neuw021109.htm
Case info and documents: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/neuwirth-v-silverstein
Trial court docket available at http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil (enter case number)
Status: Grant of anti-SLAPP motion (dismissing case) reversed in part, trial on outstanding claims pending
Conservative commentator Rachel Neuwirth sued blogger Richard Silverstein for postings on his Tikun Olam blog (www.richardsilverstein.com) criticizing Neuwirth, including referring to her as "Kahanist swine" (referring to ardent
Links and Court Documents:
ttp://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=18589
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/neuw021109.htm
Case info and documents: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/neuwirth-v-silverstein
Trial court docket available at http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil (enter case number)
Steinbach v. Cutler, Civil No. 06-00620 (E.D. Ark. filed May 16, 2006).
Status: Claims against most defendants dismissed; dismissal of claims against Hyperion Books reversed; pending.
In addition to his suit in the District of Columbia, in May 2006 Robert Steinbach filed a separate suit over the book, The Washingtonienne, a novel based on Jessica Culter’s “Washingtonienne” blog (http://washingtonienne.blogspot.com; no longer existent, but archived at http://washingtoniennearchive.blogspot.com/). The court dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds on Feb. 7, 2007. On appeal, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal against most of the defendants, but reversed dismissal of the claims against Hyperion Books. The case against Hyperion is pending.
Links and Court Documents:
Appeals decision: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/03/071509P.pdf
Status: Claims against most defendants dismissed; dismissal of claims against Hyperion Books reversed; pending.
In addition to his suit in the District of Columbia, in May 2006 Robert Steinbach filed a separate suit over the book, The Washingtonienne, a novel based on Jessica Culter’s “Washingtonienne” blog (http://washingtonienne.blogspot.com; no longer existent, but archived at http://washingtoniennearchive.blogspot.com/). The court dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds on Feb. 7, 2007. On appeal, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal against most of the defendants, but reversed dismissal of the claims against Hyperion Books. The case against Hyperion is pending.
Links and Court Documents:
Appeals decision: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/03/071509P.pdf
Kruska v. Perverted Justice Foundation, No. 2:08-cv-00054 (D. Arizona
Status: Dismissed; appeal dismissed, No. 09-15426 (9th Cir. mandate May 21, 2009).
After journalist Jan Kruska expressed her opinion on the over breadth of anti-pedophile laws, several websites, including www.jankruska.com and www.jankruska.net, (both registered through defendant GoDaddy.com), posted allegations that Kruska was herself a convicted pedophile and child molester.
Kruska filed a complaint alleging both state and federal tort and criminal actions against these websites and several affiliated individuals, including Barbara Ochoa, who Kruska claims threatened her if she did not remover her “entire web presence.”
The court granted Ochoa’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the claims against GoDaddy.com under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Kruska appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal.
Links and Court Documents:
www.citmedialaw.org/threats/kruska-v-perverted-justice-foundation
Complaint: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2008cv00054/366532/1/
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/07/godaddy_gets_23.htm
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200902/arizona-district-court-rules-website-targeting-plaintiff-does-not-crea
Order granting motion to dismiss by GoDaddy.com and defendant Bob Parsons: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200902/arizona-district-court-rules-website-targeting-plaintiff-does-not-crea
Status: Dismissed; appeal dismissed, No. 09-15426 (9th Cir. mandate May 21, 2009).
After journalist Jan Kruska expressed her opinion on the over breadth of anti-pedophile laws, several websites, including www.jankruska.com and www.jankruska.net, (both registered through defendant GoDaddy.com), posted allegations that Kruska was herself a convicted pedophile and child molester.
Kruska filed a complaint alleging both state and federal tort and criminal actions against these websites and several affiliated individuals, including Barbara Ochoa, who Kruska claims threatened her if she did not remover her “entire web presence.”
The court granted Ochoa’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the claims against GoDaddy.com under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Kruska appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal.
Links and Court Documents:
www.citmedialaw.org/threats/kruska-v-perverted-justice-foundation
Complaint: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2008cv00054/366532/1/
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/07/godaddy_gets_23.htm
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200902/arizona-district-court-rules-website-targeting-plaintiff-does-not-crea
Order granting motion to dismiss by GoDaddy.com and defendant Bob Parsons: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200902/arizona-district-court-rules-website-targeting-plaintiff-does-not-crea
J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, Civil No. 2007-00585 (M.D. Pa. summary judgment granted Sept. 11, 2008).
Status: Appeal of summary judgment grant to defendants pending (argued June 2, 2009).
On a home computer, students J.S. and K.L. created and postred a fake MySpace page that appeared to be for the principal of their high school. The fake profile, which used the principal’s photograph but not his name, described him as a pedophile and a sex addict. The two girls were suspended from school for ten days.
One of the girls and her parents sued, arguing that the school could not discipline her for activity that occurred totally outside of school. The district court disagreed, holding that “as vulgar, lewd, and potentially illegal speech that had an effect on campus, we find that the school did not violate the plaintiff’s rights in punishing her for it even though it arguably did not cause a substantial disruption of the school.”
The plaintiffs appealed, and the case was argued before the court of appeals on June 2, 2009. No. 08-4138 (3rd Cir. appeal filed Oct. 6, 2008).
Links and Court Documents:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080922-judge-school-can-suspend-students-over-fake-myspace-profile.html
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202424549808
Docket: http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/pamdce/3:2007cv00585/67046/
Opinion granting summary judgment: http://howappealing.law.com/JSvsBlueMountainSD.pdf
Status: Appeal of summary judgment grant to defendants pending (argued June 2, 2009).
On a home computer, students J.S. and K.L. created and postred a fake MySpace page that appeared to be for the principal of their high school. The fake profile, which used the principal’s photograph but not his name, described him as a pedophile and a sex addict. The two girls were suspended from school for ten days.
One of the girls and her parents sued, arguing that the school could not discipline her for activity that occurred totally outside of school. The district court disagreed, holding that “as vulgar, lewd, and potentially illegal speech that had an effect on campus, we find that the school did not violate the plaintiff’s rights in punishing her for it even though it arguably did not cause a substantial disruption of the school.”
The plaintiffs appealed, and the case was argued before the court of appeals on June 2, 2009. No. 08-4138 (3rd Cir. appeal filed Oct. 6, 2008).
Links and Court Documents:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080922-judge-school-can-suspend-students-over-fake-myspace-profile.html
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202424549808
Docket: http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/pamdce/3:2007cv00585/67046/
Opinion granting summary judgment: http://howappealing.law.com/JSvsBlueMountainSD.pdf
Mortgage Specialists v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc., No. 08-E-0572 (N.H. Super. 2008).
Status: Appeal of order to disclose sources pending.
In October 2008, defendant "Mortgage Lender Implode-0-Meter" blog reported that plaintiff mortgage company The Mortgage Specialists was in trouble with the New Hampshire Banking Department for alleged improper mortgage activities. The report included a "2007 Loan Chart" that The Mortgage Specialists had filed with the banking department, as required by New Hampshire law. The law also provides that the chart "shall not be made public" without an overriding reason determined by the banking department.
Within a few days, a commenter using the name "Brianbattersby" posted comments on the "Implode-0-Meter" site, accusing the president of The Mortgage Specialists of fraud.
Mortgage Specialists sent the site a cease-and-desist letter as to the chart. The site removed the chart, but not the accompanying story, and reserved the right to republish the chart. The company sought the identity of the source of the story, including the loan chart, and the identity of "Brianbattersby." The web site refused to identify the source and the commenter, so Mortgage Specialists sued.
In March 2009, a Superior Court judge ordered the site to disclose the information, holding that "The maintenance of a free press does not give a publisher the right to protect the identity of someone who has provided it with unauthorized or defamatory information."
The site, with the support of various amicus, has appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Case Information and Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/mortgage-specialists-inc-v-implode-explode-heavy-industries-inc
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090720/OPINION01/907209949/-1/OPINION01
Status: Appeal of order to disclose sources pending.
In October 2008, defendant "Mortgage Lender Implode-0-Meter" blog reported that plaintiff mortgage company The Mortgage Specialists was in trouble with the New Hampshire Banking Department for alleged improper mortgage activities. The report included a "2007 Loan Chart" that The Mortgage Specialists had filed with the banking department, as required by New Hampshire law. The law also provides that the chart "shall not be made public" without an overriding reason determined by the banking department.
Within a few days, a commenter using the name "Brianbattersby" posted comments on the "Implode-0-Meter" site, accusing the president of The Mortgage Specialists of fraud.
Mortgage Specialists sent the site a cease-and-desist letter as to the chart. The site removed the chart, but not the accompanying story, and reserved the right to republish the chart. The company sought the identity of the source of the story, including the loan chart, and the identity of "Brianbattersby." The web site refused to identify the source and the commenter, so Mortgage Specialists sued.
In March 2009, a Superior Court judge ordered the site to disclose the information, holding that "The maintenance of a free press does not give a publisher the right to protect the identity of someone who has provided it with unauthorized or defamatory information."
The site, with the support of various amicus, has appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Case Information and Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/mortgage-specialists-inc-v-implode-explode-heavy-industries-inc
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090720/OPINION01/907209949/-1/OPINION01
Brandon v. Wizeman, No. 2008CP2602845 (S.C. Cir. Ct. default bench verdict Jan. 20, 2009).
Status: Settled (appeal of $1.8 million award to plaintiff after default judgment dismissed).
Defendant Donald Wizeman operates the Myrtle Beach Insider blog (myrtlebeachinsider.blogspot.com), which comments on local news and politics. In June 2007, a post on the blog referred to Scott Brandon, the head of a local advertising agency, as a “failed lawyer” and criticized one of his firm’s advertising campaigns. Circuit Court Judge Diane S. Goodstein entered summary judgment on liability against Wizeman after he did not appear at a Sept. 2008 hearing. Wizeman sought to have the ruling vacated in December, claiming that he had not received notice of the hearing; Goodstein refused, and Wizeman has appealed. Meanwhile, a special referee appointed by Goodstein awarded Brandon $800,000 in compensatory damages and $1.0 million in punitives.
Wizeman appealed, but before the appeal was heard the parties reached a settlement.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/brandon-v-wizeman
http://www.thesunnews.com/business/story/856883.html
Status: Settled (appeal of $1.8 million award to plaintiff after default judgment dismissed).
Defendant Donald Wizeman operates the Myrtle Beach Insider blog (myrtlebeachinsider.blogspot.com), which comments on local news and politics. In June 2007, a post on the blog referred to Scott Brandon, the head of a local advertising agency, as a “failed lawyer” and criticized one of his firm’s advertising campaigns. Circuit Court Judge Diane S. Goodstein entered summary judgment on liability against Wizeman after he did not appear at a Sept. 2008 hearing. Wizeman sought to have the ruling vacated in December, claiming that he had not received notice of the hearing; Goodstein refused, and Wizeman has appealed. Meanwhile, a special referee appointed by Goodstein awarded Brandon $800,000 in compensatory damages and $1.0 million in punitives.
Wizeman appealed, but before the appeal was heard the parties reached a settlement.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/brandon-v-wizeman
http://www.thesunnews.com/business/story/856883.html
Banks v. Milum, No. _____ (Ga. Ga.
Status: $50,000 award for plaintiff affirmed
NOTE: This is the first case against a true blogger of which MLRC is aware that has gone to trial and resulted in a liability verdict.
Attorney Rafe Banks III sued political activist David Milum for statements made on his website on local politics inForsyth County , Georgia
Status: $50,000 award for plaintiff affirmed
NOTE: This is the first case against a true blogger of which MLRC is aware that has gone to trial and resulted in a liability verdict.
Attorney Rafe Banks III sued political activist David Milum for statements made on his website on local politics in
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/banks-v-milum
http://www.forsythnews.com/news/stories/20060129/localnews/61856.shtml
http://www.forsythnews.com/news/stories/20060129/opinion/61864.shtml
http://www.forsythnews.com/news/stories/20060125/localnews/60583.shtml
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1173363835339
http://www.forsythnews.com/news/stories/20070308/localnews/160529.shtml
Appellate decision: http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/PDF/PDF%20Archive/A06A2_394.pdf
U.S. v. Batiste, et al., Crim. No. 06-20373 (S.D.
Status: Gag order modified; Appeal of gag order dismissed by court
Attorney David O. Markus writes the Southern District of Flordia blog (sdfla.blogspot.com) focusing on cases and news involving the court. One of the cases he blogged about was the “
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/news.html?news_id=46858
http://sdfla.blogspot.com/2008/01/gag-order-lifted-in-part.html
http://sdfla.blogspot.com/2008/01/gagged.html
11th Circuit petition: http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/images/news_photos/46826/SUIT001.PDF
Scheff v. Bock, No. CACE03022837 (Fla. Cir. Ct. default verdict Sept. 19, 2006).
Status: $11.3 million default award for plaintiff
The owner of a company that consults parents of troubled teenagers won $11.3 million against the mother of such a child for her postings on various web sites disparaging the consultancy. The woman posted the comments after the company had helped her remove her sons from a school operated by the World Association of Specialty Programs and Schools, but had refused to put the woman in touch with other students who alleged sexual abuse at schools operated by the association. Although the defendant initially appeared in the suit, she later defaulted. After a trial on damages, the jury awarded $6.3 million in compensatory and $5 million in punitive damages. The defendant subsequently challenged the default award, but it was upheld on July 25, 2007.
Status: $11.3 million default award for plaintiff
The owner of a company that consults parents of troubled teenagers won $11.3 million against the mother of such a child for her postings on various web sites disparaging the consultancy. The woman posted the comments after the company had helped her remove her sons from a school operated by the World Association of Specialty Programs and Schools, but had refused to put the woman in touch with other students who alleged sexual abuse at schools operated by the association. Although the defendant initially appeared in the suit, she later defaulted. After a trial on damages, the jury awarded $6.3 million in compensatory and $5 million in punitive damages. The defendant subsequently challenged the default award, but it was upheld on July 25, 2007.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/scheff-v-bock
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm
http://newsbusters.org/node/8240
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=21761 (an opinionated reaction to the case)
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=Unknown&s=FL%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&d=32035
Lexington Homes, Inc. v. Siskind, No. 2004-CA01018 (No. 04-CA-1018WS-G) (
Status: Dismissed
A housing developer sued the creator a web site (www.bad-lexingtonhomesinc.net; no longer active) that criticized the quality of its homes, saying that it led to decreased sales. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, since the defendants are not
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/lexington-homes-v-siskind
http://www.legaline.com/2006/03/florida-court-dismisses-web-defamation.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/01/Hernando/Builder_sues_man_for_.shtml
Order dismissing case: http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2005-11-02-Order%20Granting%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf
Cahill v. Doe, No. 04C-011-022 (Del.
Status: Dismissed with prejudice, Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del.
After viewing negative comments posted by an anonymous commenter on the Smyrna/Clayton Issues Blog, City Councilman Patrick Cahill filed a John Doe lawsuit and obtained a court order to compel Comcast to identify the poster. On appeal the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a trial court decision that used a good faith standard to deny Doe’s request for an emergency protection order. In dismissing the case with prejudice, the Supreme Court held that before an anonymous commenter could be identified the plaintiff had to provide evidence to support each element of his claim to an extent that created triable issues of fact. This case was the first time a state’s high court had addressed the issue of the rights of an anonymous blog commenter.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20051007151046741
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/cahill-v-doe
Appellant Brief: http://www.cyberslapp.org/documents/CahillvDoeAppBriefasfiled.pdf
Amicus Brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/275487/00882doe-v-cahill-amicus
Order dismissing case: http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/(idavx455jyc4ibyb1g20bb45)/download.aspx?ID=67130
Status: Dismissed with prejudice, Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (
After viewing negative comments posted by an anonymous commenter on the Smyrna/Clayton Issues Blog, City Councilman Patrick Cahill filed a John Doe lawsuit and obtained a court order to compel Comcast to identify the poster. On appeal the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a trial court decision that used a good faith standard to deny Doe’s request for an emergency protection order. In dismissing the case with prejudice, the Supreme Court held that before an anonymous commenter could be identified the plaintiff had to provide evidence to support each element of his claim to an extent that created triable issues of fact. This case was the first time a state’s high court had addressed the issue of the rights of an anonymous blog commenter.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20051007151046741
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/cahill-v-doe
Appellant Brief: http://www.cyberslapp.org/documents/CahillvDoeAppBriefasfiled.pdf
Amicus Brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/275487/00882doe-v-cahill-amicus
Order dismissing case: http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/(idavx455jyc4ibyb1g20bb45)/download.aspx?ID=67130
Vogel et al. v. Felice, No. CV0127424 (Cal. Super., San Benito County filed Sept. 2001).
Status: Denial of anti-SLAPP motion reversed, 127 Cal.App.4th 1006, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 350 (2005).
Plaintiff candidates for public office alleged that defendants maintained two web sites -- www.geocities.com/bobvalenzuelasass and www.geocities.com/bobvalenzuelasass.isonfire.com -- which made several derogatory statements about plaintiffs, including that they were “dumb asses” and that one was an alcoholic and the other was a “deadbeat dad.” Defendants sought to get the case dismissed underCalifornia
Links and Court Documents:
Case and documents: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/vogel-v-felice
Appeals Court decision: http://www.casp.net/cases/felice.html
Status: Denial of anti-SLAPP motion reversed, 127 Cal.App.4th 1006, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 350 (2005).
Plaintiff candidates for public office alleged that defendants maintained two web sites -- www.geocities.com/bobvalenzuelasass and www.geocities.com/bobvalenzuelasass.isonfire.com -- which made several derogatory statements about plaintiffs, including that they were “dumb asses” and that one was an alcoholic and the other was a “deadbeat dad.” Defendants sought to get the case dismissed under
Links and Court Documents:
Case and documents: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/vogel-v-felice
Appeals Court decision: http://www.casp.net/cases/felice.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)