Langlois v. Langlois? (R.I. Fam Ct., Kent County motion filed 2009).
Status: Injunction issued; motion for reconsideration pending.

Tracey Martin, who is involved a child custody dispute with her ex-husband Michael Bouthillier, asked the Family Court judge to enjoin Bouthillier's sister, Michelle Bouthillier Langlois, from writing about the case in updates to her Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-Bouthillier-Langlois/1241318577). She also filed a complaint against Langlois with police.

Judge Michael Forte issued such an order in June; Langlois, with the assistance of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, has asked Forte to reconsider his decision. A hearing is scheduled for July 29.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.projo.com/news/courts/content/ACLU_FAMILY_COURT_07-23-09_ODF506A_v10.345e5b4.html
http://www.riaclu.org/News/Releases/20090722.htm

Haberman v. Rhoad, No. 2006 DR 007754 SC (Fla. Cir. Ct., Family Div. Sarasota County injunction issued Sept. 7, 2006).

Status: Injunction modified to specify web sites covered (Jan. 29, 2008).

Kristen Rhoad, who accuses her ex-husband Phil Haberman of abuse and of falsifying his military record, posted several statements about him on her blog, rhoadwarrior.blogspot.com (no longer active), and several other web sites and some newspapers have posted and published similar materials regarding Haberman’s alleged exaggerations of his military experience. Haberman filed a complaint alleging that the statements on Rhoad’s blog and elsewhere were cyberstalking under Florida law, and constituted domestic violence. The judge agreed, and issued a standard injunction barring Rhoad from contacting Haberman or committing any violence against him, and also ordered a psychiatric evaluation of Rhoad. In a section of the form labeled “other provisions regarding contact,” the judge handwrote into injunction the order that Rhoad to “remove, or cause to remove, all blogs, e-mails or other web-based communications to [Haberman] or third parties that refer to [Haberman], and which are posted, or caused to be posted, by [Rhoad].” Rhoad filed a motion to dissolve the injunction on jurisdictional grounds, but the motion was denied. Nevertheless, Rhoad continued to update her site, and was no effort to enforce the order against other sites. In January 2007, the judge ordered Rhoad to appear on charges of civil contempt. Although she faxed two requests for an adjournment, the hearing was held and a warrant was issued for her arrest. This led the blog to be removed. In January 2008, the court modified the order at Haberman’s request to name the specific web sites involved, which he said was necessary to have the content removed.

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/haberman-v-rhoad

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/story/6760022p-6629130c.html

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/spot/archive.asp?postID=3994

http://sarasota.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A112941

http://sarasota.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A114918

Garrido v. Krasnansky, No. 466-12-06 (Vt. Fam. Ct., Washington County).
Status: Preliminary injunction issued against blog, then dissolved on reconsideration

In a divorce case, Judge Thomas Devine of Washington County Family Court issued an injunction requiring William Krasnansky to remove “any and all Internet postings,” including his blog (lookatmypugs.livejournal.com), which features what Krasnansky says is a fictionalized account of his wife, their marriage and divorce. Krasnansky refused to remove the material from the site, calling it “an act of civil disobedience.” Upon reconsideration, the judge vacated his prior order.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/us/10divorce.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1199985014-nY8QymmMd24iBLLkuZNIqw
http://www.abajournal.com/news/judge_orders_divorcing_blogger_to_take_down_posts_on_marriage/

[Unknown] v. [Unknown], No. ______ (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 200?)

Status: Injunction denied.

In April 2008, the New York Times reported that “Laurie” was sued by her ex-husband for libel over her “DivorcingDaze” podcasts (www.divorcingdaze.com), and that he sought an injunction against them, arguing that they were “obnoxious, derogatory or offensive” and that violated their divorce settlement. The court denied the injunction, holding that while “Laurie’s” statements on the podcasts were “ill-advised and do not promote good parenting,” they were protected by the First Amendment.

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/style/18divorce.html

http://www.abajournal.com/news/courts_reluctant_to_stop_divorcing_bloggers_from_airing_complaints/

http://www.blogher.com/my-ex-husband-sued-me-because-i-do-podcast-about-divorce