Showing posts with label Insult. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Insult. Show all posts
Blockowicz v. Williams, No. 09-C-3955 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2009)
UPDATE (1/5/11)
STATUS: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court on Dec. 27, 2010.
7th Cir.: Websites Don't Have to Remove Nasty Comments
Courthouse News Service
A website's host and manager are not bound by an injunction that ordered the removal of defamatory comments because they were not "in active concert or participation" with those who posted the comments, the 7th Circuit ruled.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/29/32959.htm
--Decision: Blockowicz v. Williams
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1549803.html
Status: Bloggers enjoined after default judgment.
The Blockowicz family brought suit against defendants Joseph David Williams and Michelle Ramey after they allegedly posted defamatory statements on various websites. The defendants defaulted, and on Oct. 6, 2009, the court entered a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to remove their postings from the websites. The plaintiffs, however, were unable to contact the defendants; instead they approached third party providers of the websites. One of these, RipoffReport.com, refused to comply, arguing the court had no jurisdiction over them. The court agreed, finding the provider was not "acting in concert or legally identified" with the enjoined party as required for the court to enforce an injunction against a non-party under F.R.C.P. 65(d). Accordingly, the court denied the Blockowicz's motion to compel.
Links and court documents
Opinion denying motion to compel, filed Dec. 21, 2009
Ripoff Report Not Bound by Takedown Injunction Against User - Blockowicz v. Williams, Technology & Law Marketing Blog, Dec. 22, 2009
Court Allows Libelous Post To Remain Online, MediaPost Blogs, Dec. 24, 2009
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
NAPW, Inc. v. East Cooper Entrepreneurial Women, No. ____ (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. __, 2009)
Status: Pending
A women's group sought an injunction from New York Supreme Court in order to have an offending blog post removed. The group, NAPW, Inc., claimed that a blog post by a competing organization ECEW, defamed it by calling NAPW a "scam." They also claimed that ECEW's post "attracted further defamatory posts, for which ECEW is liable."
Links and Court Documents
Bloggers Defamed Women's Group, Says Suit, Courthouse News Service, Dec. 31, 2009
Complaint: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/31/NAPW2
See also:
NAPW, Inc. v. Google
A women's group sought an injunction from New York Supreme Court in order to have an offending blog post removed. The group, NAPW, Inc., claimed that a blog post by a competing organization ECEW, defamed it by calling NAPW a "scam." They also claimed that ECEW's post "attracted further defamatory posts, for which ECEW is liable."
Links and Court Documents
Bloggers Defamed Women's Group, Says Suit, Courthouse News Service, Dec. 31, 2009
Complaint: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/31/NAPW2
See also:
NAPW, Inc. v. Google
Siegal v. Kardashian, No. 09-93439 CA 15 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dec. 29, 2009)
Status: Pending
Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet website has a page that links to news articles and press mentions of the diet. Several of these links suggested that Kim Kardashian was a fan of the diet. In October 2009, she took it upon herself to Tweet that she thought the diet was "unhealthy" and that the company was lying. On Dec. 25, her lawyers sent the site a cease and desist letter, asking that references to Kardashian be taken down.
Dr. Siegal brought suit Dec. 29, alleging that both the doctor and his company were defamed by the Tweets.
As of Jan. 6, 2010, there are no links on The Cookie Diet site to Kardashian.
Case information and links:
Complaint, filed Dec. 28, 2009
Kim Kardashian Sued for Twitter Defamation, THR, Esq., Jan. 4, 2010
Kim K: I'm Being Used by a Cookie Monster, TMZ.com, Dec. 25, 2009
Siegal v. Kardashian, Citizen Media Law Project,
Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet website has a page that links to news articles and press mentions of the diet. Several of these links suggested that Kim Kardashian was a fan of the diet. In October 2009, she took it upon herself to Tweet that she thought the diet was "unhealthy" and that the company was lying. On Dec. 25, her lawyers sent the site a cease and desist letter, asking that references to Kardashian be taken down.
Dr. Siegal brought suit Dec. 29, alleging that both the doctor and his company were defamed by the Tweets.
As of Jan. 6, 2010, there are no links on The Cookie Diet site to Kardashian.
Case information and links:
Complaint, filed Dec. 28, 2009
Kim Kardashian Sued for Twitter Defamation, THR, Esq., Jan. 4, 2010
Kim K: I'm Being Used by a Cookie Monster, TMZ.com, Dec. 25, 2009
Siegal v. Kardashian, Citizen Media Law Project,
In Re: Sean Conway, File No. 2007-51308(17B) (Fla. Bar 2007) (attorney discipline proceeding),
Status: Public reprimand issued, Florida Bar v. Conway, No. SC08-326 (Oct. 29, 2008).
The Florida Bar began a disciplinary investigation of attorney Sean Conway for comments he posted on the JAA blog (jaablog.jaablaw.com), part of the web site of the Justice Association of Broward [County], a group of criminal defense attorneys. The comments questioned the courtroom procedures of Broward Circuit Judge Cheryl Aleman, and called her an "evil, unfair witch" who is "seemingly mentally ill.”
Florida’s rules of professional conduct bar attorneys from impugning a judge’s qualifications or integrity.
Conway and the Bar had agreed to a public reprimand in the case. The Florida Supreme Court asked for briefing on whether
Links and Court Documents:
A Legal Battle: Online Attitude vs. Rules of the Bar
Should Lawyer Be Disbarred For Harsh Criticism Of a Judge
Attorney Argues His 'Witch' Comments About Judge Are Protected Speech
IT'S ON: CONWAY V. FLORIDA BAR
>> Fla. Bar investigative file
>> Supreme Court docket
Hansen v. Wilson, No. _____ (Cal. Super., Humboldt County filed late 2008).
Status: Settled in part.
Eureka, Cal. Police Department Communications Supervisor Tawnie Hansen filed the suit late last year against several unnamed "John Does" for comments posted on a (now-largely deleted and no-longer-updated) blog titled "Above the Law" (abovethelaweureka.blogspot.com), written by a blogger using the pseudonyms "Frank Serpico," a name of a former New York police officer who revealed corruption within that department in the early 1970s, and "Bucky Grace."
The blog focused on alleged impropriety within the Eureka, Cal. police department, and dissatisfaction with Police Chief Garr Nielsen; among the statements by "Serpico/Grace" and commenters on the blogs, many of whom appeared to be police department employees, were those allegeding that Hansen and Nielsen were having an affair. Hansen sued over these online comments, as well as other, oral statements, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The suit initially named 100 "John Doe" defendants; in an amended complaint, Hansen named Eureka Police Department Support Services Manager Devora Wilson as one of the defendants. In August 2009, Wilson settled for $10,000.
The case against the other defendants, including the blogger behind the site, continues.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_13021423
http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/eureka-police-blog-spawns-lawsuit
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_12729896?nclick_check=1
Interview with "Frank Serpico": http://khum.streamguys.us/John_Matthews_KSLG-Frank_Serpico042208.mp3
Status: Settled in part.
Eureka, Cal. Police Department Communications Supervisor Tawnie Hansen filed the suit late last year against several unnamed "John Does" for comments posted on a (now-largely deleted and no-longer-updated) blog titled "Above the Law" (abovethelaweureka.blogspot.com), written by a blogger using the pseudonyms "Frank Serpico," a name of a former New York police officer who revealed corruption within that department in the early 1970s, and "Bucky Grace."
The blog focused on alleged impropriety within the Eureka, Cal. police department, and dissatisfaction with Police Chief Garr Nielsen; among the statements by "Serpico/Grace" and commenters on the blogs, many of whom appeared to be police department employees, were those allegeding that Hansen and Nielsen were having an affair. Hansen sued over these online comments, as well as other, oral statements, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The suit initially named 100 "John Doe" defendants; in an amended complaint, Hansen named Eureka Police Department Support Services Manager Devora Wilson as one of the defendants. In August 2009, Wilson settled for $10,000.
The case against the other defendants, including the blogger behind the site, continues.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_13021423
http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/eureka-police-blog-spawns-lawsuit
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_12729896?nclick_check=1
Interview with "Frank Serpico": http://khum.streamguys.us/John_Matthews_KSLG-Frank_Serpico042208.mp3
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)
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
Thompson v. Gelin, No.___ (Fla. Bar complaint filed Oct. 31, 2008).
Status: No action taken
Recently disbarred attorney Jack Thompson filed a complaint with the
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/thompson-v-gelin
http://justicebuilding.blogspot.com/2008/12/norm-kent-defends-bill-gelin.html
Evans v. Bayer, Civil No. 08-61952 (S.D. Fla.
Status: Motion to dismiss pending.
Katherine Evans was suspended for three days from Pembroke Pines Charter high school in November 2007 after she created a Facebook page that criticized one of her teachers as “the worst teacher she had ever had,” and solicited comments about the teacher. Evans’ site received three comments supporting the teacher, and she removed the page. A defense motion to dismiss, filed in March 2009, is pending.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1845
ACLU press release: http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3689
Complaint: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/evans_complaint.pdf
Status: Motion to dismiss pending.
Katherine Evans was suspended for three days from Pembroke Pines Charter high school in November 2007 after she created a Facebook page that criticized one of her teachers as “the worst teacher she had ever had,” and solicited comments about the teacher. Evans’ site received three comments supporting the teacher, and she removed the page. A defense motion to dismiss, filed in March 2009, is pending.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1845
ACLU press release: http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3689
Complaint: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/evans_complaint.pdf
Lochrie v. Norby, No. SCRDCVPT-07-0161960 (
Status: Restraining order denied
Christy Lochrie, a reporter for the Record Searchlight newspaper in
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.redding.com/news/2008/feb/20/blog-dispute-settled-court
Suarez Corp. v. Meeks, Civil No. 267513 (Orio C.P., Cuyahoga County settled Aug. 1994).
Status: Settled for $64
Journalist Brock Meeks criticized a company promoting e-Mail marketing in his e-mail newsletter (now defunct, but archived online at http://cyberwerks.com/cyberwire/). Benjamin Suarez, owner of the company Suarez Corp. Industries, sued for libel. But before the case went to trial, Suarez offered to settle for $64; Meeks accepted.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/suarez-corp-v-meeks
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/?f=meeks_case.info
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/defamation-in-cyberspace.html
Status: Settled for $64
Journalist Brock Meeks criticized a company promoting e-Mail marketing in his e-mail newsletter (now defunct, but archived online at http://cyberwerks.com/cyberwire/). Benjamin Suarez, owner of the company Suarez Corp. Industries, sued for libel. But before the case went to trial, Suarez offered to settle for $64; Meeks accepted.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/suarez-corp-v-meeks
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/?f=meeks_case.info
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/defamation-in-cyberspace.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)