Showing posts with label Children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Children. Show all posts

M.P. v. Halvorson

STATUS: Complaint filed on September 13, 2011.

Tex. Dist.: 8th-Grade Novelist Accused of Defamation

Courthouse News Service
The Mother of an eighth-grade girl sued her daughter's classmate and his parents, claiming the boy defamed her daughter in a lurid novel he wrote, using classmate's real names, then published online, with help from his parents.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/16/39832.htm

--Complaint: M.P. v. Halvorson
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/16/KidBook.pdf
Doe v. R.C., No. ___ (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County filed Sept. 24, 2009).
Status: Pending.

Laura Cook, suing on behalf of her minor son, alleges that the defendants -- who are all minors who know the plaintiff, according to the complaint -- created a fake Facebook profile using his real photograph and cell number, and posted racist and sexual comments that appeared to have been written by the plaintiff. The lawsuit claims defamation, placement in false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Case Information and Documents:
>> Complaint
‘Racist’ and ‘Homosexual’ Facebook Page Leads To Online Bullying Lawsuit
4 Teens Sued for Obscene Fake Facebook Profile
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

Roe et al. v. McClellan, No. PS010050 (Cal. Super., L.A. County injunction issued Aug. 24, 2007).

Status: Injunction affirmed, B203651 (Cal. App., 2d Dist. Jan. 15, 2009).

Jack McClellan operated websites, www.stegl.org and www.stegl.info (both no longer accessible), which included photographs of clothed girls, aged three to 11, taken at public events, as well as a listing of public events at which such girls were likely to be present. The site, whose initials apparently stood for “Seattle-Tacoma-Everett Girl Love,” stated that its primary purpose was “to promote association, friendship; and legal, nonsexual, consensual touch (hugging, cuddling, etc) between men and prepubescent girls.” Previously, McClellan’s site focused on events in California. Several parents from Santa Clarita, Cal. sought an injunction barring McClellan from physical locations where children congregate and from posting photographs of minors on his site. A California Superior Court judge immediately issued a permanent injunction, without holding a hearing. McClellan appealed, but the appellate court upheld the injunction despite the procedural error. “McClellan is not prohibited from espousing his controversial views,” the appellate court held. “Rather, he is prohibited from his continuing course of conduct to harass, attack, assault, stalk, and keep under surveillance minor children, as to do so places the children in danger and is threatening to them.”

Links and Court Documents:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10149724-38.html

http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1185636205.shtml

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=5536136

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/30/earlyshow/living/parenting/main3110525.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/us/15pedophile.html

Appellate docket: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1144953&doc_no=B203651

Appellate decision: http://www.ldrc.com/RoevMcClellan.pdf