Logan Glover, a student at Lafayette High in Missouri, used a digital camera to take photos of his teacher during class, which despicts fellow classmates in the background smiling and giving thumbs-ups. He later posted those photos to his Facebook page. The school suspended him on December 7, 2007, for taking and posting the photos, claiming that he disrupted the school environment by calling on classmates to pose for the photograph, taking their minds away from schoolwork.

Glover and his parents unsuccessfully attempted to appeal the suspension to the principal of the school. His father later filed a lawsuit against the Rockwood School District and the principal, associate principal, and assistant principle of Lafayette on Logan's behalf, arguing that the suspension violated his son's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The complaint, which was heard the day before the end of Glover's suspension, cites the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District 393 U.S. 503 (1969), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that students retain their First Amendment rights when attending school, to the extent that the exercize of those rights does not materially disrupt the educational process.

In their memorandum in opposition to Glover's motion for temporary restraining order which would have allowed him to return to school, the defendants claimed that Glover was suspended for a breach of school policies in accordance with Missouri law, and that the Tinker decision does not protect Glover's conduct which, in the school's opinion, was disruptive.

After the court denied Glover's motion for a temporary restraining order, he moved to voluntarily dismiss the case, which the court granted on August 19, 2008.

Founded in 2006, BlockShopper.com is a start-up local online real estate news service covering Chicago, South Florida, Las Vegas, and St. Louis. Its reporting staff is made up of ex-print journalists who collect public real estate sales data, then use information in the public domain (e.g. company web sites) to write news stories about recent transactions. BlockShopper currently produces upwards of 1,000 stories per month and has produced more than 8,000 since its founding, many of which appear in print newspapers as part of content-sharing partnerships with companies like Tribune. Three of those stories, all on BlockShopper's Chicago web site, reported the real estate transactions of partners and associates from Jones Day, the large international law firm.

Jones Day sued BlockShopper.com on Aug. 12, 2008 in federal court in Illinois. The complaint alleges that Blockshopper.com infringed and diluted the firm's service mark and violated state trademark and unfair competition laws by using the word "Jones Day" when referring to the real estate transactions of Jones Day attorneys, linking to its site and using lawyers’ photos from its site. The firm contends that these activities creates the false impression that Jones Day is affiliated with or sponsors BlockShopper.com.

Jones Day sought a temporary restraining order preventing BlockShopper from writing about its lawyers or linking to its web site. BlockShopper agreed to take down the three stories temporarily, to avoid the expense of arguing both a TRO and then the complaint itself against a large law firm. Its executives say they believe the suit is frivolous and they plan to fully defend themselves. Jones Day told BlockShopper it would drop the case if BlockShopper paid it $10,000 and agreed to never write about its lawyers' real estate transactions again, according to the National Law Journal. BlockShopper declined the offer.

Trial is set for late February 2009.

Update:

09/19/2008 - BlockShopper and individual defendants Timpone and Weinhaus field a motion to dismiss the complaint. Public Citizen, EFF, Public Knowledge, and Citizen Media Law Project moved for permission to file an amici curiae brief in support of BlockShopper's motion.

09/23/2008 - Jones Day filed a memorandum in opposition to Amici's motion for permission to file an amici curiae brief.

09/24/2009 - Amici filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion for permission to file an amici curiae brief.

11/13/08 - The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the claims against individual defendants Timpone and Weinhaus, but otherwise denied the motion. The court also denied the motion of EFF, Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, and Citizen Media Law Project for permission to file an amici curiae brief.

02/11/09 - According to Alison Grant, a reporter for The Plain Dealer, the parties have settled - the settlement allows BlockShopper to continue linking to the Jones Day site, so long as it does not use embedded links.

02/13/09 - The parties filed a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to the settlement.

Roger Woody, a landowner and developer, sued four local bloggers in Virginia state court for tortious interference with contracts, conspiracy to harm his business, and "insulting words" (closely related to defamation) after they allegedly criticized him, his business, and at least one of his properties. According to the Roanoke Times, the lawsuit "accuses the defendants of injuring Woody's 'good name and reputation' in the past two years." Woody is seeking over $31 million in damages.

The dispute centers around a large pile of dirt on one of Woody's properties. According to a court document, two posts on the Think, Christiansburg! blog, maintained by Terry Ellen Carter and  Tacy L. Newell-Foutz, expressed the view that the dirt pile was an eyesore, said that it should be removed, and dubbed it "Mt. Woody." Carter also had critized the pile when interviewed in a Roanoke Times article and made T-shirts that included a photo of the pile with "Woodyville" superimposed over it. Woody's lawsuit claims that the defendants' actions have "cost numerous contracts for the sale of town houses and other properties" and that he will continue to lose sales in the future as a result of their actions.

In May 2008, Carter and Newell-Foutz filed a demurrer asking the court to dismiss the case. The court held a hearing on the demurrer on July 31, 2008.

Dorsett and Lindstrom say they have no connection to the Think, Christiansburg! blog. They have been dismissed from the case.

Update:

10/17/08 - According to one press report, the court granted Carter and Newell-Foutz's motion to dismiss, but gave Woody 21 days to amend his pleading.

10/31/08 - According to one of the defendants in the case, the court order sustaining the demurrers was dated October 31, 2008. Woody has until January 31, 2009, ninety days from the court order, to file an appeal.

04/10/09 -  Woody's appeal was denied.

On February 20, 2008, an anonymous plaintiff sued Jason Fortuny in Illinois federal court for copyright infringement, invasion of privacy through the publication of private facts, and intrusion, after Mr. Fortuny allegedly posted his photograph and personal information on the Internet.

Mr. Fortuny, a now-famous Internet "troll" who was featured in an August 2008 New York Times article, performed a notorious "Craigslist Experiment" in 2006, in which he posted a fake ad on Craigslist pretending to be a woman seeking a “str8 brutal dom muscular male” for sex. According to the New York Times, over one-hundred men responded, providing photographs and contact information. Mr. Fortuny allegedly posted this material to his blog, RFJason, and Encyclopedia Dramatica (described by the New York Times as "an online compendium of troll humor and troll lore"). Mr. Fortuny disputes posting the photographs and contact information to Encyclopaedia Dramatica.

One of the men who responded to Mr. Fortuny's prank filed the Illinois lawsuit, claiming that Fortuny violated his copyrights and invaded his privacy by posting his photograph and personal information. The complaint seeks $75,000 in damages and requests an injunction requiring Mr. Fortuny to remove the photograph and contact information from his website.

Mr. Fortuny is representing himself in the lawsuit. On July 11th, 2008, he filed a letter that the court treated as a motion to dismiss. The motion, in which Mr. Fortuny challenged the court's jurisdiction over him and the substance of the plaintiff's claims, is pending.

Before filing suit, the anonymous plaintiff sent Mr. Fortuny and his web host a DMCA takedown notice. Mr. Fortuny sent a counter-notification, and his host restored the material. Please see our related database entry, Doe v. Fortuny (Correspondence).

Update:

4/9/09 - The court entered a default judgment against Fortuny, requiring him to pay $74,252.56 in damages, attorneys fees, and costs. 

Milton Ohlsen, who runs a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fight promotion company, sued Joel S. Hollenbeck and Paul McElligott for defamation and tortious interference after they allegedly made false statements about him on the Internet.

According to the complaint, Hollenback operates a website called Who is Milton H. Ohlsen III?, which contains statements that Ohlsen is a "federally convicted felon for dealing drugs" and an unethical businessman, among other things. See Cmplt. ¶¶ 10-25.  The website includes photographs purporting to be "police booking photograph[s]" and numberous public records allegedly showing that Ohlsen has a criminal history.

The complaint alleges that McElligott, using the pseudonym "kracker," posted defamatory statements about Ohlsen on a MySpace forum, indicating that he "does not pay his labor" and was under investigation by federal authorities. Cmplt. ¶ 33. It also alleges that McElligot posted a link to Mr. Hollenbeck's website, claiming that the site was a source of "facts about Milton 'Skip' Ohlsen." Cmplt. ¶ 35.

Ohlsen, who claimed the defendants had financially harmed his MMA promotion company and caused his divorce, sued in February 2008 in Missouri state court.  In March 2008, he voluntarily withdrew his claims.

In May 2008, Larry Dominick, the Town President of Cicero, Illinois, filed a "Petition for Discovery" in Illinois state court, seeking information from social networking site MySpace regarding a user who had created false profiles purporting to be Dominick. The petition asked the court for permission to issue interrogatories and document requests to MySpace to discover the user's identity. Interestingly, Dominick filed suit in his official capacity as Town President rather than as a private individual (see Sam Bayard's blog post for further discussion).

Dominick's petition states that Dominick "is the potential plaintiff in an action for defamation, invasion of privacy and related torts" against the creator or creators of the false profiles, but it does not identify any specific defamatory statements or describe the content of the profiles in detail. According to the Chicago Tribune, the profiles were "replete with photos and questionable comments about his sexuality and ethics." MySpace removed the profiles in response to Dominick's claims.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a motion to appear as amicus curiae in the case. On June 4, EFF submitted a brief opposing the petition for discovery and arguing that (1) the Stored Communications Act prohibits a government entity like the Town of Cicero from using ordinary discovery processes to obtain customer records from an online service like MySpace; and (2) Dominick failed to meet the heightened First Amendment requirements demanded of litigants seeking the identities of anonymous Internet speakers.

On June 13, Dominick voluntarily withdrew his complaint without prejudice. Dominick did not note the reasons for the withdrawal, but commentators such as the EFF have stated that his complaint was deficient because it lacked specific allegations of defamatory conduct and proof that the defamatory statements were false.