Charlie Sykes, a talk radio host and blogger for WTMJ-AM(620) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, wrote an essay on his blog that criticized Robert Miranda, editor of the Spanish Journal. According to press accounts of the dispute, Sykes alleged that Miranda had in October 1991 been "one of the organizers of what became a violent shout-down, during which coins, hard candy and ice cubes were thrown at [conservative radio host Mark Belling] during a Pro-America rally at [the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee]." Sykes based his statement on an email he received from a listener. When he learned that the e-mail contained factual errors, he removed the posting from his blog within hours on November 12, 2004. Nevertheless, the posting was still available through Internet searches several months later.

On January 3, 2005, Robert Miranda sued Sykes in small claims court for libel, claiming that the posting was false and misleading. Sykes' employer, Journal Communications, offered a $5,000 college scholarship as a settlement ($5,000 is the maximum available award in small claims court) and the case settled just prior to trial. The scholarship is to be awarded to a South Division High School student who wants to study journalism.

On October 26, 2007, the New School of Orlando sued Sonjia McSween, the parent of a former student, in Florida state court, asserting claims of libel, slander, and tortious interference with business relations.

According to the New School's complaint, McSween started a blog called "Say NO to New School of Orlando" after withdrawing her daughter from the school during her first grade year. On the blog, McSween criticized the school's treatment of students and described her family's negative experience with the school. Attached to the complaint are copies of the relevant pages from McSween's blog. Some of the statements described as defamatory in the New School's complaint include:

Who should choose New School of Orlando?
If your child is a mini Stepford Wife, this may very well be the school for you. If your child thrives under extreme stress and dictatorial conditions, this may well be the school for you. If your child doesn't mind being belittled, this may be the school for you. If your child loves to have work belittled because letters are not perfectly formed, this may be the school for you. If your child doesn't mind not having his/her emotional needs met, this may very well be the school for you.

Who shouldn't choose New School of Orlando?:
If your child needs love, in the form of hugs or even just genuine praise for a job well done, this isn't the school for you. If your child becomes anxious under undue stress, this isn't the school for you. If your child has any emotional, learning or physical problems (even minor such as ADD, ADHD) this isn't the school for you. If your child doesn't fit into a perfect mold, this isn't the school for you. If you as a parent do not appreciate being told how to run your home when your child isn't at school, then this definitely isn't the school for you.

The complaint also objects to a statement speculating that the New School might be receiving "kick-backs" from a school psychologist in return for referrals of students to be evaluated for learning disabilities.

On September 6, 2007, counsel for the New School sent a cease-and-desist letter to McSween, asserting that these statements were defamatory and demanding that they be removed and that no future defamatory statements be made about the school. In response, McSween moved the content of her blog to another blog, "Musings of a Disappointed Parent." At the top of the page on "Musings," McSween displayed a disclaimer indicating that her postings were her "opinion."

The school sent a second cease-and-desist letter on September 13, 2007. The letter argued that the "opinion" disclaimer did not eliminate or even reduce McSween's liability because she was publishing defamatory statements of fact about the school. McSween then allegedly removed the disputed statements from "Musings" and created a link to her MySpace page, where the statements apparently still appear.

The complaint also alleges that McSween has published similar statements throughout her community via other media, including oral communications and email. Besides seeking compensatory damages, the complaint includes a request for an injunction prohibiting McSween from "making any further defamatory, libelous, slanderous, and/or disparaging statements regarding New School, on or through any media, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper."

According to press reports, McSween is consulting with a lawyer, who was not specifically named.

Update:

2/25/2008 - The court approved a settlement reached by the parties.

Global Telemedia International (GTMI), a publicly traded telecommunications company, sued a number of anonymous users who posted negative comments about the firm and its officers on the financial message board Raging Bull, alleging that the posts constituted trade libel and libel per se.

On December 20, 2000, two defendants filed a motion to strike the complaint based on the California anti-SLAPP statute (California Civil Procedure § 425.16). This provision sets out a two-part test to gain protection, namely (a) the comments were posted in exercise of the defendants' free speech "in connection with a public issue", and (b) the plaintiff cannot show a probability of success at trial.

On February 23, 2001, the federal district court struck the case against the two defendants and held that speech can be "in connection with a public issue" notwithstanding the commercial character of the subject matter. The fortunes of a publicly traded company with a large number of shareholders is a matter of public and not just commercial concern.

The court also held that the posts were most likely to be taken by readers to be opinion rather than fact because they were "full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases and language not generally found in fact-based documents," and "posted anonymously in the general cacophony of an Internet chat-room in which about 1,000 messages a week are posted about GTMI" (132 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1267).

Update:

3/2/2001 - Court grants defendant Barry King's motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law

7/20/2001 - Case dismissed for lack of prosecution

10/5/2001- Court awarded defendant Barry King attorneys fees of $17,969.25

1/22/2002 - Court awarded attorneys fees of $37,276.83 to defendant Ronald Reader

Terri and Munir Chavla, operators of a community forum called LocalScoop.net, along with three anonymous users of the site sued Mark Kavakich, the local chief of police. According to the lawsuit, Kavakich posted messages on the site threatening to uncover the identities of anonymous users who had criticized him and sent an email to the site's operators threatening civil and criminal action. Plaintiffs also allege in their complaint that Kavakich sent them a subpoena seeking the identities of users of the site.

On April 20, 2004, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, enjoining defendant Kavakich from a) making any threats, either generally or specifically, to prosecute or identify people who post messages on the Internet, specifically, at www.localscoop.net; b) enforcing subpoenas, dated 4/12 and 4/14/04, against www.localscoop.net webmaster Russell Stevens; and c) from threatening to use or making use of any compulsory process to prosecute, identify or confront people who post messages on the Internet, specifically at www.localscoop.net, except by leave of court based upon a showing of probable cause.

The case then proceeded through discovery and court ordered mediation. On January 24, 2006, the court approved the parties' consent decree settling the case. The settlement involved the payment of $42,000 to the plaintiffs and the continuation of the limitations outlined in the preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs received legal asssistance from Witold Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director.

In March 2007, Children of America, Inc., a childcare provider, sued Ed Magedson and Xcentric Ventures, LLC, the owners and operators of the Ripoff Report website, for defamation in Arizona state court.

Ripoff Report is a consumer reporting website that invites consumers to file and document complaints about companies or individuals with whom they've had negative business experiences. Users of Ripoff Report posted a number of critical comments about Children of America.

Children of America sued, arguing that, in addition to publishing user comments, Ripoff Report itself augmented and/or added headlines for the allegedly defamatory postings.

The defendants moved to dismiss the claim based on CDA 230, which protects information service providers from liability for the defamatory comments of third parties. On October 24, 2007, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the motion with respect to those statements allegedly created by Ripoff Report users, but allowed the action to continue with respect to those statements allegedly authored by the defendants.

Update:

12/1/08 - According to the Case Docket, the parties have settled the case.

In August 2007, Stuart Pivar sued science blogger P.Z. Meyers and Seed Media Group, LLC (SMG) for defamation in federal court in New York.

According to the complaint, Pivar is an "industrial, inventor and scientist" who edited a book called Lifecode, which puts forth a theory of "biological self-organization." Myers, an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota at Morris, posted critical comments about Pivar's work on his blog, "Pharyngula," which is hosted on SMG's ScienceBlogs.com. Specifically, Myers allegedly referred to Pivar as a "classic crackpot."

Pivar's complaint included claims for defamation and tortious interference with business relations. He sought injunctive relief and $60 milion in compensatory and punitive damages.

Extensive blog commentary on the case was largely derisive of both Pivar and his claims (see "Related Links" below). Only eleven days after filing the complaint, Pivar voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit.

In February 2004, Ronald Fitch filed a John Doe lawsuit in state court in Maine based on a fake e-mail that was circulated in his name. According to papers filed in the lawsuit, an anonymous person set up an e-mail account (fitchisland@hotmail.com) using Fitch's name. On Christmas Eve 2003, several members of the board of directors of the gated community where Fitch lived received an e-mail from the account. The e-mail, entitled "Happy Holidays," contained a cartoon attachment that Fitch claimed was derogatory and was meant to depict him and his wife.

Fitch sued, alleging that the person who sent the email had misappropriated his identity, violated his privacy, portrayed him in a false light, inflicted emotional distress, and committed fraud. Fitch filed a motion to compel disclosure of information about the user of the email account from Time Warner Cable, who allegedly provided Internet access to the user. Time Warner refused to release any information without a court order referencing 47 U.S.C. § 551, a provision in the Cable Communications Policy Act that regulates cable companies' use of subscriber information. Counsel for the anonymous defendant appeared in the action and opposed the disclosure motion.

The trial court ordered disclosure, finding that the anonymous defendant had consented to disclosure in his user agreement. The anonymous defendant appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, which affirmed the lower court's decision, but based on different reasoning. The court held that, regardless of consent, section 551(c) and (h) of the Cable Communications Policy Act authorized disclosure of subscriber information pursuant to a court order so long as the cable provider notified the subscriber in advance.

Public Citizen Litigation Group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Maine Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Judicial Court, opposing disclosure based on First Amendment protections for anonymous speech. Counsel for the anonymous defendant also made the First Amendment argument on appeal. The court rejected this argument, however, because the anonymous defendant had not raised it before the trial court.

The record is unclear as to whether and how the lawsuit was resolved following disclosure of the anonymous defendant's identity.

William A. Sheehan sued a number of credit reporting agencies, including Experian, in federal court in Washington, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In that litigation, Experian asserted a counterclaim against Sheehan for defamation, commercial disparagement and other torts based on the statements appearing on Sheehan's website.

According to documents filed in that case, Sheehan operated a personal website, on which he posted criticism of government officials and credit reporting agencies. His postings included comments about Experian, allegedly calling its employees "liars" and "scumbags." Sheehan also allegedly posted employees' home addresses and telephone numbers.

Experian moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prohibit Sheehan from posting on his website: (1) "any false or defamatory statements about Experian, its employees or agents"; and (2) "any other language specifically calculated to induce others to harass, threaten or attack Experian, its employees or agents, including, but not limited to, their social security numbers, home phone numbers and maps to their homes." In June 1998, the court denied the first part of Experian's requested order, but granted the second.

In July 1998, the court granted Sheehan's motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order and denied Experian's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court reaffirmed its prior ruling that the first part of the restraining order would constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech because it asked the court to prohibit speech that had not yet been found to be defamatory. It further held that the second part of the restraining order constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint because Sheehan's online speech was protected by the First Amendment since there was no evidence that he had published anything that could be deemed an incitement to imminent unlawful action.