On March 6, 2012, R.S., a minor, and R.S.'s mother S.S., filed suit in federal court in Minnesota against Minnewaska Area Middle School, the school district, the county, and a number of school and county employees (including the county Sheriff). All of the individuals were sued in both their individual and official capacities, except for the Chair of the County Board (who was sued only in his official capacity). The complaint alleges a series of incidents involving R.S.'s out-of-school Facebook use.

The first set of events alleged in the complaint involve Facebook posts R.S. wrote about one of the school's adult hall monitors. R.S. allegedly complained on Facebook about the hall monitor, and the post was brought to the attention of the school. The post was, according to the complaint, "purely off-campus speech," having been written off hours, involving no use of school equipment. R.S. was given detention, and required to write an apology to the hall monitor. R.S. then posted again on Facebook, wanting to know "who the f%$# told on [her]." This second post earned R.S. one day of in-school suspension.

A subsequent Facebook-related incident began when another student's mother called the school, concerned that "her son was communicating via his computer with R.S. about sex." Eventually, R.S. was called into a room with two school employees and a Deputy Sheriff, who "demanded" R.S.'s email and Facebook login information. R.S. "eventually" gave the information "involuntarily," and the school employees proceeded to search R.S.'s Facebook account on the Deputy's computer. Again, the complaint alleges that all of R.S.'s communications were made off-campus, without using school equipment.

R.S.'s lawsuit alleges a number of federal and state law claims:

• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, alleging violations of R.S.'s First and Fourth Amendment rights under the Federal Constitution;
• 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 claims, for conspiracy to violate R.S.'s constitutional rights, and failure to prevent the violation of her rights;
• Violations of R.S.'s Minnesota state constitutional free-speech and freedom-from-unreasonable-search rights; and
• State common-law claims of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment that R.S.'s constitutional rights were violated. For relief, the complaint seeks a mixture of injunctions, damages, changes to school policy and training, an apology, and costs/fees.

In the fall of 2006, D.J.M. was a 10th grade student in the public school system in Hannibal, Missouri. On October 24 of that year, D.J.M. sent a series of messages to a fellow classmate, C.M., over an instant messaging platform. The messages allude to D.J.M.'s ability to obtain a gun, and during the conversation D.J.M. speculates as to who he would shoot and who he would not amongst his peers. Both D.J.M. and C.M. show amusement and levity during the conversation, frequently adding interjections such as "haha" and "lol."

At some point during the conversation, C.M. became concerned and sent a transcript of the messages to an adult, who in turn contacted the principal of the high school. The principal called the district superintendent, who in turn called the police. The police visited D.J.M. that same evening, and placed him in juvenile detention; D.J.M. was later transferred to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation. He remained under hospital supervision until November 28, 2006.

In the interim, the school district placed D.J.M. under a suspension for the rest of the school year. D.J.M.'s parents appealed the suspension to the Hannibal school board, who affirmed the suspension. D.J.M. returned to high school the following year, and graduated ahead of the rest of his class.

On March 14, 2007, D.J.M. brought suit in Missouri state court, alleging that the suspension of D.J.M. violated his First Amendment right to free speech under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and requesting administrative review of the suspension determination under state law. The case was removed to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in November 2008.

On January 25, 2010, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendant school distrcit on the section 1983 claim, and remanded the state law claim to the Missouri circuit court. The district court found the messages communicated by D.J.M. to be a "true threat" under Watts v. United States, as applied in the school setting by an en banc panel the Eighth Circuit in Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District. In the alternative, the court found authority for the school to punish the student, notwithstanding the First Amendment, under the "substantial interference" test in the student-speech line of cases following Tinker v. Des Moines.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court on August 1, 2011. The court affirmed under both the "true threat" rationale, as examined under Doe, and under the "substantial interference" grounds of Tinker. The court expressly rejected D.J.M.'s claim that the question as to whether the threat was a "true threat" is an issue of material fact. The court also allowed the "substantial interference" test of Tinker to be applied off campus, following the Second Circuit in Wisniewski v. Weedsport Central School District.

In summer 2007, parents in Santa Clarita, California sought an injunction against Jack McClellan, a self-proclaimed pedophile who maintained websites promoting his belief that "girl-love" is positive and healthy. 

According to the MLRC, McClellan's website stated that its purpose was "to promote association, friendship; and legal, nonsexual, consensual touch[ing] (hugging, cuddling, etc) between men and prepubescent girls."  In 2007, McClellan visited a number of events and places where children congregate in California and the Pacific Northwest in order to photograph children in attendance and to provide commentary on his websites, according to an appellate decision in the case.  His website included photographs of fully clothed children taken at these public events and places.

The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against McClellan and his websites on August 3, 2007.  McClellan was arrested for violating the order and served 10 days in jail.

After a hearing on August 24, 2007, in which McClellan represented himself, the Superior Court issued a permanent injunction barring McClellan from:

(1) harassing, attacking, threatening, assaulting (sexually or otherwise), hitting, following, stalking, keeping under surveillance, blocking the movement, loitering, with or around Jane Roe, Jane Roe 2 [the anonymous plaintiffs], or any minor child; (2) contacting (directly or indirectly), telephoning, sending messages, mailing, e-mailing, photographing, videotaping, and otherwise recording or publishing any image of Jane Roe, Jane Roe 2, or any minor child without the parent or guardian's written consent; (3) taking any action, directly or through others, to obtain the addresses or locations of Jane Roe, Jane Roe 2, or any minor child; (4) being within 10 yards of any place where children congregate, including schools, playgrounds, and child care centers; and (5) loitering where minor children congregate, including, but not limited to schools, parks, and playgrounds.

McClellan appealed, arguing that the injunction violated his First Amendment rights because it was based on the content of his speech that promotes sexual relations with children as being healthy, and because it constituted a prior restraint on his publishing activities. 

The California Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed the lower court, reasoning that the injunction did not bar McClellan from expressing his views, but rather from voyeuristic and stalking activity that is "offensive, frightening, menacing, and not protected by McClellan's free speech or assembly rights." Although the decision is not entirely clear, it also suggests that McClellan invaded the privacy of those children whose photographs appeared on his website, both by appropriating their likenesses for an exploitative purpose and casting them in a false light.

In September 2006, Federal authorities prosecuted Karen Fletcher for transmitting obscene materials in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1462(a) and 2, after she posted graphic fictional stories on her website, Red Rose Stories.  According to the indictment, Fletcher posted various stories on the website describing the torture, sexual molestation, and murder of fictional children. The case was notable because the allegedly obscene materials were text only, and the government has never won a conviction based solely on text under current obscenity law. 

Fletcher pled guilty to six counts of distributing obscene materials online in August 2008. She was sentenced to a term of probation of 60 months, with 6 months of home detention, a fine of $1,000, and a special assessment of $600.