In September 2008, New York University law professor Joseph Weiler was summoned to appear before a French Examining Judge in connection with a complaint of alleged criminal libel made by Dr. Karin Calvo-Goller, a senior lecturer at the Academic Centre of Law and Business in Israel.  Professor Weiler will appear for trial before the Paris Criminal Tribunal in June 2010.

Professor Weiler is the editor in chief of the European Journal of International Law and the affiliated book review sites, Global Law Books and European Law Books. In 2007, Global Law Books published a book review written by Professor Thomas Weigend, Director of the Cologne Institute of Foreign and International Criminal Law and Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cologne.  Professor Weigend reviewed Dr. Calvo-Goller's book, The Trial Proceedings of the International Criminal Court. ICTY and ICTR Precedents, and criticized it as an "exercise in rehashing the existing legal set-up" and "unproductive," among other things. 

In June 2007, Dr. Calvo-Goller wrote to Professor Weiler in his capacity as editor of Global Law Books, requesting that he remove Professor Weigend's review from the site. Her letter detailed several perceived factual inaccuracies in the review, claiming that it went "beyond the expression of an opinion, fair comment and criticism" and contained "false factual statements which the author of the review, a professor of criminal law, could not reasonably believe to be true." It also claimed that "[t]he review is an indirect insult to former ICTY and actual ICC officials, defense counsel of the ICTY and ICTR, who took the time to read and comment on previous drafts of the book."

In a response to Dr. Calvo-Goller, Professor Weiler declined to remove the review, expressing his sympathy for Dr. Calvo-Goller's hurt feelings, but also pointing out the unorthodox character of the request:

 I have seen all manner of reviews and from time to time received letters from unhappy authors. In these long years of experience I have never received a letter such as yours both in content and tone. It departs from what in my view are considered common conventions of academic discourse and academic publication.

. . . 

It is a very extreme request to ask for a critical review to be removed. I could imagine acceding to such a request only in most egregious circumstances of, say, bad faith, conflict of interest etc. In reviewing a complaint such as yours the task of the editor is not to engage in a de novo review, but to assess whether the review falls into one of those extreme categories of egregious unreasonableness.

After noting Professor Weigend's distinguished professional credentials and addressing each specific factual/substantive contention in turn, Professor Weiler concluded that removing the review was not justified:

My conclusion from this preliminary enquiry is that the heavy burden needed in my eyes to suppress a book review has not been met. In fact not even a prima facie case has been made. I found nothing to impugn the integrity or professionalism of the reviewer and, independently of whether or not I share his opinions or conclusions on your book, I must decline your request to suppress the book review by removing it from the site. 

Professor Weiler also explained that he would forward Dr. Calvo-Goller's comments to Professor Weigend and would consider a request by Professor Weigend, if any, to change the review. Professor Weiler also pointed out the comment feature on the website and suggested that it would be "perfectly in order for you to write a comment which, after editorial approval, could be posted on the website and seen by anyone who reads the review."

Professor Weigend declined to make any changes, Dr. Calvo-Goller posted no comment, and Professor Weiler stood by Professor Weigend's decision.

In October 2009, an Orange County grand jury subpoenaed The (Chester) Chronicle for information about the identities of two anonymous posters to its website. The comments in question related to the controversial tenure of Helen Anne Livingston, the Chester schools superintendent, according to recordonline.com.

The subpoena came after a series of informal requests from local public officials to have comments removed from the site and to reveal IP addresses of the posters.  According to The Chronicle, before the subpoena issued, a Chester police officer came to the newspaper's office requesting the same information.

In February 2010, Orange County Court Judge Nicholas De Rosa granted The Chronicle's motion to quash the subpoena, ruling that the government had not shown that the identities of the commenters were critical to an investigation before the grand jury. 

Elliott Madison (also spelled as Elliot Madison), along with Michael Wallschlaeger, was arrested by the Pennsylvania state police after using Twitter messages to relay information from police scanners and maps to protestors of the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh. They were charged with "hindering apprehension or prosecution, criminal use of a commnication facility, and possession of instruments of crime". According to Martin Stolar, Madison's attorney, the charge of hindering prosecution arose from the fact that Madison announced that the police had issued an order to disperse to the protestors.

A week after the G-20 summit arrest, Joint Terrorism Task Force agents searched Madison's New York home and seized his property, including his computers and the records he keeps for his occupation as a mental health facility counselor. Elena Madison, Jennifer Sobolewski, Michael Wallschlaeger, James Weiss, Irina Weiss, and Maik Hasenbank were also residents of this address at the time. The search warrant used in the search "asked for evidence that indicated...[potential] violations of federal rioting laws." If Madison is found guilty of violating the rioting law (18 U.S.C. §2101), he could face a penalty of up to five years in prison. Madison asked the court for a temporary order to prevent officials from examining the seized property until the court had the opportunity to examine the search warrant.  He also filed a motion to recover the seized property. Stolar argued that the search was unconstitutional and violated Madison's free speech rights. However, an Eastern District New York judge ruled that the government's search was not illegal and lifted the temporary stay, finding that the search warrant was "sufficiently particular and in compliance with the First Amendment".

The criminal charges in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania were dropped after the New York investigation commenced, as the law enforcement agencies felt that the G-20 activities "were not isolated incidents." Madison has not been charged in New York yet, and although he has attempted to appeal the court's order, officials are not prohibited from examining the property that they seized.

In January 2009, Kristina Clair received a grand jury subpoena issued upon application of the United States Attorney for the District of Indiana, Timothy M. Morrison. Ms. Clair is a Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, an independent news aggregation site with a left-of-center activist orientation. 

The subpoena demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008.  It instructed Ms. Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including email addresses, telephone numbers, records of session times and durations, physical addresses, registered accounts, and financial information.  The subpoena also prohibited Ms. Clair from disclosing "the existence of this request unless authorized by the Assistant U.S. Attorney." 

Ms. Clair contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which agreed to represent her.  Kevin Bankston of EFF sent a letter to Doris L. Pryor, the Assistant United States Attorney on the case, explaining that Ms. Clair did not possess the information requested, objecting that the subpoena was not personally served on Ms. Clair, and arguing that disclosure of the requested information would require a court order under federal electronic privacy law.  Further, the letter pointed out that grand jury secrecy requirements do not reach witnesses or prospective witnesses, and therefore the government had no basis to restrain Ms. Clair's speech about the existence of the subpoena.

U.S. Attorney Morrison replied 12 days letter with a one sentence letter informing Bankston that the subpoena had been withdrawn.