The state of Ohio brought criminal charges of telecommunications harassment against Ripley Ellison, a high school student, who stated on her MySpace page that her classmate and former friend had molested her (Ripley's) younger brother.

The Hamilton County Municipal Court convicted Ellison under Ohio Rev. Code § 2917.21(b) after a bench trial.  The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed, holding the evidence was not sufficient to support her conviction.  Specifically, the appellate court found that (1) the state had failed to establish that Ellison made a communication with the purpose to harass; (2) Ellison had posted the accusation for the legitimate purpose of warning others of what she believed to be criminal behavior; and (3) Ellison never directed the communication to her classmate, despite the opportunity to do so.  

The majority opinion did not address Ellison's First Amendment challenge to her conviction. But Judge Painter stated in his concurring opinion that "the First Amendment would not allow punishment for making a nonthreatening comment on the Internet, just as it would not for writing a newspaper article, posting a sign, or speaking on the radio."

On May 15, 2008, Lori Drew was indicted in federal court in California for her alleged role in a hoax on MySpace directed at Megan Meier, a 13-year-old neighbor of Drew's who committed suicide in October 2006 after a "boy" she met on MySpace abruptly turned on her and ended their relationship. The boy was allegedly Lori Drew, who pretended to be 16-year-old "Josh Evans" to gain the trust of Megan, who had been fighting with Drew's daughter.

The grand jury charged Drew with conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The indictment charges that

[o]n or about the following dates, defendant DREW, using a computer in O'Fallon, Missouri, intentionally accessed and caused to be accessed a computer used in interstate commerce, namely, the MySpace servers located in Los Angeles County, California, within the Central District of California, without authorization and in excess of authorized access, and, by means of interstate commerce obtained and caused to be obtained information from that computer to further tortious acts, namely intentional infliction of emotional distress on [Meier].

Update:

06/16/2008- Drew pleaded not guilty.

07/23/2008- Drew filed three motions to dismiss the indictment on grounds of failure to state an offense, vagueness, and unconstitutional delegation of prosecutorial power.

08/1/2008- Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society submitted an amicus brief supporting dismissal of the case

09/4/2008 - In a hearing, Judge Wu denied Drew's motions to dismiss the indictment based on vagueness and improper delegation of authority, but kept her motion to dismiss for failure to state an offense under advisement. 

11/05/2008 - Drew filed a notice of waiver of her right to a jury trial, but the government refused to consent to the waiver.  Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23, a defendant cannot waive a jury trial without the consent of the government. 

11/10/2008 - Judge Wu indicated in pretrial conference that he was inclined to grant Drew's motion in limine to exclude evidence of Megan Meier's suicide at trial on grounds of lack of relevance and tendency of the evidence to unfairly prejudice the jury.

11/14/08 - Judge Wu indicated at a hearing that he would allow evidence of Megan Meier's suicide at trial, but that he would instruct jurors that the case was not about the suicide and that Drew is not charged with causing the suicide.

11/26/08 - The jury returned a verdict acquitting Drew on the felony CFAA charges and finding her guilty on misdemeonor CFAA charges. The jury deadlocked on the felony conspiracy count. Counsel for Drew indicated that he would file a motion for a new trial, and the court set a hearing for December 29, 2008.  The court took the Drew's renewed motion for judgment of acquittal under submission.

12/30/08 - The Government filed an ex parte application to dismiss the felony conspiracy count (Count 1) without prejudice.  Drew responded, arguing that dismissal should be with prejudice.

1/8/09 - The court held a hearing on Drew's motion for judgment of acquittal, but did not make a ruling. Judge Wu indicated that he might issue a written ruling within two weeks.

7/2/09 - Judge Wu announced that he would be dismissing all charges against Drew.

8/28/09 - Judge Wu issued an opinion granting Drew's motion for judgment of acquittal.

Wisconsin authorities criminally prosecuted Joshua Bachert after he created a fake MySpace profile for a high school police officer. In August 2007, authorities agreed to defer prosecution if Bachert stayed out of trouble for one year. Instead, Bachert will pay a fine for a noncriminal citation.

Update:

09/15/2008 - According to the docket charge details, Bachert fulfilled his obligations under the agreement with the authorities, and paid a $312 fine on a citation for disorderly conduct.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations subpoenaed video blogger and freelance journalist Josh Wolf for information regarding a political demonstration that resulted in harm to a police officer. The FBI sought the identities of protestors who appeared in Wolf's video recording of the protest, which Wolf claimed was an attempt by the government to use a journalist (himself) as an investigative tool.

On July 8, 2005, Wolf filmed a San Francisco demonstration against the G8 summit in Scotland. During the course of the protest, a San Francisco police officer was injured, and protestors allegedly damaged a police car. Wolf published an edited version of the video on independant news site Indybay and also sold footage to local TV station KRON.

As part of an investigation into the officer's injury, the FBI subpoenaed Wolf to appear in front of a federal grand jury. The subpoena asked Wolf to produce the full video and any other documentation regarding the protest. The subpoena also sought information regarding the identities of individuals who appeared in the video.

Wolf filed a motion to quash the subpoena, claiming protection under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and California's journalist shield law. The North District of California denied Wolf's motion to quash. The court focused on federal journalist protections and held that Wolf was required to comply with the subpoena because he had not demonstrated that the grand jury investigation was conducted in bad faith.

After Wolf again refused to comply with the subpoena, the court ordered him to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt of court. Wolf again asserted his First Amendment rights, as well as his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Wolf's arguments were supported by amicus briefs by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The court rejected Wolf's and the amici's arguments on grounds similar to those in its denial of Wolf's motion to quash. It held Wolf in contempt and ordered that he be confined until he complied with the subpoena. Wolf and his lawyers appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit granted a motion allowing Wolf to leave prison on bail. However, the court soon after revoked bail persuant to a motion by the FBI. The court then affirmed the district court's contempt ruling and ordered Wolf to testify and reveal the unpubished portions fo the tape. The 9th Circuit's decision agreed with the district court's holding that Wolf could not legitimately refuse to comply with the subpoena without demonstrating that the grand jury was conducted in bad faith.

The FBI and Wolf ultimately settled the case. Wolf published the full version of the video online and filed a DVD copy with the court. In return, he was released from prison and did not have to testify in front of the grand jury. Wolf had served 226 days in prison, the longest term ever served by a journalist for refusing to disclose unpublished source material.