Starting in 2004, the Phoenix New Times published a number of articles critical of Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio. In one article published on its website in 2004, the newspaper disclosed Arpaio's home address as part of a story raising questions about his real estate holdings.

Authorities in Maricopa County began a criminal investigation of the newspaper for violation of section 13-2401 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which makes it a felony to publish the personal information of a "peace officer" on the Internet, if the dissemination of that information poses a serious and imminent threat to officer's safety.

The New Times filed a lawsuit in federal court in Arizona seeking a declaration that section 13-2401 violates its rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The newspaper also sought an injunction barring Maricopa County law enforcement officials from investigating or prosecuting the newspaper for violation of the statute.

While this litigation was ongoing, in late August 2007, the parent company of the New Times received a grand jury subpoena issued at the request of Dennis Wilenchik, a special prosecutor hired by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office to handle the criminal case against the New Times. The subpoena was extremely broad. It asked for all documents related to any articles published about Sheriff Arpaio from January 1, 2004 to the present. More surprising, it asked for extensive information about all online readers of the New Times from January 1, 2004 to the present, including IP addresses, date and time of visit, type of browser, and websites visited before coming to the New Times site.

The newspaper filed a motion to quash the subpoena in Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County. On October 18, Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, the founders of the New Times, published an article on the newspaper's website entitled "Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution." The article discussed the grand jury subpoeana in detail, criticized its breadth, and detailed what the authors believed were irregularities in the prosecution's handling of the case. Significantly, Lacey and Larkin posted a PDF of the full text of the subpoena on the website along with the article.

The same day the article was published, the Maricopa County police arrested Lacey and Larkin for violating section 13-2812 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which makes it a misdemeanor criminal offense for anyone to disclose any "matter attending a grand jury proceeding."

The arrest received widespread media attention, and a storm of criticism ensued. On October 19, in the face of public outcry, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced that his office was dropping all criminal charges against the newspaper and that he had removed special prosecutor Wilenchik from the case. (A video of the County Attorney's public statement is available on the Phoenix New Times site.)

On October 19, Phoenix Newspapers Inc. and KPNX-TV filed a motion requesting the Arizona Superior Court to publicly release documents related to the grand jury investigation, presumably including the subpoena. County Attorney Thomas has announced his support for this request. On October 24, the court released the requested documents, indicating that release was appropriate in part because the New Times had reported the existence of subpeonas on October 18, and in part because other documents in the file did not need to be kept secret to protect the grand jury process and the matter was of public concern.

The parents of a child who was victimized by an online pornography group filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! alleging that it knowingly hosted illegal child pornography on the "Candyman" Yahoo! Group. The plaintiffs sued both the moderator of that "e-group" (who was criminally convicted and imprisoned for his involvement) and Yahoo!

On December 27, 2006, the district court dismissed the case aginst both defendants. The court applied the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. sec. 230) and stated that immunity for service providers is not lost when the conduct in question is a criminal act.

Elsebeth Baumgartner and Bryan DuBois co-ran a blog called "Erie Voices," which posted articles and commentary alleging misconduct about local officials in a number of counties in Ohio.

In June 2005, Baumgartner and Dubois were indicted in Cuyahoga County court for intimidation, retaliation, and possession of criminal tools. The charges related to emails that Baumgartner and DuBois allegedly sent to a retired judge who had previously presided over a libel case in which Baumgartner was a defendant.

Baumgartner and DuBois were re-indicted in Cuyahoga County in August 2005, when the prosecution added a harassment charge based on emails sent to the retired judge's children after the initial indictment.

DuBois pled guilty to separate charges against him in Ottowa County and agreed to testify against Baumgartner in her trial. As a result of this deal, the charges against him in the Cuyahoga County action were dropped.

During the pendency of the criminal action, Baumgartner allegedly began threatening and harassing DuBois and his wife through postings on the Erie Voices blog. In February 2006, police in Ottowa County obtained a search warrant for Baumgartner's home seeking documents and computers related to Baumgartner's online activity. The blog was eventually shut down.

Baumgartner was convicted on multiple counts of intimidation and retaliation and sentenced to eight years in prison. She is appealing her conviction, and her sentence is stayed pending appeal.

Update:

5/11/2008 - According to the North County Gazette, Baumgartner was imprisoned after violating the terms of her stay of sentence. The court prohibited her from filing any new cases as a conditon of her release, but she filed a civil rights case in federal court on April 7, 2008.

While a student at the University of Northern Colorado, Thomas Mink created a website called the "Howling Pig," which dealt with issues of current interest at the University. Among other things, the website parodied the views of a professor at the University. The professor complained to the local police department, and they commenced an investigation of Mink for violation of Colorado's criminal libel statute.

Colorado law makes it "criminal libel" to knowingly publish any statement tending to "impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule." Colo.Rev.Stat. Sec. 18-13-105.

In December 2003, the Colorado police obtained a search warrant, searched Mink's house, and seized his computer and written materials.

In January 2004, Mink sued various government officials in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, challenging the criminal libel statute as a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court granted Mink a temporary restraining order prohibiting his prosecution under the criminal libel statute and requiring the district attorney to return Mink's computer and all of its contents.

Later, the district court dismissed Mink's suit when the district attorney's office disavowed an intent to prosecute. Mink appealed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the constitutional challenge on standing and mootness grounds.

Update:

9/10/2009 - Mink petitioned for a rehearing en banc (in front of the entire Tenth Circuit) which was denied.  The State then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.  The Supreme Court declined and sent the remaining claims back to the district court.  The district court dismissed the remaining claims.  Mink is now appealing to the Tenth Circuit.

7/19/2010 - Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that "Because a reasonable person would not take the statements in the editorial column as statements of facts by or about Professor Peake, no reasonable prosecutor could believe it was probable that publishing such statements constituted a crime warranting search and seizure of Mr. Mink's property."