Sorenson's Ranch School, a rehabilitation center and school for troubled youths in Koosharem, Utah, along with two of its officers filed a defamation lawsuit against MySpace and 10 unknown John Doe defendants claiming that a MySpace page had been set up in which users criticized the school's operations (the page no longer exists).

In the suit, the school alleged that MySpace and some anonymous users published statements falsely indicating that the Sorensons engaged in child abuse, employed underqualified staff, and engaged in false advertising. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants used "vulgar and inappropriate language" and otherwise made defamatory statements regarding the school.

The complaint asked for $125,000 in damages and an injunction against further publication of the defamatory comments.

There is no indication in the case docket that plaintiffs served MySpace with the complaint, and no defendant filed an answer. About four months after filing the complaint, with no further filings or motions occuring in the case, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.

Administrators barred a Connecticut high school student from running in a student election after the student critized admininstrators online for their handling of a student festival. In the spring of 2007, Jamfest, a yearly music festival at a Connecticut high school, experienced a series of planning setbacks that threatened to postpone or cancel the event. When Avery Doninger – a junior and incumbent class secretary – was unable to meet with the school's principal, Karissa Niehoff, to talk about the event she and three other students sent a mass e-mail asking members of the community to speak to administrators about putting the event back on schedule. Doninger and Niehoff later had a discussion in the hallway, during which she says Niehoff informed her that the event had been cancelled.

That night, Doninger wrote a Livejournal blog post criticizing the school officials' handling of the issue. In the post, she called the school officials “douchebags” and asked her fellow students and their parents to complain to school superintendent Schwartz in order “to piss [Schwartz] off more” than the mass e-mail had.

In response to her blog post, the school barred Doninger from running for reelection as Class Secretary for her senior year. At the class election, school officials prevented a group of students from wearing “Team Avery” t-shirts. According to school principal Niehoff, the t-shirt ban was intended to prevent electioneering by candidates and supporters who could afford such merchandise.

Avery's mother, Lauren Doninger, attempted to convince school officials to consider alternative forms of punishment. She also tried to establish whether or not the incident would appear in Avery's school record. When a resolution could not be reached on these issues, the Doningers filed suit in Connecticut state court against Niehoff and Schwartz. The defendants removed the case to the federal court in Connecticut.

The Doningers' complaint for injunctive relief alleged violations of Connecticut free speech laws, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Avery's constitutional rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection under the Civil Rights Act (Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988). The complaint sought to enjoin the defendants on seven different counts. All told, the complaint would prevent defendants from installing anyone as Class Secretary until an election was held with Avery on the ballot; from maintaining negative remarks related to this incident in Avery's school record; from punishing students for wearing t-shirts bearing slogans related to the incident; from preventing Avery from addressing her class in assemblies; and from punishing or intimidating Avery, her mother, or any students who subsequently might vote for Avery in the new election.

The district court found that Avery met the initial “irreparable harm” standard required for a preliminary injunction through her showing that her speech may have been chilled because she voluntarily chose not to wear a "Team Avery" t-shirt at school, limited her e-mail and blog communications to prevent a similar incident, and restricted her Livejournal account to “private.”

However, the court denied the Doningers' motion, finding that she had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits as to her constitutional claims. In addressing the Doningers' claims, the court divided its discussion into First Amendment and Equal Protection issues.

The court determined that Avery's blog post constituted on-campus speech for First Amendment purposes, regardless of the fact that she wrote it off campus, because "the blog was related to school issues, and it was reasonably foreseeable that other LMHS students would view the blog and that school administrators would become aware of it." Slip op. at 28. The court then noted that school administrators have the right, in certain situations, to restrict on-campus speech to promote school-related goals. The court also ruled that Avery does not have a First Amendment right to run for voluntary office.

Considering these two concepts together, the court determined that the defendants may have had the right to prevent Avery from running for office as punishment for her statements in order to promote civility in school functions, thus making an injunction inappropriate. The court had more serious misgivings about the denial of the right to wear “Team Avery” t-shirts, which it related to the black armbands in the famous Tinker school speech case. However, it decided to reserve that issue until the parties have had a chance to develop the record as the case goes forward.

The court denied the injunction as to the Doningers' Equal Protection claims because Avery's blog post made her situation unique compared to the other students involved.

Update:

5/29/2008 - The U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision using similar reasoning.

11/12/2008 - The district court heard argument on the defense's motion for summary judgment.

1/15/2009 - The district court grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denies the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

1/23/2009 - District court trial set to begin June 4, 2009.

3/19/2009 - District court denies both the plaintiff's and the defendants' motions to reconsider the rulings on their summary judgment motions.

4/7/2009 - Defendants appeal the district court's ruling on its summary judgment motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

4/16/2009 - Plaintiff appeals the district court's ruling on its summary judgment motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

5/14/2009 - The district court grants the plaintiff's motion requesting that the district court certify as final judgment its ruling on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants file motion for stay of trial to allow time for their appeal to the Second Circuit.

4/25/2011 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decides in favor of the principal and superintendent on the issue of qualified immunity, affirming those portions of the district court's summary judgment ruling that were in favor of the principal and superintendent and reversing the remainder.

07/21/2011 - Avery filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.

10/31/2011 - The Supreme Court denied Avery's Petition for Certiorari.

For approximately a week in early April 2003, Ryan Dwyer, then an eighth grade student, maintained a website called "I Hate Maple Place" that included a forum. Dwyer, who hosted the site on his home computer, used the site to criticize his local school and some of the teachers. He also created a section on the site called "Guest Book" where other users could post comments.

Although Dwyer requested that posters refrain from posting threats or profanity, some fellow students posted inappropriate content. When school officials found out about the website they suspended Dwyer.

On December 18, 2003, Dwyer filed a lawsuit with the help of the ACLU against the school district, its administators, and others, claiming the school district had violated his First Amendment and Due Process rights.

On March 31, 2005 the court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Dwyer. The parties settled in November 2005, with the school district issuing an apology and paying $117,500 in damages and attorney's fees.

In December 2005, high school student Justin Layshock posted a fake MySpace page parodying his high school principal, Eric Trosch. Layshock posted a picture of Trosch and answered the questions asked by the site's profile template by riffing on the word "big" because Trosch is apparently a large man. Answers included phrases like "big faggot," "big hard ass," and "big dick." To the question, "what did you do on your last birthday," Layshock answered "too drunk to remember." Layshock created the profile from a computer at his grandmother's home.

School officials discovered the profile, and the school distict suspended Layshock for 10 days, ordered him to finish high school in an "Alternative Education Program," and forbid him from attending graduation. The school backtracked on part of this disciplinary action, however, and Layschock was allowed to return to regular classes. He graduated in Spring 2006.

Layshock and his parents sued the school district and various school officials in federal district court in Pennsylvania, claiming (1) that the school's punishment violated his First Amendment rights, (2) that the school's policies and rules were vague and/or overbroad in violation of the First Amendment; and (3) that the school's punishment violated Layshock's parents' Fourteenth Amendment rights to raise, nurture, discipline and educate him.

In July 2007, the district court granted summary judgment to Layshock on his claim that that the school's punishment violated his First Amendment rights and ordered a trial to determine whether he is entitled to compensatory damages for that violation. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all other counts.

Eric Trosch subsequently sued Layshock and three other students in Pennsylvania state court for defamation based on this and two other fake MySpace profiles. (Please see the related CMLP Database entry for more information).

Update:

11/13/2007 - Parties jointly moved for final judgment and to stipulate damages of $10,000 to the Layshocks contingent on appeal.

11/14/2007 - Judge entered the judgment.

11/21/2007 - Hermitage School District filed notification of its intent to appeal.

11/30/2007 - Layshocks filed notification of their intent to cross appeal.

3/27/2008 - Hermitage School District filed its appellate brief.

5/22/2008 - Layshocks filed their appellate brief.

12/10/2008 - Case was argued before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.   

02/04/2010 - The Third Circuit upheld the lower court's rulings.

04/09/2010 - The Third Circuit granted the Hermitage School District's petition for an en banc rehearing on whether it violated Layshock's First Amendment rights.

06/03/2010 - Case was argued en banc before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals

06/13/2011 - The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment to Layshock on his First Amendment claim. The Third Circuit noted that the School District did not, on appeal, challenge the district court's finding that there was no evidence of a "substantial disruption of the school environment," and further held that accessing the school's website for the principal's photo was insufficient to forge a nexus between the Hermitage School District and the profile Layshock created. The Court also found that while Layshock's speech reached much of the student body, it did not reach within the "schoolhouse gate."

10/14/2011- The Hermitage School District petitioned for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States on Layshock' First Amendment claim. The School District filed a single petition with Blue Mountain School District.

01/17/2012 - The Supreme Court denied Hermitage School District's petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

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."