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."

Tim Puntarelli, Dean of Roncalli High Scool in Indianapolis, filed a defamation lawsuit against an anonymous Facebook user (or users) who allegedly created a fake profie for him and used it to send inappropriate messages to students.  According to one press report, the lawsuit also claimed that the user engaged in harassment and identity theft.  Puntarelli sought information about the anonymous user or users from Facebook, which resisted this effort. 

The court ultimately ordered Facebook to produce identifying information for its user(s). Facebook removed the profile at Puntarelli's request before the lawsuit was filed.

Logan Glover, a student at Lafayette High in Missouri, used a digital camera to take photos of his teacher during class, which despicts fellow classmates in the background smiling and giving thumbs-ups. He later posted those photos to his Facebook page. The school suspended him on December 7, 2007, for taking and posting the photos, claiming that he disrupted the school environment by calling on classmates to pose for the photograph, taking their minds away from schoolwork.

Glover and his parents unsuccessfully attempted to appeal the suspension to the principal of the school. His father later filed a lawsuit against the Rockwood School District and the principal, associate principal, and assistant principle of Lafayette on Logan's behalf, arguing that the suspension violated his son's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The complaint, which was heard the day before the end of Glover's suspension, cites the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District 393 U.S. 503 (1969), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that students retain their First Amendment rights when attending school, to the extent that the exercize of those rights does not materially disrupt the educational process.

In their memorandum in opposition to Glover's motion for temporary restraining order which would have allowed him to return to school, the defendants claimed that Glover was suspended for a breach of school policies in accordance with Missouri law, and that the Tinker decision does not protect Glover's conduct which, in the school's opinion, was disruptive.

After the court denied Glover's motion for a temporary restraining order, he moved to voluntarily dismiss the case, which the court granted on August 19, 2008.

The State of Indiana filed a delinquency petition against a Greencastle Middle School student who had posted derogatory and "vulgar" criticism of the school's anti-body-piercing policy on the social networking site MySpace. The student, referred to in court documents as A.B., critized administrators and created a publicly accessible group entitled "Fuck Mr. Gobert and GC Schools." The state's claims included harassment and identity deception, the latter arising from A.B.'s creation of a fake MySpace account for Gobert, the principal of Greencastle Middle School.

On June 27, 2006, the juvenile court declared A.B. a "delinquent child" and placed her on nine months probation. The court found that A.B.'s MySpace postings, if committed by an adult, would constitute the criminal offense of harassment. A.B. appealed, and the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the juvenile court's decision. The appeals court concluded that A.B.'s postings were political speech protected by the Indiana Constitution and that her conviction for harassment thus contravened her right to speak.

On May 13, 2008, the Indiana Supreme Court declined to adopt the appeals court's rationale and instead reversed the juvenile court on another ground. The court ruled that the dilenquency finding could not stand because the state had failed to prove the statutory elements of criminal harasssment. Specifically, the court determined that the state had not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that A.B. posted with the intent "to harass, annoy, or alarm" Gobert with "no intent of legitimate communication." It found that certain comments were not actionable because A.B. had posted them on her personal MySpace page, to which Gobert did not have access. With regard to other comments on the pubicly accessible group page, the court held that she had posted the comments as a legitimate expression of her anger and criticism of Gobert and the school, rather than with an intent to harass, annoy, or alarm.

Maciej Murakowski, a nineteen year-old student at the University of Delaware, created a website in June 2005 on the university's servers that included violent and sexually graphic material. According to the complaint Murakowski subsequently filed, in one post, titled “Talking About Sex,” he wrote about various types of imaginary sexual acts, including:

"The Sociopath . . . On a Friday night, leave her a trail of rose petals leading to a hot bath. Wash her gently, using oils and scented soaps where appropriate. Dry her, then take her into the bedroom for a sensual massage (be careful, you are not kneading dough!) Kiss her and tell her she is beautiful. Slowly let your hands explore her body. Kiss her some more. Then make sweet gentle love to her for hours. After you both climax, hold her and let her fall asleep in your arms. Then set her on fire," and "The John F. Kennedy . . . Position your partner halfway on the bed, facing up, so that her legs are hanging off the edge. You stand facing her, lift her legs, put her ankles on your shoulders, and lean forward as far as you can. Then you kill the President." The piece ends with referring to disposing of the dead body of a sex partner.

On April 20, 2007, Cynthia Cummings, the Vice President of Campus Life at the University of Delaware notified Murakowski that the university had received complaints that his website contained racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic statements and that his actions violated the university's Disruptive Conduct policy and Responsible Computing and Use of University Computing Resources policy.

At a disciplinary hearing, the university suspended Murakowski and forbid him from attending classes or visiting his dorm room. Following a required psychiatric evaluation, where he was deemed not to be a threat to himself or others, Murakowski was allowed, after fall 2007, to attend classes after being readmitted, but remained unable to access his dormitory.

On August 1, 2007, Murakowski filed a lawsuit in federal court in Delaware claiming that the university's actions violated his First Amendment rights. He also alleged that the hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Murakowski sought reinstatement, credit for the classes he would miss, and punitive damages. 

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The university argued that Murakowski's postings were not subject to First Amendment protection because they constituted threating speech and caused disruption. Murakowski argued that the speech did not contain any "true threats."

On September 04, 2008, the court granted summary judgment to Murakowski on his First Amendment claim but found in favor of the university on the Fourteenth Amendment claim. The court's lengthy discussion of the First Amendment issues at stake emphasized that educational institutions may restrict speech in some cases in order to protect the educational environment and the wellbeing of its students. However, the court found that the university had not presented evidence sufficient to show that Murakowski's postings caused such a disruption and posed such a threat that the First Amendment would allow restriction.