On September 9, 2009, Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang ruled (scroll to Item 7) on blogger David Greenwald's motion to quash a subpoena seeking the identity of commenters to his blog, the People's Vanguard of Davis. Judge Chang decided that former UC Davis police officer Calvin Chang (no relation to the judge) cannot obtain directly any identifying information for the commenters in question, but he can employ a third-party expert to determine whether the comments were posted by specific UC Davis personnel whose names Chang will provide in advance.

This summer, Mr. Chang's attorney served the subpoena on Google, Greenwald's former blog host, as part of Chang's employment discrimination and breach of contract action against the UC Davis.  Greenwald published blog entries about Chang's lawsuit back in February 2009, a few days after the suit was filed, and several readers posted negative comments about Chang and his case. The subpoena seeks identifying information for seven anonymous and pseudonymous comments.  Chang maintains that the individuals who left these comments are "managing agents" of the university, and that the comments themselves constitute evidence of breach of a previous settlement agreement by the university. Google informed Greenwald of the subpoena, and he challenged it, arguing that the First Amendment protects the rights of his commenters to speak anonymously and that the information is not relevant to Chang's suit against the university.

The court largely agreed with Greenwald's arguments, finding that Chang "has not made the requisite prima facie showing of a valid libel claim against [the commenters] in order to justify the requested disclosure of their personal information," apparently in a subtle nod to Krinsky v. Doe 6, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), a California appellate decision Greenwald relied on heavily. The court went on to explain that Chang's opposition papers "nowhere showed or attempted to show that the comments posted to the blog were 'assertions of fact which are provably false' and not non-actionable opinions, as required by Paterno v. Superior Court (Ampersand Publishing) (2008) 163 Cal. App.4th 1342, 1349-1350."  The court therefore concluded that Chang failed to justify the disclosure of the posters' identity in order to proceed with libel claims against them.

But, the court recognized that "if the comments posted on the blog were authored by 'managing agents' of the university, they would constitute evidence relevant to existing claims against the university." The court found that Chang "identified specific reasons" to believe that the postings were made by university personnel because of "the use of unique terms" and "reference to information not generally known." Still, the court worried about stripping unrelated Internet speakers of their anonymity without justification and therefore imposed the following conditions on Chang's discovery of the identity of the posters to the blog:

• At his own expense, Chang will retain an independent third party to perform an IP address trace of the sources of the comments posted to the blog;
• Chang will provide the third party with the names of the specific university personnel believed to have posted the comments;
• The third party will be the "exclusive recipient" of records and information produced by Google or Greenwald in response to the subpoena or similar subpoenas seeking the identify of the commenters;
• If the third party determines that any of the comments were posted by the specific university personnel identified in advance by Chang, then he/she will release the associated records and information to the parties; and
• If the third party determines that any of the postings were not authored by someone on Chang's list, then he/she will be prohibited from releasing any records or information relating to the posting(s) or individual(s).

Former House Representative Richard Ottinger and his wife, June Ottinger, filed a John Doe lawsuit in New York state court over anonymous comments posted on a forum on LoHud.com.  In a special proceeding for pre-action discovery, the court ordered The Journal News, publisher of LoHud.com, to turn over the commenter's identifying information.  The Ottingers then amended the complaint to name Stuart Tiekert as a defendant.

According to court documents, Tiekert's comments related to a renovation project the Ottingers were carrying out on their home in Mamaroneck, New York, for which they sought various building permits. Some of the Ottingers' neighbors and local activists attended meetings held in connection with approvals and permits that the Ottingers needed, and one neighbor — Susan McCrory — stated her belief at a televised public meeting that the deed for the Ottinger property was "invalid" and "fraudulent."  The next day, Tiekert posted comments on LoHud suggesting that the Ottingers' deed was fraudulent, and that the Ottingers had used political pressure and bribery to obtain the requisite permits for the project.  The Ottingers sued, maintaining that these statements were false and defamatory. 

Tiekert filed a motion for summary judgment and attorneys' fees under New York's anti-SLAPP statutes, N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 70-a, 76-a and N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 3211(g), 3212(h). He also filed a counterclaim alleging that he was entitled to damages based on the Ottingers' filing of a SLAPP.

In August 2009, the court granted Tiekert's motion for summary judgment, finding that the action "involves public petition and participation brought by a public applicant, and which action is materially related to the defendant's efforts to comment on, challenge, or oppose said application," thus triggering the New York anti-SLAPP law.  The court further held that the Ottingers "failed to demonstrate that their action has a substantial basis in fact or law, or is supported by a substantial argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of any existing law" and therefore dismissed the action. 

The court's precise reasoning on the latter point is not clear, but it may relate to the Ottingers' inability to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Tiekert made the statements in question with knowledge of, or reckless disregard for, their falsity, particularly in light of McCrory's public statements the previous day.

The court determined, however, that Tiekert was not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages because it found that the lawsuit was not "brought to harass, intimidate, punish, or otherwise maliciously inhibit the free exercise of speech."  The court also declined to award Tiekert attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the Wayne County Star, the Department of Home­land Security is investigating racially insensitive comments posted to an article on the Wayne County Star’s website about a July 12 incident in which Border Patrol officials questioned the legal status of passengers on a boat near Sodus Point, New York. According to the Star, the IP addresses associated with the comments were linked to Border Patrol/Homeland Security computers. According to the New York Times, Department rules prohibit employees from using government computers to disseminate material that could offend fellow employees or the public.

The offending posts have since been removed from the site.

An anonymous Texas woman has filed suit in state court against the operator of The Dirty, self-described as the "first and most famous reality gossip blog," for allegedly lending credence to a third-party comment on the site that showed her picture and accused her of having herpes. According to True/Slant, the suit alleges the third-party poster asked the blog's founder, Hooman Karamian, if he would still sleep with the woman — to which Karamian allegedly replied, "No, I don't want to get infected."

According to the ABA Journal, the suit also names as a defendant Dirty World Entertainment, the Arizona-based owner of the website. The ABA Journal also reports that the plaintiff will argue the defendants should not be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because Karamian allegedly made comments that validated the third-party post. 

Jane Doe, an anonymous blogger and author of the website Pogo Was Right: Privacy News from Around the World, filed suit in the Central District of California against Lillian Glass, Ph.D. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that (1) Doe is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from liability for postings made by anonymous third parties in the website's forums, and (2) that certain comments made by Doe on the blog do not defame Dr. Glass.

The case arises from a series of posts by Doe on the Pogo Was Right website relating to the mental health problems experienced by Britney Spears and the resulting media coverage. Dr. Glass, a "body language expert," had appeared on CNN's Showbiz Tonight and on CNN's Primetime Live with Erica Hill to discuss Ms. Spears' behavior and to offer a potential diagnosis of Ms. Spears as suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder. In response, Doe authored a series of posts criticizing Dr. Glass' comments and raising concerns about Ms. Spears' privacy and patient confidentiality.

On June 18, 2009, an attorney for Dr. Glass wrote to Doe, asserting that certain comments by Doe and an anonymous forum poster "violated the privacy rights and other rights" of Dr. Glass; were "false and defamatory in nature, and [were] designed to embarrass and hold my client up to ridicule"; and "incited persons with such propensities and have called for Dr. Glass' death." (The latter in reference to the following from one of Doe's posts:  "'Dr. Phil' catches some flak and dishes some out A complaint filed about Dr. Phil -- but is it wellfounded? People who live in Glass psychology houses shouldn't throw stones. They should be stoned. Dr.
Lillian Glass backpedals, but is it too little, too late?") The letter demanded that Doe remove all references to Dr. Glass from her posts.

Dr. Glass' attorney subsequently sent an email once again threatening to sue if Doe did not remove the references to Dr. Glass from the webiste. The email also stated: "I should also mention to you that if a suit is filed against you, then there will be a public record of your identity and of your capacity as the blogger of this 'pogowasright.org' and other websites. Since you have gone to such great lengths to hide your identity improperly, I think this should also be a concern of yours." Doe filed the complaint for a declaratory judgment ten days after receipt of this email.

Former University of Minnesota employee Jerry Moore filed a lawsuit in June 2009 against blogger John Hoff, online commenter Don Allen, and five anonymous commenters who Moore says published intentionally defamatory content in order to get him fired. The lawsuit was filed in Minnesota state court, according to the blog Prattles.

On his blog, The Adventures of Johnny Northside, Hoff criticized the university's hiring of Moore and wrote about a lawsuit Moore was involved in. According to the Minnesota Independent, the complaint alleges that Hoff is "disentitled" to First Amendment protections because of his allegedly biased writing. The complaint also alleges Hoff allowed his blog's comments section to become a "defamation zone," according to Prattles.

According to the University of Minnesota Daily student newspaper, Moore’s employment with the university ended June 22, less than two months after he began work on a temporary basis at the school's Urban Research and Outreach Center.

Updates:

On March 7, 2011, a jury trial commenced.

On March 11, 2011, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Moore. The jury found that the statement, "Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows that Jerry Moore was involved with a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N.," was true. The jury nevertheless ruled in favor of Moore on his claims for intentional interference with an employment contract and intentional interference with prospective employment advantage. The jury awarded Moore $35,000 for the loss of benefits of the contract, and $25,000 for emotional distress or actual harm to reputation.

On March 23, 2011, the Minnesota Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists filed an amicus brief with respect to Hoff's post-trial motions. The brief stated that Minnesota courts, and both federal and state courts, have rejected attempts by plaintiffs to disguise defamation claims under other causes of action. The brief also argued that Minnesota courts have held that providing truthful information cannot provide the basis for an action for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

On April 1, 2011, Hoff filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law stating that the factual findings of the jury did not support a verdict in favor of Moore, and asking the court to enter judgment in favor of Hoff on all counts. In the alternative, Hoff sought a new trial. The memorandum in support of the motion stated that tortious interference claims could not be based on true statements, and that the First Amendment barred Hoff's claims for tortious interference. In the alternative, the motion stated that Hoff was entitled to a new trial because the jury was improperly swayed by emotion, the jury instructions contained a plain error, and the verdict was contrary to law and unsupported by evidence.

On May 25, 2011, Moore filed an opposition to Hoff's motion for judgment as a matter of law.

On May 26, 2011, Hoff filed a reply to Moore's opposition.

On August 22, 2011, the district court denied Hoff's motion for judgment as a matter of law in its entirety. The court held that the jury's findings on tortious interference were supported by the record developed during the jury trial, and that the jury's findings on the special verdict form could be reconciled if the jury had determined that Hoff's conduct taken as a whole (and not his true speech) constituted tortious interference. The district court also denied Hoff's motion for a new trial.

On October 26, 2011, Hoff filed a notice of appeal in the district court.

On January 30, 2012, Hoff filed a brief in support of his appeal in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, appealing the district court's denial of Hoff's motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The brief stated that Minnesota law does not permit liability for tortious interference to attach to true statements; that the record did not contain evidence to support the jury's findings; and that the trial court had failed to consider the requirements of the First Amendment in its order and memorandum denying Hoff's motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.

On February 2, 2012, the Minnesota Pro Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics & Law filed an amicus brief in support of Hoff.

On March 22, 2012, Moore filed his Appellee Brief, arguing that Hoff had failed to correctly appeal the instructions to the jury at the trial court.

On April 10, 2012, Hoff filed a Reply Brief.

On May 23, 2012, the parties argued before the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Update:

On August 20, 2012, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hoff, reversing the jury's verdict and remanding the case. The Court held that a true statement cannot support a claim for tortious interference with contract or prospective business relationships, and that when protected speech is inextricably intertwined with allegedly tortious conduct, there can be no liability as a matter of law.

The Guardian Civic League has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 2,300 black Philadelphia police officers against the Philadelphia Police Department for allegedly allowing its officers to post racist and offensive content on Domelights.com, a website focused on law enforcement. 

Guardian's three-count complaint claims that the Philadelphia Police Department engaged in the creation of a hostile work environment on the basis of race (42 U.S.C. § 1983), discrimination (42 U.S.C. § 1981), and conspiracy to interfere with civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985) when white officers, Does 1-10,000, posted racist content to the forum site.  

Guardian alleges that "an Active Duty Philadelphia Police Sergent" with the username 'McQ' founded and operated . . . . [t]he racially offensive website." Compl. ¶ 3. Guardian attached screenshots of various posts from Domelights.com, reading "Guns Don’t Kill People. Dangerous Minorites Do. How much longer can you ignore this?" and "adults can't speak proper English or spell at a 3rd grade level, but they can sing among 'theyselves' to lyrics of a rap song." Compl. ¶¶ 2, 7.  Guardian asserts that these "offensive postings . . .  are part of the intentional purpose of the creator of Domelights.com Sgt. 'McQ.'" Compl. ¶ 8.

Guardian asserts that "White police officers use Domelights.com at work, in front of African American Police Officers, and discuss the contents of this racist website, make jokes about it. "Compl. ¶ 5. Also, Guardian argues that the Police Department is aware of the website but although "African American Police Officers have complained to the Philadelphia Police Department regarding Domelights.com,  . . . no actions have been taken to restrict this website or to discipline those police officers responsible for its racially offensive and legally violative content." Compl. ¶ 48.

Guardian seeks a ban on "the operation and use of Domelights.com by Philadelphia Police Officers" as well as compensatory and punitive damges.  Compl. ¶ 10.

The Philadelphia police have not yet filed an answer to the complaint.