North Carolina resident Jack Dailey filed a defamation suit against Donald Popma after Popma allegedly criticized him in Internet postings. According to court documents, Dailey claimed that Popma and co-defendant R. W. Beavers accused him of being a crook, a liar, and the "equivalent" of a child molester, among other things.

Popma, a Georgia resident, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the North Carolina state court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. He stated that he had resided in North Carolina until July 2005, but had no contact with the state after that. Popma noted that he wrote the disputed postings after leaving the state. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.

On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed. The court rejected Dailey's argument that the postings' effects in North Carolina were sufficient to confer jurisdiction under the Calder "effects" test.  See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The court reasoned that such a standard would eliminate the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction from all cases involving defamation on the Internet. Instead, the court held that a plaintiff must show that the defendant had an "intent to target" the forum state in order to be sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.

The case against Beavers appears to be still pending.

Robbins wrote a blog post that criticized a group of abutters for their actions in delaying the implementation of a dredging project through their appeals and interventions in numerous fora. The lead abutter, Joe Dugas, and his lawyer, Paul Revere, sued Robbins for defamation, alleging that his criticism of them for delaying the dredging was false and defamatory.

Robbins has filed a special motion to dismiss under the MA anti-SLAPP law. The special motion is scheduled for hearing on September 16, 2008.

(Portion above submitted by blogger's counsel Peter Morin.)

Added by CMLP Staff: 

The dispute arose over a March 11 post by Robbins entitled Barnstable Harbor: Filling in and falling in, in which he criticized a number of individuals, including Joseph Dugas and his lawyer Paul Revere III, who had challenged orders issued by the Town of Barnstable Conservation Commission and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection that authorized dredging in Barnstable Harbor. 

Robbins' original post -- which has since been edited  -- lamented the poor condition of Barnstable Harbor and its bulkhead, asserting that much of the blame for the town's failure to fix the problems was due to legal challenges filed by local residents. Robbins wrote:

In my opinion this, NIMBY, frivolous, malicious action is doing nothing but stalling the inevitable and costing us the taxpayers unnecessary time and money. . . . So when you run aground this summer, or bend that prop trying to get in or out of Barnstable Harbor at low tide, these are the people who are costing you . . . ." 

Robbins went on to name the people he claimed had challenged and thereby delayed the dredging, including Dugas and his lawyer, who Robbins described as "Paul (the dredge isn't coming) Revere III."

On July 7, 2008, Dugas and Revere filed a defamation lawsuit against Robbins and "John Doe," an anonymous commenter on the site who posted under the pseudonym "Noggin."  Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the following statements by Robbins were false and defamatory:

• A reference to Dugas as “the infamous sh*t stirring Joe Dugas."
• A description of Revere as “Paul ‘the dredge isn’t coming’ Revere.”
• The assertion that the "actions of Dugas and others represented by Revere with regard to the 'litigation' were malicious and not brought in good faith."
• The claim that the reason the harbor wasn’t being dredged was because of the plaintiffs’ legal challenges.

Dugas and Revere also alleged in their complaint that a pseudonymous user named "Noggin" posted the following defamatory comments on Robbins' blog:

• "In the Town of Barnstable, 'if you don't genuflect and pay off Joe Dugas, you may as well forget whatever you want to do."
• "There are plenty of shysters like Revere to climb aboard . . ."

Update:

9/8/2008 - Robbins filed an emergency motion for leave to file supplemental affidavits, addressing, among other things, his personal interest in the navigability of the harbor.

9/16/2008 - The court held a hearing.  The judge allowed both parties to take depositions of the other side prior to the upcoming hearing on Robbins's special motion to dismiss on November 13th.  According to Peter Morin, the anti-SLAPP argument will come down to the question: "Does an individual blogger's commentary on a matter of personal interest qualify as petitioning activity when the blogger is also a paid correspondent of the website-host?"

11/6/2008 - According to Defendant's counsel, the court has ordered that depositions of both plaintiffs and the defendant will take place prior to a hearing on the special motion to dismiss scheduled for November 13th.

11/7/08 -  Citizen Media Law Project, Globe Newspaper Company, Media Bloggers Association, New England Press Association, and Online News Association filed a motion for leave to file an amici curiae brief in suppport of application of the Masschusetts anti-SLAPP law.

11/13/08 - Court heard oral argument on Defendant's special motion to dismiss; court denied motion for leave to file amici curiae brief.

11/17/08 - Court denied defendant's special motion to dismiss.

1/5/11 - Robbins moved that the Court reconsider its special motion to dismiss due to newly discovered evidence and changes of law.

Brooklyn attorney Marina Tylo filed a lawsuit against Andrew Lavoott Bluestone of the New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on August 28, 2008. According to the Summons with Notice, Tylo seeks $10,000,000 in damages for libel, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, all arising out of the following statement on Bluestone's blog: 

Here is the full text cite for a legal malpractice case in which plaintiff's attorney served a summons before buying the index number. Khlevner v. Tylo, 10733/07.

Tylo is representing herself. 

Update: 

9/30/2008 - Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

Specialist Leonard A. Clark, a member of the Arizona National Guard serving in Iraq, was demoted to Private First Class for allegedly releasing classified information on his blog.  According to press accounts, Clark's blog was openly critical of the war in Iraq. The Army punished Clark after his commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel James F. Switzer, found him guilty in a nonjudicial proceeding on July 19, 2005. Clark's blog and its host site, LeonardClark.com, are no longer active.

According to a U.S. Central Command press release, the charges and specifications against Clark included failure to obey an order or regulation under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by releasing information about the movements, tactics, and rules of engagement of U.S. troops, as well as information about improvised explosive attacks on U.S. convoys, thereby violating an order against releasing such information. Clark was also charged with reckless endangerment under Article 134 for revealing this type of information and "encouraging its widespread publication," such that "with that information it was likely that the enemy forces could cause death or seriously bodily harm to U.S. forces."

Some military bloggers familiar with the content of Clark's blog posts doubted that the posts revealed any military secrets or compromised the security of military operations. Others argued that Clark should have known that his posts were in a gray area and in any case were subject to Army approval.

Clark could have requested a court martial instead of a hearing before his commanding officer, but he declined to do so. According to the press release, Lieutenant Colonel Switzer found Clark guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced him to a 1-grade reduction in rank, forfeiture of $820 pay per month for two months, 45 days of travel restriction, and 45 days of extra duty. The restriction and extra duty were suspended for 5 months.

Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals ("HEPH") sued several anonymous users of a Yahoo! forum in California state court for defamation, trade libel, and tortious interference after the posters criticized the company and its management on the Yahoo! Message Board devoted to the company.

According to filings in the case, HEPH identified several statements it claims were defamatory, including the following post by Gpalcus:

Nay Say Not?
by: gpalcus (M/Cell Block 5) 11/3/00 10:40 am
Msg: 15762 of 16806

This company has plainly and simply misserved its investors. Whatever secret wizardry the man/men/monkeys behind the curtain are doing, the value of our investment has not been attended with the same (if only purported) vigor. I don't know a god-damned thing that this company has perfected solidly except a creeping but constant value seep. Is it simply millennial blue smoke and mirrors; propped up by thrice rejected science.... OR rather, is it revolutionary science hindered by an extremely poorly constructed public face and the business acumen of infected macaques.... Either way, investors dollars have been poorly served - by veiled fraud or by incompetance. Certainly, with 'the goods' - even at a preliminary stage - a worthwhile business model should be able to at least find a price support level... IT SHOULD BE ONE OF THE COMPANY's PRIORITIES!

"Enough hyperbole! Enough whispered promise! Enough waiting for firmamnet".... that's what the market has been saying. ENOUGH DISDAIN FOR YOUR INVESTORS - that's my personal rant....

Compl. ¶¶ 12k, 16.  As to a statement by Dickie13, the complaint quotes him or her as stating: "Once again, in my opinion, the Public Relations Department of Hollis-Eden couldn't promote Mickey Mouse into Disneyland." Compl. ¶ 12d.

HEPH also subpoenaed Yahoo! to reveal the identities of the anonymous posters. Upon being notified of the subpoena by Yahoo!, defendants Gpalcus and Dickie13 filed a motion to strike HEPH's claims under California's anti-SLAPP law and to quash the subpoena it had issued to Yahoo!. 

On March 20, 2001, the court granted the motion, finding that HEPH failed to show a sufficient likelihood of success on its claim because the defendants' statements were merely statements of opinion and could not be deemed defamatory.  HEPH appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeals, but later withdrew its appeal before the court issued a decision.

IT Service Management Forum USA (ITSMF), a nonprofit organization supporting IT professionals, filed a defamation lawsuit against its former executive director, James Prunty, alleging that he attempted to discredit the organization by posting comments on the IT Skeptic blog under the fictitious name "Julie M. Linden, Ph.D."

According to an article in Computerworld, ITSMF filed defamation and breach of fiduciary duty claims in California state court based on comments made by "Julie Linden" that accused ITSMF of rigging its online election of board members. The comments also impugned the integrity of the organization and suggested that people should distance themselves from it.

ITSMF initial filed its complaint against Linden, and on January 7, 2008 sought an ex parte order from the court granting it permission to conduct expedited discovery in the case.  The court granted ITSMF's request that same day. Apparently as a result of that discovery, ITSMF filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2008, adding Prunty as a defendant.

Harold King runs the forum site "McAlester Watercooler," which he describes as a forum for citizens of McAlester, Oklahoma to "voice their views about the on-going City events." In August 2008, local District Attorney Jim Bob Miller filed an offense report with the McAlester Police Department against King.  Around that time, local businessman Wayne Stipe and his mother Billie Jean Stipe also filed a criminal complaint accusing King of slander and "imputing unchastity to females."  (In 2005, Stipe's uncle, Gene Stipe, filed criminal charges against King for defamation as well.)

On August 12, 2008, the DA's office issued a subpoena to King, requiring him to produce identifying information, including social security numbers, for about 35 people who posted under pseudonyms on the site.

According to press reports, King filed an objection to the subpoena in district court on August 15, but stated that he gave police the identities of two bloggers — himself and another blogger who had previously given him permission to do so.  Police have indicated that they likely will not seek additional information from King.

Oklahoma has a criminal libel statute, making libel "punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one (1) year, or by fine not exceeing One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both." 21 Okla. Stat. § 773. "Libel" is defined as "a false or malicious unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, or effigy or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which tends to deprive him of public confidence, or to injure him in his occupation, or any malicious publication as aforesaid, designed to blacken or vilify the memory of one who is dead, and tending to scandalize his surviving relatives or friends." 21 Okla. Stat. § 771.

Update:

09/2008 - the case was moved to the District Court for Kay County.  Pittsburg County, where the case was filed, was the county overseen by District Attorney Miller.  Kay County District Attorney Mark Gibson took over the case for investigation.

09/2009 -  Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson’s office agreed to a deferred prosecution agreement with D.A. Miller on a charge of common barratry,” which is "the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings," Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 550.  As part of the deferred prosecution agreement, Miller agreed not to seek re-election in 2010. Additionally, District Attorney Mark Gibson charged Wayne Stipe with assault and battery in connection with a physical altercation with King.

James Sottile, the mayor of Kingston, New York, sued Clark Richters, an unemployed maintenance man and cable public access producer, for defamation after Richters posted an entry to his blog, Ulster County Politics, that incorrectly stated that Sottile would be indicted for bid-rigging. Sottile filed his claim in New York state court, asking for $100,000 in damages.

Richters took down the post (and his entire blog) and apologized to Sottile.  According to the Daily Freeman, Richters has moved to dismiss Sottile's claims under New York's anti-SLAPP laws.

Update: 

7/8/09 - Richters published a retraction and apology (updated page available here), apparently as part of a settlement.