Text

CNN v. Pazienza

Date: 

02/12/2008

Threat Type: 

Disciplinary Action

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Chez Pazienza

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Status: 

Concluded

Description: 

In mid-February 2008, CNN fired Chez Pazienza, a senior producer for the "American Morning" program. According to Pazienza, CNN fired him because of his personal blog, Deus Ex Malcontent, and because of his blogging for the Huffington Post.

Although Pazienza's blog often contains strong opinions on politics, the news media, and other topics, he did not discuss his job at CNN or identify himself as a CNN employee. Pazienza says that his superiors cited a CNN rule which prohibits employees from writing for a "non-CNN outlet" without first obtaining permission, and that he was fired with no advance warning or severance pay.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Waiting to see whether Pazienza will file suit.

 

Alkateeb v. Does

Date: 

05/13/2005

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

The Knot, Inc.; Does 1-10

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Case Number: 

05-CV-4683

Legal Counsel: 

Peter M. Agulnick, P.C.; David M. Zensky (for The Knot)

Publication Medium: 

Email
Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (partial)
Withdrawn

Description: 

Naji A. Alkateeb and Deanna R. Wilson-Alkateeb filed a "John Doe" lawsuit in federal district court in New York in May 2005. According to court documents, several anonymous Internet users(using Google and Hushmail email addresses) allegedly postedinsulting comments, threats, and personal information related to theAlkateebs on the forum sections of two websites: TheKnot.com and Photobucket.com. Certain unknown defendants also allegedly sent defamatory emails to third parties, including the plaintiffs' extended family. The Alkateebs sued for defamation, invasion of privacy (through publication of private facts), and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

After filing suit, the Alkateebs subpoeanaed The Knot, Photobucket, Google, and Hushmail for information that would reveal the identities of the anonymous posters. Three anonymous defendants received notice of the subpoena and moved to quash, and Public Citizen filed an amicus brief, in which it argued that the First Amendment protected the defendants' right to speak anonymously. Public Citizen also argued that the plaintiffs had not shown that jurisdiction was proper either in federal court or in New York. Apparently the court allowed some of the subpoenas to issue.

The Alkateebs filed an amended complaint in September 2005, in which they named the Knot, Inc. and four individuals as defendants. On Jan 31, 2006, the Alkateebs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The court granted the motion as to all defendants except the defendants who had already moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. When the plaintiffs did not respond within thirty days to the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the court dismissed the lawsuit against the final three defendants with prejudice.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Aaron editing.

Menhart v. Grossman

Date: 

01/01/2007

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Michael Grossman

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Legal Counsel: 

Martin Schwimmer

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Withdrawn

Description: 

Eric Menhart is a lawyer who practices Internet law or "cyberlaw" in Washington, D.C. He is the principal attorney at a law firm called "CyberLaw P.C" and operates the blog Cyberlawg. Michael Grossman, a Chicago-based attorney, operated a blog entitled "CyberBlawg." Menhart sent Grossman a letter asserting Grossman was violating his trademark rights. In his own blog entry about the topic, Menhart says that the letter was "informal" and was about a "potential dilution" of his blog's name. Grossman has since changed the name of his blog.

This is part of Menhart's ongoing quest to trademark the term "cyberlaw." In December 2007, Menhart applied for trademark rights on the term, sparking outcries from many cyberlawyers who claimed that Menhart's application would not succeed because the term "cyberlaw" is generic. In February 2008, Menhart amended his trademark application, and he now is only trying to register his firm's stylized logo which incorporates the word "cyberlaw." In Eric Goldman's view, this move signifies that cyberlawyers, including Grossman, "are now free to use the term 'Cyberlaw' for its dictionary meaning without fear of getting sued by Menhart."

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Rhode Island Family Court v. Grant

Date: 

08/17/2007

Threat Type: 

Other

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Anne Grant

Type of Party: 

Government

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Rhode Island Family Court; Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Case Number: 

07-334-MP

Legal Counsel: 

Thomas R. Bender (for Grant)

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Description: 

Anne Grant maintains a blog, The Custody Scam, where she "writes about official actions that endanger children and parents trying to protect them." Grant used the blog to write about a child custody case involving minors "Sara Doe" and "Mary Doe" (pseudonyms). The blog criticized the manner in which the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) handled the Doe case. In particular, Grant objected to the DCYF hearing officer's reliance on a theory known as "parental alienation syndrome" to remove the two children from their mother's custody and to place one of them with the father, who had previously been accused of sexually abusing them -- charges that the DCYF held to be unfounded. While the blog entries did not reveal the minors' identities, they did include personal information and photographs of the children.

The family court judge handling the Doe case ordered DCYF to "advise" Grant to remove "any and all written and pictoral information" relating to the children involved, and to "cease publication of the blog as it pertains to these children."

Grant objected to the order and sought to have the Rhode Island Supreme Court vacate it. In her petition, Grant argued that the family court's order violated her due process rights and was an overbroad restraint on her speech. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case without providing an explanation for its refusal, but some speculate that the court refused to review the order because it was directed at DCYF, not Grant.

 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Hilton v. Persa

Date: 

01/29/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Bardia Persa, Reza Karamooz, Stephen Thomas, Kevin Green, Chazz Hoffman, Nabil Haniss, Nabila Haniss, Green Brothers Limited, John Does 1-10

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Case Number: 

CV 07-667-GHK

Legal Counsel: 

Paul S. Berra (for Nabila Haniss)

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Injunction Issued
Settled (partial)
Withdrawn

Description: 

Paris Hilton sued Bardia Persa, Nabil Haniss, Nabila Haniss, and a number of anonymous defendants in January 2007 for copyright infringement, publication of private facts, and misapproriation of her right of publicity. The case revolved around a website, Paris Exposed, which offered viewers the ability to view personal materials belonging to Hilton for a fee. According to the complaint, the website contained Hilton's medical records, bank account information, credit card information, contracts and other legal documents, diaries, home videos, and photographs, which she had stored in a storage unit in California. Hilton alleged that the storage facility foreclosed on her unit because of a billing mix-up and then sold the contents at a foreclosure auction. The complaint alleged further that Nabil and Nabila Haniss purchased the materials for $2,775 and then sold them to the operators of the Paris Exposed website for a large sum of money.

Hilton's complaint, filed in federal court in California, alleged copyright infringement based on the defendants' unauthorized distribution and display of three works (apparently poems) created by Hilton -- "Love Letter," "I Can't Take It," and "How Would You Know?". Additionally, it alleged that the defendants had violated her privacy by publishing information contained in Hilton's medical and financial records, private home videos, audio taped conversations, diaries, and photographs, among other things. Finally, it alleged that the defendants misappropriated Hilton's right of publicity by using her name in the name of the website and displaying videos and other material containing her likeness for commercial gain.

In February 2005, when only the Hanisses had appeared in the action, the federal district court granted Hilton a temporary restraining, which barred the defendants from infringing her copyrights, publishing her private materials, and using her name and likeness. In late February 2005, the court granted Hilton a temporary injunction barring Bardia Persa from infringing her copyrights, publishing her private materials, and using her name or likeness. (Prior to the ruling, Hilton had acknowledged that the Hanisses had no part in operating the website.) Persa, apparently a resident of St. Kitts, never appeared in the action.

After the prelminary injunction issued, Paris Exposed shut down operations for a time, but then resurfaced at the same domain name. In June 2007, Hilton amended her complaint to drop Nabil Haniss from the lawsuit and to include claims against Green Brothers Limited, a St. Kitts company that allegedly was running the Paris Exposed website. The complaint also named three new individual defendants -- Karamooz, Thomas, and Green, who were alleged to be connected to the company.

In September 2007, Hilton settled with Nabila Haniss and dismissed the lawsuit against her. In October 2007, Hilton voluntarily withdrew her lawsuit against the remaining defendants, none of whom ever appeared in the action. The Paris Exposed website is still up and running.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Whitney Information Network v. Xcentric Ventures

Date: 

01/27/2004

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Xcentric Ventures, LLC; Badbusinessbureau..org; Ed Magedson

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Case Number: 

2:04-CV-47-FtM-34SPC (trial court); 06-11888 (appellate court)

Legal Counsel: 

Maria Crimi Speth; Denise B. Crockett; Michael L. Gore; Jonathan P. Ibsen; James A. Weinkle; Brian J. Stack

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

In January 2004, Whitney Information Network, Inc., a company that provides real estate training programs and seminars, and its CEO Russ Whitney sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC and its founder and managing member, Ed Magedson. Xcentric operates the Ripoff Report website, located at www.ripoffreport.com and www.badbusinessbureau.com, which allows visitors to read and post reports about companies that allegedly have "ripped off" consumers. A number of reports saying derogatory things about Whitney Information Network appeared on the Ripoff Report website. In the original complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Xcentric and Magedson violated federal and state trademark laws and committed defamation of business reputation (often referred to as "trade libel") by publishing these reports.

In July 2005, the district court dismissed the original complaint, but granted the plaintiffs permission to file an amended complaint. Whitney Information Network re-filed an amended complaint, including only the defamation claim. In the amended complaint, Whitney alleged that Xcentric and Magedson not only published critical reader reports, but edited the complaints to include words like "ripoff" and "scam," and also fabricated certain reports altogether. In February 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint, reasoning that CDA 230 barred the defamation against Xcentric and Magedson. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling in March of that year, holding that the allegations that the defendants had altered and fabricated reports were sufficient for Whitney Information to survive a motion to dismiss.

Back in the trial court, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence that they altered or fabricated reports and that CDA 230 thus barred Whitney Information's claim. In February 2008, the court granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety. The court held that Whitney Information had not come forward with any competent evidence to show that Magedson or anyone else working for Xcentric edited or fabricated any reports about it.

The court also rejected Whitney Information's argument that Xcentric and Magedson forfeited the protection of CDA 230 by requiring readers to describe their complaints by choosing from a drop-down menu of tags when submitting a report. The available tags included categories like "con artists," "corrupt companies," and "false advertisements" (which were allegedly applied to reports about Whitney), as well as more neutral terms like "seminar programs," "multi level marketing," "financial services," and "business consulting," just to name a few. The court also rejected the argument that the defendants should lose the protection of CDA 230 because they encouraged and actively solicited defamatory statements from their users.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

See about status

Julius Baer Bank and Trust v. Wikileaks

Date: 

02/06/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Wikileaks; Dynadot LLC, Does 1-10

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Number: 

3:08-cv-00824-JSW

Legal Counsel: 

Garret D. Murai (for Dynadot); Thomas R. Burke, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (for media amici); Karl Olson, Levy, Ram & Olson LLP (for intervenor Public Citizen and California First Amendment Coalition); Ann Brick, American Civil Liberties Union (for i

Publication Medium: 

Wiki

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Injunction Denied
Injunction Issued
Withdrawn

Description: 

On February 6, 2008, Julius Baer Bank and Trust Company, a Cayman Islands banking entity, filed suit in federal court in California against Wikileaks, which is developing an "uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis." Two days later, the bank and its Swiss parent company filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin Wikileaks from publishing or distributing copies of documents the plaintiffs claim contain "stolen or otherwise wrongfully obtained confidential and protected bank files and records."

On February 15, 2008, the court issued what it captioned as an "Order Granting Permanent Injunction." This order, which appears to be the result of a stipulation between the plaintiffs and Dynadot, Wikileaks' domain name registrar and web host, required that Dynadot immediately disable the entire wikileaks.org domain name and account and remove all DNS hosting records.

Later that same day, the court issued an Amended Temporary Restraining Order that enjoins Wikileaks and and "all others who receive notice of this order" from "displaying, posting, publishing, distributing, or linking to . . . all documents and information originating from [the plaintiffs' banks] which are internal non-public company documents and/or which contains private client or customer bank records."

As of February 28, 2008, the Wikileaks.org domain is still down, but the organization issued a press release through one of its mirror sites:

Transparency group Wikileaks forcibly censored at ex-parte Californian hearing -- ordered to print blank pages -- 'wikileaks.org' name forcibly deleted from Californian domain registrar -- the best justice Cayman Islands money launderers can buy?

When the transparency group Wikileaks was censored in China last year, no-one was too surprised. After all, the Chinese government also censors the Paris based Reporters Sans Frontiers and New York Based Human Rights Watch. And when Wikileaks published the secret censorship lists of Thailand's military Junta, no-one was too surprised when people in that country had to go to extra lengths to read the site. But on Friday the 15th, February 2008, in the home of the free and the land of the brave, and a constitution which states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", the Wikileaks.org press was shutdown.

On February 28, Julius Baer issued a press release stating:

It is not and has never been Julius Baer's intention to stifle anyone's right to free speech. Indeed, Julius Baer has specifically made no attempt to remove material on the website which refers to the organization but which does not include information personal to its customers. However, Julius Baer denies the authenticity of this material and wholly rejects the serious and defamatory allegations which it contains.

Updates:

The court has scheduled a hearing on the injunction for February 29, 2008 at 9:00AM.

2/26/08 - Coalition of media companies filed an Amici Curiae brief primarily addressing the issue of prior restraints

2/26/08 - ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a motion to intervene

2/26/08 - Public Citizen and the California First Amendment Coalition filed a motion to intervene that argues that the court did not have jurisdiction in the case, and therefore had no power to issue the injunctions

2/28/08 - Plaintiffs filed opposition to the motions by Amici and potential intervenors

2/28/08 - John Shipton, the owner of the wikileaks.org domain, filed a Notice of Intent to Appear and Joinder in Motions & Oppositions of Amici/Intervenors

2/28/08 - Daniel Mathews, a user of the site who was served with the TRO by the plaintiffs, filed a Memorandum in Opposition to TRO, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent Injunction

2/29/08 - Court held hearing on the TRO; judge vacated the Permanent Injunction against Dynadot and tentatively denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

2/29/08 - Court issued Order Denying Motion For Preliminary Injunction; Dissolving Permanent Injunction; and Setting Briefing and Hearing Schedule

3/5/08 - Plaintiff banks filed a notice of dismissal, without prejudice, as to all parties

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

City of West Bend v. Buss

Date: 

11/29/2007

Threat Type: 

Criminal Investigation

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

James Buss

Type of Party: 

Government

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Legal Counsel: 

Dennis Coffey

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Withdrawn

Description: 

James Buss, a high school teacher in Wisconsin, anonymously posted a comment on the Boots and Sabers blog under the name "Observer." In the comment, Buss stated that high teacher salaries made him sick and appeared to praise the Columbine High School shooters, stating, "They knew how to deal with the overpaid teacher union thugs. One shot at a time!" Because Buss is a former president of the teacher's union, in hindsight there is good reason to believe that the comment was tongue-in-cheek and intended to ridicule the conservative point of view on teacher salaries.

School officials viewed the anonymous comment as a threat and notified the police. The police traced the comment back to Buss and arrested him. He spent an hour in prison and was released on $350 bail. The school district also suspended him from his teaching job. The local district attorney considered charging Buss with disorderly conduct and unlawful use of computerized communications systems under Wisconsin law. The district attorney ultimately determined, however, that Buss's comment was protected speech under the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions because it did did not incite imminent lawless action.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Zoeller v. Josef Silny & Associates

Date: 

02/13/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Josef Silny & Associates, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Organization

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida

Case Number: 

2007-004167-CA-01

Publication Medium: 

Wiki

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Material Removed
Withdrawn

Description: 

Professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller claimed that someone posted false statements about him on Wikipedia. Zoeller traced the IP address of the unknown author of the statements to a computer at Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami education consulting firm. Zoeller sued the firm for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He filed the suit anonymously, but media outlets quickly discovered his identity. In the complaint, Zoeller alleged that the Wikipedia entry falsely stated that he had abused drugs and alcohol and mistreated his family.

According to USA Today, the paragraph in question was removed, but the information had been picked up by other websites. The lawsuit said it falsely alleged that Zoeller abused drugs, alcohol and his family.

Zoeller failed to trace the IP address to one specific person, and Josef Silny & Associates repeatedly denied that any of its employees had authored the statements. Several months after filing, Zoeller voluntarily withrew the lawsuit.

Zoeller did not pursue a claim against Wikipedia, and statements from his lawyer to the press indicate a belief that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred a lawsuit directly against the online encyclopedia.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

DSA: Looked for name of lawyer who represented the defendant but could not find any mention. 10/9/08

O'Malley v. Karkhanis (Letter)

Date: 

04/18/2007

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Sharad Karkhanis

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Lawsuit Filed

Description: 

Kingsborough Community College/City University New York (KCC/CUNY) emeritus professor Sharad Karkhanis allegedly published defamatory statements about Susan O'Malley, a KCC/CUNY English professor and faculty union representative, in his online newsletter, "The Patriot Returns!!"

Through her lawyer, O'Malley sent Karkhanis a cease-and-desist letter on April 18, 2007. According to the letter, the March 12, 2007 edition of Karkhanis's newsletter contained false and defamatory statements about O'Malley, including allegations that she is obsessed with recruiting and saving the jobs of "terrorists" and doesn't worry about advocating for the rights of "ordinary" adjunct staff. The letter also claimed that prior editions of the newsletter contained "similar defamatory statements." O'Malley demanded that Karkhanis retract his comments about her.

Karkhanis refused to comply, and O'Malley filed suit in December 2007 (see related the related CMLP database entry, O'Malley v. Karkhanis).

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

 

Ford Motor Company v. 2600 Enterprises

Date: 

04/18/2001

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

2600 Enterprises; Eric Corley (a.k.a. Emmanual Goldstein)

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division)

Case Number: 

01-CV-71685-DT

Legal Counsel: 

Eric Grimm

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Injunction Denied

Description: 

As an act of "cyber-art," defendants 2600 Enterprises and Eric Corley registered the domain name www.fuckgeneralmotors.com and programmed the associated website so that it would automatically redirect to www.ford.com, Ford Motor Company's official website. Ford sued for trademark dilution, trademark infringement, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act. In its complaint, Ford claimed that the defendants' actions caused Ford to be "linked not only to the vulgar, strident criticism of a competitor, but also associated with the offensive, obscene word that is used in the domain name."

The federal district court in Michigan denied Ford's motion for a preliminary injunction, thus allowing 2600 and Corley to continue to link their website to Ford's. The court ruled, for purposes of the trademark dilution claim, that 2600 and Corley had not made a "commercial" use of the Ford trademark because it appeared only in the programming code that created the hyperlink to Ford's site. The court reasoned:

This court does not believe that Congress intended the FTDA to be used by trademark holders as a tool for eliminating Internet links that, in the trademark holder's subjective view, somehow disparage its trademark. Trademark law does not permit Plaintiff to enjoin persons from linking to its homepage simply because it does not like the domain name or other content of the linking webpage.

Based on similar reasoning, the court ruled that 2600 and Corley had not used Ford's mark "in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services," as required for the trademark infringement and unfair competition claims.

Ford initially appealed the decision, but later withdrew the appeal.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

 

 

Swartz v. Does: Tennessee Couple Sues Anonymous Author(s) of Local Blog for Defamation and Invasion of Privacy

On Monday, a prominent couple from Old Hickory, Tennessee sued three anonymous defendants for defamation and invasion of privacy over statements appearing on the Stop Swartz blog and craigslist. The plaintiffs, Donald and Terry Keller Swartz, buy and sell a lot of real estate in Old Hickory, and a bit of local political maneuvering on their part seems to have earned them some enemies.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Swartz v. Does

Date: 

02/11/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John Does 1-3

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee

Case Number: 

08C431

Legal Counsel: 

Stephen Grauberger (for Doe 1)

Publication Medium: 

Blog
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

In February 2008, Donald and Terry Keller Swartz sued three anonymous defendants for defamation and invasion of privacy in a Tennessee state court. The Swartzes are a prominent couple in Old Hickory, Tennessee, where they buy and restore real estate, manage rental properties, and operate a halfway house for recovering substance abusers. They are also active in local politics and the Old Hickory Village Neighborhood Association.

In September 2007, an anonymous person created the Stop Swartz blog, which criticizes the Swartzes' real estate activties and other aspects of their personal and political lives. According to the Swartzes' complaint, the blog's author (Doe #1) and an anonymous accomplice (Doe #2) posted false and defamatory statements about them on the blog, including statements accusing them of committing arson, evicting renters "without a moments notice," and failing to record property sales in a local registry. Additionally, the complaint alleges that Does #1 and #2 invaded Terry Keller Swartz's privacy by re-publishing a statement posted anonymously on Craigslist.org (by Doe #3) that revealed that she was an "ex-addict."

Finally, the Swartzes claim that a posting on Stop Swartz invaded their privacy by encouraging readers to stalk them. According to the complaint, the post read:

When you see a Swartz, no matter how trivial it may seem, leave a comment. Extra points if you observe them outside the village. This serves two purposes: First, it helps us all to keep tabs on Don and Terry and to know what they are up to. Second, it sends a clear message to Don and Terry that their actions are not being ignored . . . . We will tolerate their crap no longer.

The complaint requests an unspecified amount of of compensatory and punitive damages. The Swartzes' lawyer told Tennessean.com that he intends to subpoena Google -- the owner of Blogger, which hosts Stop Swartz -- to uncover the identity of the blog's author.

Update:

09/18/08 - John Doe 1 moved to quash a subpoena the Swartzes issued to Google, Inc. seeking the identity of the anonymous blogger behind Stop Swartz.

11/3/08 - The Swartzes responded to the motion to quash.

3/13/09 - The court heard oral argument on the motion to quash and ruled that it would follow the standard set forth in Dendrite International v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) and cited with approval in  Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 2009 WL 484956 (Md. Feb. 27, 2009). The court gave the Swartzes permission to amend their complaint and instructed John Doe 1 to file a motion to dismiss the complaint and/or to have the court perform First Amendment balancing under Dendrite. (A video of the hearing is available here.)

5/27/09 - Doe filed a motion to dismiss and to balance First Amendment rights.

08/13/09 - Swartz filed a response to the motion.

10/08/09 - The court granted in part and denied in part Doe's motion to dismiss and denied Doe's motion to quash.  The court also ruled that the issue was appropriate for interlocutory appeal.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Status checked on 6/9/2008, no new information. (AAB)

Docket information available on Westlaw

Jones v. WorldNetDaily

Date: 

04/01/2001

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.; Charles C. Thompson II; Tony Hays; Center for Public Integrity; Ron Shank; Savannah Journal; Larry Brinton; Landmark Television of Tennessee/News Channel 5 Network; Charlotte Alexander; Decatur County Chronicle, L.L.C.; Rebec

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court of Hardin County, Tennessee; Tennessee Court of Appeals; Tennessee Supreme Court

Case Number: 

No. 3414 (trial court)

Legal Counsel: 

Larry Parrish (WND); Sam Cole (Thompson and Hays)

Publication Medium: 

Broadcast
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

Tennessee businessman Clark Jones sued WorldNetDaily.com, a socially conservative news and opinion website, and freelance reporters Charles C. Thompson II and Tony Hays for defamation in Tennessee state court, after WorldNetDaily.com published an article written by Thompson and Hays claiming that Jones had interfered with a criminal investigation, had been the subject of a law enforcement investigation into illegal drug trafficking, and was or had been involved in other criminal activities.  2d Am. Cmplt. ¶ 18.  Clark also sued the Center for Public Integrity, which had underwritten Thompson and Hays' reporting on the article and related investigative pieces, as well as other publications and broadcasters who repeated the claims made in the article.

During the course of the litigation, a Tennessee appeals court held that WorldNetDaily.com could not rely on statements of anonymous sources to make out its defense of truth without revealing the identity of those sources.  The Tennessee Supreme Court refused to hear the issue because WorldNetDaily.com did not take a proper appeal.

The parties settled out of court for an undisclosed sum in 2008.  As part of the settlement, the parties issued a joint statement, which said in relevant part:

Discovery has revealed to WorldNetDaily.com that no witness verifies the truth of what the witnesses are reported by authors to have stated. Additionally, no document has been discovered that provides any verification that the statements written were true.

Factual discovery in the litigation and response from Freedom of Information Act requests to law enforcement agencies confirm Clark Jones' assertion that his name has never been on law enforcement computers, that he has not been the subject of any criminal investigation nor has he interfered with any investigation as stated in the articles. Discovery has also revealed that the sources named in the publications have stated under oath that statements attributed to them in the articles were either not made by them, were misquoted by the authors, were misconstrued, or the statements were taken out of context.

WorldNetDaily.com and its editors never intended any harm to Clark Jones and regret whatever harm occurred. WorldNetDaily.com has no verified information by which to question Mr. Jones' honesty and integrity, and having met him, has no claim or reason to question his honesty and integrity. WorldNetDaily.com wishes him well. (source)

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Worth noting that this is a case in which the court had said that WorldDailyNet could not use the statements of anonymous sources as part of a truth defense -- or, basically, that WDN would need to identify their sources if they wanted to present a truth defense. {MCS}

Priority: 

1-High

Difrawi v. Henderson

Date: 

11/21/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Les Henderson; Daniel Bruce Scalf a.k.a. Frank Torelli; Jeremy Scalf; Conrad Longmore; John Doe 1 a.k.a. Klass Devries; John Doe 2 a.k.a. Dilly McGilly; John Doe 3 a.k.a. Scooper Joo; John Doe 4 a.k.a. www.easybackgroundcheck.com; John Doe 5 aka www.

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Case Number: 

6:07-CV-1854

Legal Counsel: 

Les Henderson (pro se), Daniel Bruce Scalf (pro se)

Publication Medium: 

Blog
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (partial)

Description: 

In November 2007, Internet Solutions Corporation and its President and Director Ayman Difrawi (a.k.a. Alec Difrawi) sued Les Henderson, Daniel Bruce Scalf, Jeremy Scalf, Conrad Longmore, and a number of anonymous defendants for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and other torts. The plaintiffs subsequently amended the complaint, dropping Longmore from the lawsuit. Henderson and certain other defendants operate websites aimed at increasing consumer awareness about Internet scams and so-called "phishing" activities.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Florida, alleges that the defendants published false and misleading statements about Difrawi and Internet Solutions on a variety of websites and other fora, including comments to the "Money Talk" blog on Tampabay.com. According to court documents, the defendants accused Difrawai of engaging in "on-going criminal activity in the performance of his marketing and consultant business" and suggested that "[Internet Solutions Corporation's] business interests are all fraudulent based on any association or business relationship with Difrawi," among other things.

Henderson and Daniel Bruce Scalf, who are representing themselves, filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. These motions are currently pending.

Update:

5/1/2008 - Judge ordered Difrawi to show cause why Jeremy Scalf and John Does 1-5 should not be dismissed from the lawsuit.

5/20/2008 - Judge dismissed Jeremy Scalf and John Does 1-5 without prejudice based on Difrawi's apparent lack of prosecution and failure to serve defendants in a timely fashion.

1/21/2009 - Case referred to mediation

5/28/2009 - Mediation set to begin Sept. 1, 2009.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

User submitted (email)

Status checked on 6/3/2008 (AAB)

Updated 1/22/09 - VAF

Updated 6/17/09 - CMF

Boothe v. Brent Hanson

Date: 

05/09/2005

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Brent Hanson

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

District Court of Collin County, Texas

Case Number: 

219-86-05

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

$1,500.00

Legal Counsel: 

M. Jason Ankele (defamation proceedings); pro se (contempt proceedings)

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Injunction Issued
Settled (total)

Description: 

Brent Hanson, who operated a website focused on laser eye surgery called LasikFraud.com, posted allegedly defamatory material about Dr. Boothe, a refractive surgeon, essentially calling Dr. Boothe a quack and accusing him of botching surgeries. After Dr. Boothe sued Hanson, the parties settled the suit on January 31, 2005, with Hanson agreeing to a permanent injunction that required him to remove the offending allegations from his website and to delete all his digital content relating to Dr. Boothe, and restraining him from repeating the allegations elsewhere.

After the suit was over, Hanson apparently violated the injunction against him by posting more information about Dr. Boothe on different websites ("LasikQuack.com" and "LasikQuack.org"). Counsel for Boothe hired a computer forensics expert, who testified that Hanson controlled these websites, and attempted to conceal this fact by using eGold cards and offshore web hosting. The Texas court found that Hanson had breached the terms of the permanent injunction and was guilty of contempt. Hanson was fined $1,500 and sentenced to serve 540 days of jail time.

The jail term was suspended for 18 months on the condition that Hanson: comply with the permanent injunction; allow Boothe's representatives to enter his home and inspect his computers to check up on his compliance; refrain from erasing material from his computers (other than in the ordinary course of business); and withdraw any complaints against Boothe with government agencies (unless a court orders that he has a reasonable chance of success).

The court also ordered that all Internet service providers, domain name registrars,
web site administrations, search engines, UseNet Groups, computer message boards, webhosting companies, e-mail service providers, electronic currency companies, and other providers of electronic communications services or remote computing services and expressly including Google, Inc., DSLReports.com, BroadbandReports.com, and Yahoo!, and their respective corporate affiliates, to remove all links to LasikQuack.com, LasikQuack.net, and LasikQuack.org, as well as all text associated with those links, including any cached copies.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Colin Farrell v. Gonzales

Date: 

01/29/2008

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

David Gonzales

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Material Removed

Description: 

David Gonzales, a freelance writer who blogs on the TheBadandUgly and Read It or Don't, received an email from a "legal representative" for Irish actor Colin Farrell alleging that a post he had written about the actor was defamatory. In his post describing the threat, Gonzales did not mention the content in his orginal post, nor did he reproduce the letter.

The original post is no longer available and it appears that Gonzales removed the post in reponse to the email threat.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Jill Button editing

Commissioner Bob Cranmer v. Voice PAC

Date: 

02/03/1999

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Voice PAC

Type of Party: 

Government

Type of Party: 

Organization

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Material Removed

Description: 

Voice PAC, a Pennsylvania "good government" political action committee, carried a satirical piece on its website in which it used a photograph of Bob Cranmar, Commissioner of Allegheny County, that it placed alongside the text.

Commissioner Cranmer and the Allegheny County Law Department wrote to Voice PAC's Internet Service Provider, IDT, and complained that the website gave the false impression that the Commissioner endorsed the text displayed next to his photograph. IDT conveyed the complaint to Voice PAC in a letter dated Feb. 3, 1999. Voice PAC responded to IDT that the article in which the Commissioner's image was featured was political satire and thus protected speech under the First Amendment.

It appears that the article in question was removed from the Voice PAC website.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

The files and site text are the only information available. Both files are text copied from the Voice PAC site, via Google's cached versions of the pages they came from. All content regarding this situation has been removed from the Voice PAC site.

Pages