Jennifer Reisinger operates Sheboygan Spirit, a website pertaining to the government and community of Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and Brat City Web Design, a site promoting her web development business.  Reisinger's business site contained a link to the Sheboygan Police Department.  On October 19, 2007, the city attorney for the City of Sheboygan sent Reisinger a cease-and-desist letter requesting that she remove the link to the police department from her site. The letter said that "maintenance of this link could be construed as having been authorized or endorsed by the City and/or its Police Department."

Reisinger initially removed the link but nevertheless received a call from the Sheboygan Police, telling her they were conducting "an official police investigation relative to the linking of her Web site to the City of Sheboygan Police Department."  Reisinger then hired an attorney who advised her to put the link back up.  Her attorney sent several letters to the chief of police, to the mayor, and to the city attorney stating that the city had given no legal basis for its cease-and-desist order.

On November 6, 2007, the city notified Reisinger that it had decided against taking legal action, and the mayor publicly apologized for the incident in an editorial in the local newspaper.

However, the issue doesn't appear to have gone away.  On August 20, 2008, Reisinger filed a lawsuit in federal court in Milwaukee against the City of Sheboygan, its mayor, police chief, and city clerk, claiming that the defendants violated her First Amendment rights.  According to her complaint, the city's initial demand that she remove the link to the police department and the subsequent criminal investigation were done in retaliation for her support of recalling Mayor Juan Perez.  As a result of the defendants' actions, she claims she "suffered a significant decrease in income, resulting in an estimated 53% decrease in her
personal annual income, significant emotional distress and concern for her safety."

On October 12, 2007, the Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas, and several other Islamic organizations sued Joe Kaufman for libel and intentional infiction of emotional distress in Texas state court. In addition to seeking libel damages, the plaintiffs asked the court to prevent Kaufman from threatening, harming, or inciting violence against them.

Kaufman is the chairman of Americans Against Hate, an organization that describes itself as a "civil rights organization and terrorism watchdog group." Kaufman published an article on the FrontPage Magazine website calling for a protest of "Muslim Family Day" at Six Flags Over Texas, an amusement park in Arlington, Texas. In the course of the article, Kaufman claimed that two organizations co-sponsoring the event had ties to radical Islamic groups abroad, including Al-Qaeda. Neither of the two organizations mentioned in the article sued Kaufman.

The day the lawsuit was filed, the court issued a temporary restraining order against Kaufman, enjoining him from threatening or harming anyone associated with the Muslim Family Day event. The protest at Muslim Family Day, led by Kaufman, took place without incident. Weeks later, the court granted a temporary injunction forbidding Kaufman from threatening or causing bodily injury to the plaintiffs.

Update:

6/25/2009 - The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas reversed the trial court's denial of Kaufman's  motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment in his favor. The court found that the article was not "of and concerning" the plaintiff organizations as a matter of law. 

In deciding the appeal, the appellate court also held that Kaufman was entitled to take advantage of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(6), which allows "a member of the electronic or print media" to make an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for summary judgment. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Kaufman could not rely on the statute because he only published on the Internet.

7/01/09 - The Islamic Society filed a motion seeking a en banc rehearing.

A blog post on AsteroidBooty.com, an anonymous blog focused on "chronicles from outerspace, products that rock my world, and more," criticized the high price of children's books and contrasted the prices with the (asserted) easiness of writing the books. The post also included a link to the children's book "Patches the Beaver," making a joke about the possible sexual interpretation of the book's title. Along with this link, the post included an image of the book's cover, and a photograph of the book's author Shane Gauthier. Subsequent user comments also poked fun at the title of the book, adding comments about the author's appearance, possible sexual preferences, and his alleged lack of awareness of diversity and multiculturalism issues.

Gauthier's lawyer posted a comment on the blog threatening legal action against AsteroidBooty if the site operator did not remove the post and comments and issue a public apology. The defamation claims primarily involved content posted by the guest commentors; however, the threat stated that "[l]iability for publication of a defamatory statement extends to all those who participate in its dissemination." The comment also noted that damage awards for defamation claims can exceed $250,000.

The operator of AsteroidBooty said in another blog post that she did not receive the comment at first as it seemed to have gotten mixed in with "400+ spam comments." She instead found out about the threat when her webhost called her and sent an e-mail asking her to either remove the content or send a counter-notice that she did not believe it was defamatory.

After locating and reading the threatening comment, the operator of AsteroidBooty removed the disputed content and issued an apology on her blog, noting that "it was all in jest; so I have no problem taking it down. And most of the stuff I wrote was directed towards children’s books in general (not Shane)."

In June 2007, Rachel Neuwirth, a journalist and political commentator who espouses strongly pro-Israel views, sued Washington-state blogger Richard Silverstein and university professor Joel Beinin for libel in a California state court. On November 27, 2007, the court granted Silverstein and Beinin's motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).

Neuwirth, a journalist and political commentator who espouses staunchly pro-Israel views, sued over two allegedly defamatory statements, one made by Silverstein on his blog, Tikun Olam, and the other made by Beinin on a listserv and subsequently re-published by Silverstein. In the first statement, Silverstein called Neuwirth a "Kahanist swine." The term "Kahanist" refers to a form of right-wing, religious Zionism, one of the central tenets of which is that all Arab Muslims are enemies of Israel. The Israeli Kahane Chai (Kach) party is barred from participating in Israeli elections and listed as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, Canada, and the European Union. Neuwirth argued that, by calling her a "Kahanist swine," Silverstein implied that she was a terrorist. The second statement was Beinin's, made on the "Alef" listserv, claiming that Neuwirth had made a death threat to him. Silverstein subsequently re-posted Beinin's statement on his blog.

In granting the motion to strike, the court determined that the anti-SLAPP statute applied because Silverstein and Beinin made their respective statements in a "public forum" and those statements related to an issue of public interest. The burden then shifted to Neuwirth to demonstrate a probability that she would prevail on her claim. The court found that Neuwirth had not met this burden, holding that she was a limited purpose public figure and noting that she had brought forth no evidence of "actual malice" for either of the two statements. With regard to Silverstein's "Kahanist swine" statement, the court further held that this was a non-actionable statement of opinion. 

Finally, the court held that Neuwirth's claim against Silverstein for re-publishing Beinin's statement was barred by CDA 230, which protects providers of interactive computer services from tort liability for publishing the statements or content of third parties.

The court awarded Beinin $1,840 in attorney's fees and indicated that Silverstein should make his claim for attorney's fees in a separate motion.  At the conclusion of the hearing in which the court delivered its decision, Neuwirth's attorney told the court that his client intended to appeal the ruling.

 

Update:

1/25/08 - Neuwirth filed a notice of appeal.

3/4/08 - The court ordered Neuwirth to pay Silverstein $7000 in attorneys fees pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute.

2/9/2009 - The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, reversed the trial court's ruling on the motion to strike, reinstating the claims against Silverstein and Beinin, except for the claim against Silverstein for re-publishing Beinin's statement.

7/19/2010 - Superior Court order denying Silverstein's motion for summary judgment, holding, inter alia, that "the law of the case doctrine requires this Court to find that Plaintiff has established the existence of libel per se."  

(NOTE: Joel Beinin is the Director of Middle East Studies at the American University in Cairo, where one of the authors of this database entry attended graduate school.)

On November 14, 2007, BESCR, a court reporting service company otherwise known as Eastwood-Stein Deposition Management, and two of its principals, sued Trisha Goodman, an Oklahoma-based court reporter, and others for statements appearing on Goodman's blog, "Let's Stop Eastwood-Stein."

According to BESCR's complaint, Goodman started the blog in late September 2007 after she allegedly was not paid $2,300 by BESCR for her work. On the blog, Goodman allegedly made statements indicating that BESCR was engaging in fraudulent business practices and was about to be sued by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She also allegedly encouraged readers to refuse to accept jobs from BESCR and to forward the statements appearing on it to other court reporters, videographers, interpreters, and technical support people.

BESCR sued Goodman for libel, interference with contracts and business opportunities, and other torts. In addition to Goodman, the plaintiffs named three other individuals as co-defendants and co-conspirators: Michael Henry, a videographer and former BESCR employee; Barry Simon, another former BESCR employee; and Joan Burke, who has "no recent relationship" with BESCR, according to the complaint. These individuals were named as defendants because of their comments on the blog and distribution of its contents (through links and forwarding) to other court reporters and potential BESCR customers.

Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka is the webmaster of SomethingAwful, an online community forum with the catch phrase: "The Internet Makes You Stupid." A member of the community posted a link on the forum to a comic that depicted Jade Raymond engaged in sexual activities. Raymond is a video game producer for Ubisoft.

Ubisoft sent Kyanka a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that the comic be taken down from the site and threatening legal action. The letter claims that the comic infringed upon Ms. Raymond's "personal rights," caused emotional distress, and constituted trademark infringement, among other things.

Mr. Kyanka posted the letter on SomethingAwful in his own forum posting. In the posting, Kyanka claimed that he had no connection to the comic except that a link to it was posted on the forum. He said that he does not know who drew the comic and does not know where the image is located. Kyanka also sent Ubisoft's legal counsel a reply email, indicating that perhaps he did not take the legal threat seriously:

Please let it be known that hereforth I have read the express mail and email sent thereforth by Famous Lawyer David Anderson of the Famous Lawyer Law Business of Nixon Peabody LLP, and furthermore a declaration shall be expressed on the part of Internet User Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka that that forth herethrough I have conducted rigorous tests implemented through a vigorous barrage of legal studies, and furthermore hitherthrough these rigorous tests have therefore proven Famous Lawyer David Anderson of the Famous Lawyer Law Business of Nixon Peabody LLP shall be recognized as a man of the fag persuasion.

Pursuant to the United Dairy Council

Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka
Internet

The link to the comic is no longer on SomethingAwful, and Ubisoft has not taken any legal action against Kyanka.

Jews for Jesus, an "international outreach ministry," filed a lawsuit against Google alleging trademark infringement and other claims after Google refused to remove a Blogspot URL identified as "jewsforjesus.blogspot.com." The blog's author, who wrote under the pseudonym "Whistle Blower," was apparently critical of the organization. Jews for Jesus had previously sent Google a cease-and-desist letter alleging trademark infringement over the use of the Blogspot URL, and Google did not remove the blog URL. (For more on the cease-and-desist letter, please see the CMLP database entry, Jews for Jesus v. Google (letter).)

This suit was most notable for raising the question of whether there is a distinction between top-level domain names (i.e. jewsforjesus.com) and second/third/etc.-level subdomains (i.e. jewsforjesus.blogspot.com) with regard to trademark infringement. However, the parties ultimately settled and dismissed the suit with prejudice. Jews for Jesus now operates the Blogspot URL in question as "The Jews for Jesus Blog."

From Eric Goldman's blog, regarding the settlement:

Instead, the parties have settled their dispute, filing a dismissal with prejudice on July 26. The official notice did not reveal any terms, but according to an announcement on the Jews for Jesus site, the user who registered the third level domain "had a change of heart." As a result, the blog has transferred to Jews for Jesus. This transfer has wiped out all of the old griping content. Plus, there is nothing in the Internet Archive either, and Google's cache has been wiped too. So it appears that Jews for Jesus has done a pretty effective job of shutting down this griper.

2TheMart.com, Inc. was in the process of defending itself against a class-action lawsuit alleging that it misled investors. In doing so, the company claimed that it needed the identities of 23 Internet users who had posted comments on the Silicon Investor message boards. The users had used pseudonyms, and thus were unidentifiable. Therefore, the company requested that Infospace, the operator of the Silicon Investor web site, release the users' identities.

One such user, Doe, enlisted the support of the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in an effort to quash the subpoena. A federal district judge agreed with Doe and quashed the subpoena, ruling that the Internet users had a First Amendment right to remain anonymous, and Infospace could not be forced to release their identities.

Gordon Parker sued Google in federal court in Pennsylvania in August 2004. According to court documents, Parker claimed that he published a website, "29 Reasons Not to be a Nice Guy." He alleged that an unknown Internet user copied Reason #6 and posted it on USENET, which Google then made accessible via its Google Groups service. Parker also alleged that Google defamed him by enabling users to access links to websites disparaging him using its search engine function and invaded his privacy by creating an unauthorized biography of him whenever someone "googled" his name.

The district court dismissed all of Parker's claims. It held that Parker's claim of direct copyright infringement failed because he did not allege volitional conduct on the part of Google in making the USENET posts available. The claim of contributory copyright infringement failed, according to the court, because Parker failed to show that Google had knowledge of the offending posts, and the vicarious infringement claim failed because Google did not have a direct financial interest in its user's posting of allegedly copyrighted material.

The court held that Parker's defamation, invasion of privacy, and negligence claims were defeated by CDA 230, which protects providers of interactive computer services from tort liability for publishing the statements or content of third parties, because he did not allege that Google was the "information content provider" of the offending material. His other claims were also dismissed as "futile" because the plaintiff failed to set out the basic elements of each of these claims.

The Third Circuit affirmed the decision.

Chris Grotke and Lise LePage, co-founders and owners of iBrattleboro.com, a citizen journalism site based in Brattleboro, Vermont, were sued on November 16 for libel based on a comment submitted by one of the site's users. The lawsuit, brought by Effie Mayhew, alleges that David Dunn, the former executive director of Rescue Inc., an emergency medical services organization where Mayhew works as a volunteer, libeled her in a comment on the site.

According to the complaint, on September 30, 2007, Dunn authored an article in which he

states without specificity general sexual liaisons are being conducted on the premises. Then he names Ms. Mayhew, further stating that she is conducting an "affair" with a "married member of the Rescue, Inc. board of trustees" indicating that this behavior was happening during "on call" hours at the agency.

The complaint doesn't appear to make any allegations that Grotke or LePage authored the allegedly defamatory statements, only that they failed to edit or remove the comment. As a result, Grotke and LePage are almost certainly shielded from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA 230").

Under CDA 230, "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This immunity preempts state law causes of action, like defamation claims, that are based on "publisher" liability. Moreover, immunity exists even if a defendant edits comments (so long as the edits do not materially change the meaning of the statement) or otherwise exercises discretion in selecting which comments to post or remove.

Update:

12/3/07 - Defendants Grotke and LePage filed motion for judgment on the pleadings

3/18/08 - Court dismissed action under CDA 230 as to defendants LePage, Gotke, and MuseArts Inc.

9/2/08 - We were informed that the Court dismissed the remaining claim against David Dunn