In March 2008, Lawrence Sinclair sued three pseudonymous Internet users -- TubeSockTedD, mzmolly, and Owningliars -- for defamation in federal district court in the District of Columbia. 

In late 2007/early 2008, Sinclair published a YouTube video and blog claiming that he had engaged in sexual activities and done drugs with then-presidential candidate Barack Obama. This sparked a vociferous response from many Internet users, who criticized Sinclair and challenged his claims about Obama. 

According to court documents, one such Internet user, "TubeSockTedD," allegedly posted a video on YouTube that stated "Larry Sinclair is Spreading Lies About Obama."  Days later, another Internet user going by "Owningliars" allegedly posted a statement on Digg.com, linking back to an unspecified video, urging readers to watch it as "proof" that Sinclair was lying, and stating that Sinclair was in a mental hospital when he claimed to have met Obama.  Later still, another Internet user going by "mzmolly" allegedly posted a comment on a forum on Democratic Underground, repeating the claim that Sinclair was a former mental patient.

After Sinclair filed suit, he subpoenaed Democratic Underground, Google, and Digg seeking identifying information about the pseudonymous defendants.  Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, representing both mzmolly and Democratic Underground, objected to the subpoena in a strongly worded letter. Sinclair then moved to compel Democratic Underground to disclose mzmolly's identity, and both mzmolly and Democratic Underground opposed the motion to compel, arguing that First Amendment protection for anonymous speech shielded mzmolly's identity from disclosure under the circumstances. 

In February 2009, the district court issued an opinion denying the motion to compel and dismissing the complaint in its entirety.  The court held that Sinclair was not permitted to compel the identification of the three pseudonymous defendants because he could not meet the heightened standard required by the First Amendment.

Specifically, the court held that Sinclair's complaint was facially invalid because it did not plead facts necessary to establish the court's subject-matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over the pseudonymous defendants.  In addition, the court ruled that Sinclair's defamation claims failed as a matter of law because he did not plead either actual malice or special damages, and because section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protected mzmolly and Owningliars for "simply summarizing and reporting information obtained from" a third party.

Although it quashed the subpoena and dismissed the complaint, the district court refused to award mzmolly and Democratic Underground sanctions against Sinclair because of the novel areas of law involved. 

The family of a 15-year-old girl who comitted suicide is suing MySpace, alleging that the site was negligent in its safety practices. The girl apparently had committed suicide after a sexual relationship with a 27-year-old man she had met on MySpace. The family filed suit against MySpace in state court in Texas in December 2007, also naming as a defendant Kiley Ryan Bowers, the man who allegedly had a relationship with the deceased.

Bowers removed the case to federal district court in Texas, but the court remanded the case to state court. The CMLP has not been able to determine what has transpired since the case returned to state court in late April 2008.

On July 22, 2008, Elizabeth Silver, a blogger on PerezRevenge.com (now www.rPulse.com), which describes itself as a "website where celebrities could post information about their careers, events and when necessary personal lives without the taint of rumor or speculation" sued rival celebrity blogger Mario Lavandeira (aka Perez Hilton), who operates the blog perezhilton.com, for copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and other claims.

On July 21, 2008, Hilton had sued Silver, Infuse LLC, and Margie E. Rogers over their use of the name PerezRevenge, claiming the use was a violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, as well as unfair competition, federal dilution of trademark, and unfair trade practices. See the related claim, Lavandeira v. Infuse, LLC.

Update: 

On January 7, 2009,  a magistrate judge issue a Report and Recommendation rejecting Silver's claims.  After Silver failed to object to the Report, the court on February 26 adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.  According to a March 06 order issued by the court, Silver appears to have then filed for voluntary dismissal of the case.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations subpoenaed video blogger and freelance journalist Josh Wolf for information regarding a political demonstration that resulted in harm to a police officer. The FBI sought the identities of protestors who appeared in Wolf's video recording of the protest, which Wolf claimed was an attempt by the government to use a journalist (himself) as an investigative tool.

On July 8, 2005, Wolf filmed a San Francisco demonstration against the G8 summit in Scotland. During the course of the protest, a San Francisco police officer was injured, and protestors allegedly damaged a police car. Wolf published an edited version of the video on independant news site Indybay and also sold footage to local TV station KRON.

As part of an investigation into the officer's injury, the FBI subpoenaed Wolf to appear in front of a federal grand jury. The subpoena asked Wolf to produce the full video and any other documentation regarding the protest. The subpoena also sought information regarding the identities of individuals who appeared in the video.

Wolf filed a motion to quash the subpoena, claiming protection under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and California's journalist shield law. The North District of California denied Wolf's motion to quash. The court focused on federal journalist protections and held that Wolf was required to comply with the subpoena because he had not demonstrated that the grand jury investigation was conducted in bad faith.

After Wolf again refused to comply with the subpoena, the court ordered him to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt of court. Wolf again asserted his First Amendment rights, as well as his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Wolf's arguments were supported by amicus briefs by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The court rejected Wolf's and the amici's arguments on grounds similar to those in its denial of Wolf's motion to quash. It held Wolf in contempt and ordered that he be confined until he complied with the subpoena. Wolf and his lawyers appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit granted a motion allowing Wolf to leave prison on bail. However, the court soon after revoked bail persuant to a motion by the FBI. The court then affirmed the district court's contempt ruling and ordered Wolf to testify and reveal the unpubished portions fo the tape. The 9th Circuit's decision agreed with the district court's holding that Wolf could not legitimately refuse to comply with the subpoena without demonstrating that the grand jury was conducted in bad faith.

The FBI and Wolf ultimately settled the case. Wolf published the full version of the video online and filed a DVD copy with the court. In return, he was released from prison and did not have to testify in front of the grand jury. Wolf had served 226 days in prison, the longest term ever served by a journalist for refusing to disclose unpublished source material.

Viacom Inc. alleged that independent filmmaker Christopher Knight infringed its copyright by posting a clip of a VH1 television program containing Knight's own video that VH1 had used without permission. YouTube removed Knight's clip at the request of Viacom, the parent company of the VH1 network.

According to Knight's blog post about the events, he made his own series of video campaign commercials when he ran for a school board seat in Rockingham County, North Carolina in 2006. After Knight posted the commercials on YouTube, one that contained humorous Star Wars imagery attracted the attention of producers at VH1. VH1 ran an episode of Web Junk 2.0 called "Animals & Other Crap" making fun of Knight's commercial and showing parts of it. By Knight's account, VH1 never requested his permission to use the commercial. On July 11, 2007 Knight posted a clip of this VH1 segment on YouTube.

On August 29, 2007, Knight received an email from YouTube informing him that it had removed his video of the VH1 segment in response to a DMCA takedown request from Viacom alleging that Knight had infringed its copyright in Web Junk 2.0 program content.

After consulting with Fred von Lohmann of EFF on an informal basis, Knight submitted a counter notification to YouTube, asserting that his video was a fair use of the VH1 program and claiming that Viacom had infringed his copyright in the original commercial. YouTube restored the clip on September 11, 2007.