On Aug. 28, 2007, the U.S. Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against John Dunkle, an anti-abortion activist from Reading, Pennsylvania, seeking injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act ("FACE"), 18 U.S.C. § 248.

According to the complaint, Dunkel posted messages on his webpage and blog encouraging readers to kill an abortion provider by shooting her in the head. The postings allegedly targeted a former clinician at the Philadelphia Women's Center and included her name, home address, and photograph, along with instructions about how to kill her and avoid detection.

The complaint alleged that Dunkle's postings constituted a "threat of force to injure, intimidate and interfere with a person providing reproductive heatlh services" in violation of FACE. The government moved for a preliminary injunction, requiring Dunkle to remove the postings in question and prohibiting him from posting the same or similar messages in the future.

Dunkle, acting as his own legal counsel, filed a response to the motion for injunctive relief and a motion to dismiss. He argued that his writings were not "threats" under FACE and also maintained that some of the content was posted by a third party. The government contested Dunkle's claims, including his argument that the postings were not legally cognizable as "threats" under the statute.

On Nov. 8, 2007, after an evidentiary hearing, U.S. District Judge Thomas Golden granted a permanent injunction, ordering Dunkle to remove the postings and barring him from posting similar messages in the future. The injunction contains the following statement: "Nothing in this Order shall prohibit Defendant from picketing, creating, publishing and disseminating anti-abortion information so long as such activities do not constitute illegal threats and elicit violence." The court also denied Dunkle's motion to dismiss as moot.

Over a two-year period, Jessica Beaumont wrote and published over 1000 posts on a white supremacist forum called Stormfront White Nationalist Community, using the pseudonym "Jessy Destruction."

Here are some illustrations of her alleged postings: Regarding blacks moving to western Canada, she wrote, “It could get worse, lets just cross our fingers and hope they all die off from AIDS.” Regarding mixed-race relationships, she wrote, "Ever seen a tar black negroid and a chink? That’s a pretty sick/funny site," and she recalled witnessing a white man “with a veiled muslim that looked fresh off the boat, with the mud baby in the stroller!” Regarding Jews, she wrote, "I don’t understand why someone would attack helpless dogs [as] opposed to going after those dirty Jewish animals directly," and, "I believe that Jews are literally spawn of Satan himself." In one post she summed up her feelings for non-whites as follows: "I just don’t feel the need to be-friend non-whites, as they can do nothing for me, nor would I like to associate with them. I am fine with my own kind, and always will/have been. Theres my f*cking answer. Good enough?"

In January 2006, Richard Warman, an Ottawa-based lawer who specializes in human rights law, filed a complaint against Beaumont before the Candian Human Rights Tribunal. He alleged that, by publishing discriminatory statements on the Internet, Beaumont had exposed individuals and minority groups to hatred and/or contempt in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, of which Warman formerly was a member, participated in the litigation.

After a hearing, the tribunal found for Warman, and entered an order prohibiting Beaumont from communicating similar hate messages through the Internet in the future. The tribunal also ordered her to pay special compensation of $3,000 (Canadian) to Warman for discriminatory statements written against him, including calling him "that retarded jew warman." (Although Warman is not Jewish, the tribunal reasoned that "it is obvious that Ms. Beaumont perceived him as such.") Additionally, the tribunal levied a $1,500 (Canadian) penalty against Beaumont, payable to the government of Canada.

During the hearing, avowed neo-Nazi Paul Fromm testified on Beaumont's behalf, and while not a lawyer, provided Beaumont with assistance.

(Candian Dollar amounts were converted into U.S. Dollars for purposes of the "Verdict or Settlement Amount" field.)

Xyience Inc., a manufacturer of energy drinks and supplements, sued Rich Bergeron in Nevada state court over statements posted on his MySpace.com page and website, unlimitedfightnews.com. According to the complaint, Bergeron posted an article to his MySpace page that contained allegations that that Xyience was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and that a class action lawsuit was pending against the company. Xyience contends that Bergeron is the author of these statements, but he maintains that he found these statements in an email widely circulated on the web, which he merely posted to his MySpace page with a disclaimer. (MySpace removed the posting and Bergeron's profile shortly thereafter.) Mr. Bergeron provided us with links to other websites where the article apparently still appears (here, here, and here).

The complaint further alleges that Bergeron posted to his website a report entitled "Xyience Investigative Report: Creator Russell Pike's Criminal Tendencies Revealed," in which he claimed that the company and its majority shareholder, Russell Pike, were defrauding investors and conspiring with Dana White, president of Ultimate Fight Challenge, to defraud investors. The complaint claims also that Bergeron "continues to post defamatory articles" about the company on his website, but does not identify any specific statements.

The complaint sets forth claims for defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional interference with contract. Xyience alleges that Bergeron's reports have cost the company millions of dollars due to lost investor contributions, prompting the company to seek $25 million in damages.

Alongside the complaint, Xyience filed a motion for preliminary injunction to compel Bergeron to take down his reports and to prohibit him from publishing any future reports about Xyience. On July 27, 2007, Bergeron filed a motion to quash service of summons (i.e., a motion to dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the Nevada court does not have personal jurisdiction over him because he is a resident of Massachusetts without significant contacts with Nevada.

On September 6, 2007, the court granted Xyience's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court's order requires Bergeron to "remove any and all articles or postings regarding false claims about Xyience from the internet" and prohibits him from making any statements suggesting or implying that Xyience is being investigated by the SEC. It also requires Bergeron to remove "any and all articles or postings claiming that Xyience is defrauding investors and/or is conspiring with Dana White or the Ultimate Fight Challenge to defraud investors" and prohibits him from making any future represenations to that effect. On the same day, the court dismissed Bergeron's motion to quash the service of summons.

Update:

10/01/2007 - Bergeron filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

3/20/2008 - Xyience filed a notice of removal to the United States Bankruptcy Court.

3/28/2008 - Bergeron filed a motion to suspend bankruptcy proceedings and for summary judgement on oustanding claims.

6/05/2008 - Counterdefendant Ferttita filed an application for order to show cause regarding unauthorized recording of court proceedings.

After their son was expelled from the Hargrave Military Academy for stealing, Jerry and Melissa Guyles wrote a letter to other parents of Hargrave students, discussing their son's expulsion and their interactions with the administration, and expressing their view that the director of the School, Wheeler Baker, was lacking in leadership qualities. They subsequently set up a website called "HargraveHasProblems.com," on which they posted a copy of the letter and stories from other parents.

Baker and the school sued for defamation, interference with contract, and other torts under Virginia and North Carolina law. They sought, and the court granted (without notice or a hearing), an extraordinarily broad temporary restraining order barring the Guyles from contacting parents or operating the website. The plaintiffs then moved for sanctions against the Guyles for violating the terms of the temporary restraining order and to convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction.

The Guyles appeared in the action through counsel, and the ACLU filed an amicus curiae brief on their behalf, arguing that the temporary restraining order was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech in violation of the First Amendment.

The parties eventually settled the dispute in a court mediation session. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the public. The court never ruled on the First Amendment question.