In March 2007, the Blue Mountain School District suspended two eighth-grade students after they created a fake MySpace profile for James McGonigle, principal of the Blue Mountain Middle School in Pennsylvania. The MySpace page did not identify McGonigle by name, but it included his picture from the school district's website and identified the person depicted as a "principal." According to court documents, the profile characterized the principal as a sex-obsessed pedophile, and it was laced with profanity and other negative comments about McGonigle and his family.

The school determined that, based on the creation of the fake profile, the two students had violated the school discipline code, which prohibits making false accusations against school staff members. It also determined that the students violated the school's computer use policy, which informs students that they cannot use copyrighted material without permission, by obtaining McGonigle's photo from the school district's website. As a result, the school suspended the two students for ten days out-of-school.

One of the students, going by the initials "J.S.", sued the school district, McMonigle, and the school district superintendent for violating her First Amendment rights. She argued, among other things, that the school could not constitutionally punish her for out-0f-school speech that did not cause a disruption of classes or school administration. The court denied her request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and later granted summary judgment to the school district, ruling that the school could discipline lewd and vulgar off-campus speech that had an effect on campus, even if this effect didn't amount to a "substantial disruption" under Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

J.S. has appealed the ruling to United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Update:

02/04/2010 - The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision granting summary judgment to the school district. The Third Circuit held "... that Tinker applies to student speech, whether on or off campus, that causes or threatens to cause a substantial disruption of or material interference with school or invades the rights of other members of the school community."

04/09/2010 - The Third Circuit granted J.S.'s petition for an en banc rehearing of her appeal.

06/03/2010 - The case was argued before the Third Circuit en banc.

06/13/2011 - The Third Circuit en banc reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the School District on the student speech claims and remanded to the District Court. The court, en banc, held that an exception to Tinker set forth in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), holding that a school district can discipline students for lewd, vulgar, and offensive speech, if it has an effect on the school and educational mission of the district, did not apply to this case.  Accordingly, the Third Circuit concluded "that the Fraser decision did not give the School district the authority to punish J.S. for her off-campus speech."

10/18/2011 - The School District filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.  

01/17/2012 - The Supreme Court denied the School District's Petition for Certiorari. 

Jan Kruska sued several anti-pedophile organizations, including Perverted Justice Foundation, Inc. ("PJFI"), and individuals affliliated with those organizations, as well as domain registrar GoDaddy.com and social networking site MySpace.com, after the organizations accused Kruska of being a predator, a pedophile, and pro-pedophile on various websites, including JanKruska.com and JanKruska.net. Kruska sued for defamation, copyright infringement, cyberstalking and harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") in Arizona federal court.

In August 2007, self-described journalist Kruska began to receive what she described as "venomous" emails after she criticized the overbreadth of anti-pedophile laws. Soon after, the Absolute Zero United blog and PJFI's Wikisposure and Corporate Sex Offender websites posted accusations that Kruska was a convicted child molester and a pedophile, according to the complaint. The defendants allegedly posted similar accusations on MySpace.com, as well as on websitesJanKruska.com and JanKruska.net, both of which were registered byFilmax.com through GoDaddy.com. Some of the websites also allegedly posted personal information about Kruska, including her address, and photographs of Kruska that she says are copyrighted. In addition, Barbara Ochoa, aka Petra Luna, allegedly organized a protest targeting publishers of Kruska's writing, which Kruska said resulted in her articles being taken down. Further, Ochoa allegedly emailed Kruska, demanding Kruska remove her "entire web presence" or else face a "full scale activist attack" against her.

Kruska filed her complaint in January 2008. It sought damages and a preliminary injunction, barring thedefendants from "disseminating claims that [Kruska] is a 'Predator', 'Child Molester', 'Child Abuser', 'Pedophile', and 'Pro-Pedophile' bypostings on the internet, mass mailings, e-mails to friends, relatives,employers, business associates, among others; or otherwise by any othermeans making such suggestions."

In response, GoDaddy.com, Ochoa, and PJFI all moved to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds. In April 2008, Kruska voluntarily dropped her claims against MySpace.com. In June 2008, the court granted Ochoa's motion to dismiss, but gave leave to Kruska to amend her complaint against Ochoa, which she did. In July 2008, the court granted GoDaddy.com's motion to dismiss on the ground that CDA 230 precluded liability. The court also seems to have dismissed trademark claims against GoDaddy on CDA 230 grounds, which Eric Goldman notes is unusual.

Update

6/12/2009 - The court denied  Butler's new motion for summary judgment pending discovery.

8/7/2009 - Kruska moved for summary judgment on her copyright infringement claims against Von Erck and PJF.  She claimed any arguments for fair use failed as a matter of law.

8/28/2009 - Von Erck and PJF answered Kruska's complaint with affirmative defenses including a First Amendment defense, fair use, lack of damages, and a lack of personal jurisdiction.

9/22/2009 - The court denied Brocious' motion to dismiss Kruska's amended complaint.  

10/13/2009 - The court denied Kruska's motion for summary judgment on her copyright claims pending discovery.

11/18/2010 - Court issued order granting in part and denying in part Christopher Brocious' Motion to Dismiss and denying Brocious' Motion for Summary Judgment.