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.

Robert Sanchez lost an election for City Commissioner in Brownsville, Texas, but kept the forum on his campaign website active after the election. On that forum, users posted allegedly libelous material about Carolyn Lackner Baird, a jewelry store owner connected to Sanchez's political rival, as well as her daughter and her business.

The corporation operating the jewelry store sued Sanchez for libel based on these posts. Sanchez removed the case to federal court on grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)) protected him from liability.

On plaintiff's motion to remand, the federal court held that, as an affirmative defense, CDA 230 did not provide proper grounds for removal of the action to federal court when the parties were both from Texas and the plaintiff had asserted only state law claims for relief.

The federal court therefore remanded the case back to the County Court of Cameron County, Texas.

Anthony and Sheri Huff, a Kentucky businessman and his wife, sued Mark Nickolas, a political blogger, for defamation after he implied in a blog post that they bought dismissal of an alleged felony indictment by contributing to the Kentucky Republican Party and Republican candidates.

No details on the lawsuit are available, but it appears that Nickolas removed the allegedly defamatory post, and that the suit is no longer pending.