In summer 2007, parents in Santa Clarita, California sought an injunction against Jack McClellan, a self-proclaimed pedophile who maintained websites promoting his belief that "girl-love" is positive and healthy. 

According to the MLRC, McClellan's website stated that its purpose was "to promote association, friendship; and legal, nonsexual, consensual touch[ing] (hugging, cuddling, etc) between men and prepubescent girls."  In 2007, McClellan visited a number of events and places where children congregate in California and the Pacific Northwest in order to photograph children in attendance and to provide commentary on his websites, according to an appellate decision in the case.  His website included photographs of fully clothed children taken at these public events and places.

The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against McClellan and his websites on August 3, 2007.  McClellan was arrested for violating the order and served 10 days in jail.

After a hearing on August 24, 2007, in which McClellan represented himself, the Superior Court issued a permanent injunction barring McClellan from:

(1) harassing, attacking, threatening, assaulting (sexually or otherwise), hitting, following, stalking, keeping under surveillance, blocking the movement, loitering, with or around Jane Roe, Jane Roe 2 [the anonymous plaintiffs], or any minor child; (2) contacting (directly or indirectly), telephoning, sending messages, mailing, e-mailing, photographing, videotaping, and otherwise recording or publishing any image of Jane Roe, Jane Roe 2, or any minor child without the parent or guardian's written consent; (3) taking any action, directly or through others, to obtain the addresses or locations of Jane Roe, Jane Roe 2, or any minor child; (4) being within 10 yards of any place where children congregate, including schools, playgrounds, and child care centers; and (5) loitering where minor children congregate, including, but not limited to schools, parks, and playgrounds.

McClellan appealed, arguing that the injunction violated his First Amendment rights because it was based on the content of his speech that promotes sexual relations with children as being healthy, and because it constituted a prior restraint on his publishing activities. 

The California Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed the lower court, reasoning that the injunction did not bar McClellan from expressing his views, but rather from voyeuristic and stalking activity that is "offensive, frightening, menacing, and not protected by McClellan's free speech or assembly rights." Although the decision is not entirely clear, it also suggests that McClellan invaded the privacy of those children whose photographs appeared on his website, both by appropriating their likenesses for an exploitative purpose and casting them in a false light.

The state of Ohio brought criminal charges of telecommunications harassment against Ripley Ellison, a high school student, who stated on her MySpace page that her classmate and former friend had molested her (Ripley's) younger brother.

The Hamilton County Municipal Court convicted Ellison under Ohio Rev. Code § 2917.21(b) after a bench trial.  The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed, holding the evidence was not sufficient to support her conviction.  Specifically, the appellate court found that (1) the state had failed to establish that Ellison made a communication with the purpose to harass; (2) Ellison had posted the accusation for the legitimate purpose of warning others of what she believed to be criminal behavior; and (3) Ellison never directed the communication to her classmate, despite the opportunity to do so.  

The majority opinion did not address Ellison's First Amendment challenge to her conviction. But Judge Painter stated in his concurring opinion that "the First Amendment would not allow punishment for making a nonthreatening comment on the Internet, just as it would not for writing a newspaper article, posting a sign, or speaking on the radio."

The Florida Bar took disciplinary action against Florida attorney Sean Conway after he wrote a post on JAABlog criticizing Judge Cheryl Aleman's practice of setting unreasonably short time periods for criminal defendants to prepare for trial.  In the post, Conway referred to Judge Aleman as an "evil, unfair witch" and indicated that she was “seemingly mentally ill." The disciplinary charges focused on alleged violations of five attorney ethics rules, including a rule against impugning a judge’s qualifications or integrity.

Conway agreed to a public reprimand in June 2008, but this settlement was subject to approval by the Florida Supreme Court.  On review, the Florida Supreme Court ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the First Amendment protects Conway's comments.  Conway submitted a brief arguing that his comments were protected speech, and the ACLU supported his position with an amicus brief. The matter is still pending.

Update:

9/12/09 - The New York Times reported that the Florida Supreme Court ultimately upheld the disciplinary action against Mr. Conway.