Hersh v. Cohen

N.Y. Sup.: Should Anonymous Comments be a Right? 
PC World 
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting in another case to keep anonymous commenting safe from sweeping subpoenas. A New York couple has issued dragnet subpoenas to Google and Yahoo demanding the identities of users behind 10 email accounts, 30 blog operators, website administrators, and the identities of anyone who had ever commented on those sites.
----Electronic Frontier Foundation's Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Quash

Haberman v. Rhoad, No. 2006 DR 007754 SC (Fla. Cir. Ct., Family Div. Sarasota County injunction issued Sept. 7, 2006).

Status: Injunction modified to specify web sites covered (Jan. 29, 2008).

Kristen Rhoad, who accuses her ex-husband Phil Haberman of abuse and of falsifying his military record, posted several statements about him on her blog, rhoadwarrior.blogspot.com (no longer active), and several other web sites and some newspapers have posted and published similar materials regarding Haberman’s alleged exaggerations of his military experience. Haberman filed a complaint alleging that the statements on Rhoad’s blog and elsewhere were cyberstalking under Florida law, and constituted domestic violence. The judge agreed, and issued a standard injunction barring Rhoad from contacting Haberman or committing any violence against him, and also ordered a psychiatric evaluation of Rhoad. In a section of the form labeled “other provisions regarding contact,” the judge handwrote into injunction the order that Rhoad to “remove, or cause to remove, all blogs, e-mails or other web-based communications to [Haberman] or third parties that refer to [Haberman], and which are posted, or caused to be posted, by [Rhoad].” Rhoad filed a motion to dissolve the injunction on jurisdictional grounds, but the motion was denied. Nevertheless, Rhoad continued to update her site, and was no effort to enforce the order against other sites. In January 2007, the judge ordered Rhoad to appear on charges of civil contempt. Although she faxed two requests for an adjournment, the hearing was held and a warrant was issued for her arrest. This led the blog to be removed. In January 2008, the court modified the order at Haberman’s request to name the specific web sites involved, which he said was necessary to have the content removed.

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/haberman-v-rhoad

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/story/6760022p-6629130c.html

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/spot/archive.asp?postID=3994

http://sarasota.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A112941

http://sarasota.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A114918

Garrido v. Krasnansky, No. 466-12-06 (Vt. Fam. Ct., Washington County).
Status: Preliminary injunction issued against blog, then dissolved on reconsideration

In a divorce case, Judge Thomas Devine of Washington County Family Court issued an injunction requiring William Krasnansky to remove “any and all Internet postings,” including his blog (lookatmypugs.livejournal.com), which features what Krasnansky says is a fictionalized account of his wife, their marriage and divorce. Krasnansky refused to remove the material from the site, calling it “an act of civil disobedience.” Upon reconsideration, the judge vacated his prior order.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/us/10divorce.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1199985014-nY8QymmMd24iBLLkuZNIqw
http://www.abajournal.com/news/judge_orders_divorcing_blogger_to_take_down_posts_on_marriage/

[Unknown] v. [Unknown], No. ______ (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 200?)

Status: Injunction denied.

In April 2008, the New York Times reported that “Laurie” was sued by her ex-husband for libel over her “DivorcingDaze” podcasts (www.divorcingdaze.com), and that he sought an injunction against them, arguing that they were “obnoxious, derogatory or offensive” and that violated their divorce settlement. The court denied the injunction, holding that while “Laurie’s” statements on the podcasts were “ill-advised and do not promote good parenting,” they were protected by the First Amendment.

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/style/18divorce.html

http://www.abajournal.com/news/courts_reluctant_to_stop_divorcing_bloggers_from_airing_complaints/

http://www.blogher.com/my-ex-husband-sued-me-because-i-do-podcast-about-divorce

Rapacchiano v. Visceglia, No. L-000-238-07 (N.J. Super., Camden County filed Jan 8, 2007).
Status: Settled.

Patrick Rapacchiano sued his co-worker, F. Anthony Visceglia, who owed him money, over postings on his MySpace page and in an online forum calling Rapacchiano a child molester. The defendant initially did not respond to the suit, leading to a default judgment against him. The parties then reached a settlement.

Case Information and Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/rapacchiano-v-visceglia
Complaint: http://journalist101.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/patrick-rapacchiano-plaintiff-vs-anthony-viscegliadefendant-docket-l000238-07nj/
Docket showing settlement: http://courtjustice.blogstream.com/v1/pid/256176.html