<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:blogger='http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:gd="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005" xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227</id><updated>2026-03-25T10:28:23.422-04:00</updated><category term="Libel"/><category term="Defamation"/><category term="Pending"/><category term="Dismissed"/><category term="Alleged Criminality / Impropriety"/><category term="Anonymous posters"/><category term="online; website"/><category term="Blog comments"/><category term="Prior restraints / TRO"/><category term="Settlements"/><category term="Copyright"/><category term="Business Entity / Corporation"/><category term="Appeal"/><category term="Section 230"/><category term="Withdrawn"/><category term="Anti-SLAPP"/><category term="Complaints / Gripe Site"/><category term="Political Issues"/><category term="Social Network (MySpace / FaceBook)"/><category term="News"/><category term="Public official"/><category term="Subpeona"/><category term="Criminal Prosecution"/><category term="Personal Jurisdiction"/><category term="Damages"/><category term="Sex"/><category term="Summary Judgment"/><category term="Cybersquatting / Trademark"/><category term="Removal"/><category term="Educators"/><category term="Harassment / Stalking"/><category term="Privacy"/><category term="Default"/><category term="Business Claims"/><category term="False Light"/><category term="Impersonation"/><category term="Attorneys"/><category term="Real Estate"/><category term="Anonymous Bloggers"/><category term="Insult"/><category term="Righthaven"/><category term="internet; blogger"/><category term="Employer"/><category term="Religion"/><category term="IIED"/><category term="Twitter"/><category term="Business Relationship"/><category term="Injunction / Restraining Order"/><category term="Jail"/><category term="Opinion"/><category term="Public figure"/><category term="Shield laws"/><category term="Threat"/><category term="defamation;"/><category term="Review Site"/><category term="commenter"/><category term="Criminal Libel"/><category term="Discovery"/><category term="Fair Use"/><category term="Parody"/><category term="Attorney Fees"/><category term="Contempt"/><category term="Counterclaims"/><category term="Election"/><category term="Financial Info"/><category term="Magistrate"/><category term="Statute of Limitations"/><category term="Trial"/><category term="Celebrity"/><category term="Family / Personal Relationships"/><category term="Sanctions"/><category term="Slander"/><category term="Cease and Desist"/><category term="Children"/><category term="Court proceedings"/><category term="Divorce"/><category term="Internet Service Provider"/><category term="Judges"/><category term="Post-Trial Motions"/><category term="Retraction"/><category term="Sources"/><category term="Spam"/><category term="Trade Secrets"/><category term="Yelp"/><category term="content regulation"/><category term="internet"/><category term="review"/><category term="tort; derivative liability"/><category term="website"/><category term="Apology"/><category term="E-mails"/><category term="Foreign"/><category term="Gag order"/><category term="Gawker"/><category term="Google"/><category term="Guilty"/><category term="Patents"/><category term="Rhetorical hyperbole"/><category term="Single Publication Rule"/><category term="Texas"/><category term="Vexatious litigator"/><category term="large judgment"/><category term="Attorney Discipline"/><category term="Bankruptcy"/><category term="Criminal Prosection"/><category term="Fine"/><category term="Hot News Misappropriation"/><category term="Probation"/><category term="RipOff Report"/><category term="Romantic relationship"/><category term="Seal"/><category term="User-Generated Content"/><category term="YouTube"/><category term="invasion of privacy"/><category term="republication"/><category term="4th Circuit; internet"/><category term="5th Circuit; defamation; advertising; commercial speech; law firm"/><category term="7th Circuit"/><category term="9th Circuit"/><category term="AP"/><category term="Abuse of Process"/><category term="Admin"/><category term="Advertising Networks"/><category term="Article of the Month"/><category term="Arts Criticism"/><category term="Blogetery"/><category term="Bombs"/><category term="BurstNET"/><category term="Business/Corporation"/><category term="Child Custody"/><category term="Classified information"/><category term="Cohen"/><category term="Community Service"/><category term="Conde Nast"/><category term="Content Developer"/><category term="Conviction"/><category term="DMCA"/><category term="Deferred prosecution"/><category term="Domestic Violence"/><category term="FRCP 65"/><category term="Facebook"/><category term="Florida"/><category term="Gang Membership"/><category term="Hersh"/><category term="Immunity"/><category term="Libel Tourism"/><category term="MLRC"/><category term="Media"/><category term="Mediation"/><category term="Military"/><category term="Mistrial"/><category term="Motion to Quash"/><category term="NBA"/><category term="NY"/><category term="Obscenity"/><category term="Platforms"/><category term="Plea"/><category term="Protective order"/><category term="Punitive Damages"/><category term="Quixtar"/><category term="Recusal"/><category term="Remittitur"/><category term="Reprimand"/><category term="Retrial"/><category term="Site-Wide Shutdown"/><category term="Solicitation Statute"/><category term="Sua sponte"/><category term="Third Party Advertisements"/><category term="Tribal court"/><category term="Unauthorized Computer Access"/><category term="Viacom"/><category term="Whistleblowers"/><category term="Wikileaks"/><category term="Yahoo"/><category term="amicus"/><category term="anonymous emails"/><category term="anonymous speech; Anti-SLAPP"/><category term="articles"/><category term="cops"/><category term="corruption; summary judgment"/><category term="criminal harassment"/><category term="de"/><category term="derivative liability"/><category term="emails"/><category term="emotional distress"/><category term="fair reporting"/><category term="government"/><category term="improper service"/><category term="insurer"/><category term="message board; reality star"/><category term="online critic; bank; financial condition; CA"/><category term="online review; landlord; tenant"/><category term="photo"/><category term="political speech"/><category term="pornography"/><category term="precedent"/><category term="presumed damages"/><category term="public concern"/><category term="reality star"/><category term="reporter"/><category term="reporter&#39;s privilege"/><category term="republication; newspapers; hyperlink; defamation; statute of limitations"/><category term="revenge porn"/><category term="takedown"/><category term="trolls"/><category term="zine"/><title type='text'>MLRC Institute:  Actions Against Online Speech</title><subtitle type='html'>This list, maintained by the MLRC Institute, lists incidences in the United States in which online speech is threatened, whether through libel suits, criminal investigations, or other means.  If you know of something we missed, please let us know. For more details on this list, see “Notes and Sources” below.</subtitle><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default?redirect=false'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><link rel='next' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default?start-index=26&amp;max-results=25&amp;redirect=false'/><author><name>Katherine Vogele Griffin</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09337708117738805031</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>493</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-4322775796674336186</id><published>2015-05-21T11:30:00.002-04:00</published><updated>2015-05-21T11:30:36.180-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Section 230"/><title type='text'>AdvanFort v. International Registires</title><content type='html'>AdvanFort v. International&amp;nbsp;Registries&amp;nbsp;(5/12/15)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:
Court grants motion to dismiss relating to section 230 defense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E.D.Va.: Online Magazine Gets Section 230 Protection for Third Party Article&lt;br /&gt;
Technology &amp;amp; Marketing Law Blog&lt;br /&gt;
The plaintiffs alleged that the Maritime Executive was a partial information content provider.&amp;nbsp; The court&#39;s response is on the right track until it suggests&amp;nbsp;that if the Maritime Executive pays for the content, then it&amp;nbsp;might be&amp;nbsp;a partial information content provider. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/05/online-magazine-gets-section-230-protection-for-third-party-article-advanfort-v-international-registries.htm&quot;&gt;http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/05/online-magazine-gets-section-230-protection-for-third-party-article-advanfort-v-international-registries.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Opinion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2015cv00220/314532/45&quot;&gt;http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2015cv00220/314532/45&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/4322775796674336186/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/4322775796674336186' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/4322775796674336186'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/4322775796674336186'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2015/05/advanfort-v-international-registires.html' title='AdvanFort v. International Registires'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-4797010064830795720</id><published>2015-05-06T11:32:00.002-04:00</published><updated>2015-05-06T11:32:54.096-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Anonymous posters"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Defamation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="internet; blogger"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="invasion of privacy"/><title type='text'>Mezzacappa v. O&#39;Hare</title><content type='html'>Mezzacappa v. O&#39;Hare&amp;nbsp;(March 31, 2015)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:
Court finds blogger not liable.&lt;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Pa.Ct.Comm. Pleas.: Blogger Isn&#39;t Liable for Anonymous Reader Comments&lt;br /&gt;
Technology &amp;amp; Marketing Law Blog&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, the Court says that the blog is an interactive computer service, Mezzacappa&#39;s claims of defamation and privacy invasion are publisher/speaker claims and it was apparent that the anonymous comments came from third parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1961&amp;amp;context=historical&quot;&gt;http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1961&amp;amp;context=historical&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Opinion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1961&amp;amp;context=historical&quot;&gt;http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1961&amp;amp;context=historical&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/4797010064830795720/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/4797010064830795720' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/4797010064830795720'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/4797010064830795720'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2015/05/mezzacappa-v-ohare.html' title='Mezzacappa v. O&#39;Hare'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-3909550467559439595</id><published>2015-04-22T11:13:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2015-04-22T11:13:10.848-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Anonymous posters"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Defamation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Review Site"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Yelp"/><title type='text'>Yelp v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning</title><content type='html'>Yelp v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning (4/16/15)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:
Virginia Supreme Court rules in favor of Yelp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Virginia Supreme Court Won&#39;t Force Yelp to Reveal Identities of Anonymous Commenters&lt;br /&gt;
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press&lt;br /&gt;
In a victory for Yelp and its anonymous commenters, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the Circuit Court could not force the California based online review site to reveal the identity of users who had posted negative reviews of the California carper cleaning service. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/virginia-supreme-court-wont-force-yelp-reveal-identities-anonymous-c&quot;&gt;http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/virginia-supreme-court-wont-force-yelp-reveal-identities-anonymous-c&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Opinion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1140242.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1140242.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/3909550467559439595/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/3909550467559439595' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/3909550467559439595'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/3909550467559439595'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2015/04/yelp-v-hadeed-carpet-cleaning.html' title='Yelp v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-3100084054360874936</id><published>2015-04-22T11:03:00.002-04:00</published><updated>2015-04-22T11:03:20.393-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Anti-SLAPP"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="fair reporting"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="internet; blogger"/><title type='text'>Welch v. University of San Diego</title><content type='html'>Welch v. University of San Diego &amp;nbsp;(4/2/15)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:
Court rules in favor of anti-SLAPP lawsuit. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Cal.App.: Law Professor Blogger Wins Anti-SLAPP Ruling But It&#39;s Hard to Celebrate the Win&lt;br /&gt;
Technology &amp;amp; Marketing Law Blog (Eric Goldman)&lt;br /&gt;
On the surface, this is a nice courtroom victory for legal bloggers.&amp;nbsp; It suggests that legal blogging should be protected by both the fair reporting privilege as well as California&#39;s strong anti-SLAPP legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/04/law-professor-blogger-wins-anti-slapp-ruling-but-its-hard-to-celebrate-the-win-welch-v-usd.htm&quot;&gt;http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/04/law-professor-blogger-wins-anti-slapp-ruling-but-its-hard-to-celebrate-the-win-welch-v-usd.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Opinion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/welch%20ruling%200408.pdf&quot;&gt;http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/welch%20ruling%200408.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/3100084054360874936/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/3100084054360874936' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/3100084054360874936'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/3100084054360874936'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2015/04/welch-v-university-of-san-diego.html' title='Welch v. University of San Diego'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-5454385654031807897</id><published>2015-03-26T12:41:00.001-04:00</published><updated>2015-04-09T10:46:44.450-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Defamation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="insurer"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><title type='text'>Sletten v. Continental Casualty</title><content type='html'>Sletten v. Continental Casualty&amp;nbsp;(March 19, 2015)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:
8th Circuit finds in favor of insurer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8th.Cir.: Insurer Doesn&#39;t Have to Cover Online Libel Claim&lt;br /&gt;
In an interesting non-media decision, the 8th Circuit held that an insurer was not required to defend an insured who allegedly posted false and defamatory reviews of a business competitor.&amp;nbsp; Although the policy covered defamation in general, it excluded defamation with the intent to injure.&amp;nbsp; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Order: &lt;a href=&quot;http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/03/132918P.pdf&quot;&gt;http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/03/132918P.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/5454385654031807897/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/5454385654031807897' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/5454385654031807897'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/5454385654031807897'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2015/03/sletten-v-continetal-casualty.html' title='Sletten v. Continental Casualty'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-8691983002951686390</id><published>2015-03-25T12:11:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2015-03-25T12:11:12.218-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Libel"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="photo"/><title type='text'>Brannies v. Internet ROI</title><content type='html'>Brannies v. Internet ROI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:&amp;nbsp; Federal Court finds website free of wrong doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
S.D. Ga.: Libel Claim Tossed&lt;br /&gt;
Courthouse News&lt;br /&gt;
A Massachusetts-based news website that allegedly portrayed a man as a child molester by linking his photo to the alleged sexual assault of a 10 yr old girl does not have to face libel claims in Georgia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Order: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/23/Internet%20Defamation.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/23/Internet%20Defamation.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/8691983002951686390/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/8691983002951686390' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/8691983002951686390'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/8691983002951686390'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2015/03/brannies-v-internet-roi.html' title='Brannies v. Internet ROI'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-7793447476034620892</id><published>2015-01-20T13:51:00.001-05:00</published><updated>2015-01-20T13:51:25.067-05:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Defamation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Facebook"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Personal Jurisdiction"/><title type='text'>Burdick v. Superior Court</title><content type='html'>Burdick v. Superior Court (1/14/15)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:California Court of Appeals holds that there is no personal jurisdiction for case to move forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cal.App.: No Personal Jurisdiction Arising from Allegedly Defamatory Facebook Postings&lt;br /&gt;
Washington Post (Eugene Volokh)&lt;br /&gt;
The California Court of Appeals recently held that posting allegedly defamatory statements on a person&#39;s Facebook page is insufficient in itself to create the contacts necessary to support personal jurisdiction.&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/20/no-personal-jurisdiction-in-ca-arising-from-allegedly-defamatory-facebook-postings-targeting-ca-residents-herein-of-posts-second-law-of-judicial-decision-making/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opinion: http://cases.justia.com/california/court-of-appeal/2015-g049107.pdf?ts=1421280050</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/7793447476034620892/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/7793447476034620892' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/7793447476034620892'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/7793447476034620892'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2015/01/burdick-v-superior-court.html' title='Burdick v. Superior Court'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-385212098893622766</id><published>2015-01-05T10:52:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2015-01-05T10:52:16.350-05:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Anti-SLAPP"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Defamation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Twitter"/><title type='text'>Enjaian v. ALM Media</title><content type='html'>Enjaian v. ALM Media (12/23/14)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:Court grants defendant&#39;s motion to strike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.D.Cal.: Tweeted Article About Lawyer Facing Stalking Accusation Isn&#39;t Defamatory&lt;br /&gt;
Technology &amp;amp; Marketing Law Blog&lt;br /&gt;
Defendant&#39;s brought an anti-SLAPP motion under California&#39;s anti-SLAPP statute and the court grants it.&lt;br /&gt;
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/12/tweeted-article-about-lawyer-facing-stalking-accusation-isnt-defamatory-enjaian-v-alm.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Order:&lt;br /&gt;
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/4:2014cv03872/280243/27</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/385212098893622766/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/385212098893622766' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/385212098893622766'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/385212098893622766'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2015/01/enjaian-v-alm-media.html' title='Enjaian v. ALM Media'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-1345753164355928016</id><published>2014-12-10T14:25:00.003-05:00</published><updated>2014-12-10T14:25:59.644-05:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Defamation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="reporter"/><title type='text'>Brown v. Times-Picayune</title><content type='html'>Brown v. Times-Picayune&amp;nbsp;(11/3/14)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:
Appellate court reverses lower court decision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
La.App.: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Lawyer&#39;s Defamation Suit Against Nola.com&lt;br /&gt;
Times-Picayune&lt;br /&gt;
Claiborne Brown sued the organization and reporter Claire Galofaro for a headline that ran in the newspaper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/12/appeals_court_reverses_dismiss.html&quot;&gt;http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/12/appeals_court_reverses_dismiss.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Opinion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.la-fcca.org/opiniongrid/opinionpdf/2014%20CA%200160%20Decision%20Appeal.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.la-fcca.org/opiniongrid/opinionpdf/2014%20CA%200160%20Decision%20Appeal.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/1345753164355928016/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/1345753164355928016' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/1345753164355928016'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/1345753164355928016'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/12/brown-v-times-picayune.html' title='Brown v. Times-Picayune'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-2286473524339734553</id><published>2014-12-10T13:24:00.001-05:00</published><updated>2014-12-10T13:24:57.081-05:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Defamation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="emotional distress"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="False Light"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><title type='text'>Huon v. Breaking Media</title><content type='html'>Huon v. Breaking Media&amp;nbsp;(12/4/14)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS: District&amp;nbsp;Court will allow defamation claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
N.D. Ill.:&amp;nbsp; Legal Blog Faces Defamation Liability For Mischaracterizing Prior Legal Proceedings&lt;br /&gt;
Technology &amp;amp; Marketing Law Blog&lt;br /&gt;
Popular blog Above the Law wrote two stories about plaintiff&#39;s brush with the legal system. After the plaintiff was acquitted, ATL added an update to the story reflecting this.&amp;nbsp; Plaintiff sued ATL in 2011 for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false light.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/12/legal-blog-faces-defamation-liability-for-mischaracterizing-prior-legal-proceedings-huon-v-above-the-law.htm&quot;&gt;http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/12/legal-blog-faces-defamation-liability-for-mischaracterizing-prior-legal-proceedings-huon-v-above-the-law.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Opinion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/12/05/above%20the%20law.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/12/05/above%20the%20law.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/2286473524339734553/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/2286473524339734553' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/2286473524339734553'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/2286473524339734553'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/12/huon-v-breaking-media.html' title='Huon v. Breaking Media'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-6408444245283728121</id><published>2014-12-08T11:22:00.002-05:00</published><updated>2014-12-08T11:22:59.883-05:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Blog comments"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Google"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Review Site"/><title type='text'>Roca Lab v Does</title><content type='html'>Roca Labs v Does&amp;nbsp;(11/14/14)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;

STATUS:
Suit filed in Circuit Court. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Fla.Cir.: Roca Labs Sues Anonymous Commenters In Convoluted Plot To Get Negative Comments De-Indexed From Google&lt;br /&gt;
TechDirt&lt;br /&gt;
Roca Labs is suing 11 anonymous commenters who posted comments to PissedConsumer.com, but it doesn&#39;t seem interested in who posted the comments; instead, it just wants to get a court order to pressure Google and others into no longer linking to those reviews. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141202/15032929299/roca-labs-latest-nutty-strategy-to-delete-negative-reviews-sue-anonymous-commenters-pretend-comments-are-property.shtml&quot;&gt;https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141202/15032929299/roca-labs-latest-nutty-strategy-to-delete-negative-reviews-sue-anonymous-commenters-pretend-comments-are-property.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Complaint:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1373944/12-02-03.pdf&quot;&gt;https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1373944/12-02-03.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/6408444245283728121/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/6408444245283728121' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/6408444245283728121'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/6408444245283728121'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/12/roca-lab-v-does.html' title='Roca Lab v Does'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-3539559664382047400</id><published>2014-11-10T11:50:00.002-05:00</published><updated>2014-11-10T11:50:33.995-05:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Defamation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><title type='text'>Ringgold v. Radar Online</title><content type='html'>Ringgold&amp;nbsp;v. Radar Online&amp;nbsp;(11/6/14)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:
Complaint filed in Eastern District court. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E.D.N.Y.: Radar Sullied Name of Tom Cruise Bodyguard, He Says&lt;br /&gt;
Courthouse News&lt;br /&gt;
When Tom Cruise sued Radar Online over careless reporting, the website doubled down by lying about his former bodyguard, a federal complaint alleges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/11/06/radar-sullied-name-of-tom-cruise-bodygard-he-says.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/11/06/radar-sullied-name-of-tom-cruise-bodygard-he-says.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Complaint:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medialaw.org/images/medialawdaily/ringgold11.07.14.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.medialaw.org/images/medialawdaily/ringgold11.07.14.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/3539559664382047400/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/3539559664382047400' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/3539559664382047400'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/3539559664382047400'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/11/ringgold-v-radar-online.html' title='Ringgold v. Radar Online'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-568392843241382339</id><published>2014-09-08T10:39:00.001-04:00</published><updated>2014-09-08T10:39:21.437-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Defamation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><title type='text'>Concerned Citizens for Judicial Fairness v. Yacucci</title><content type='html'>Concerned Citizens for Judicial Fairness v. Yacucci&amp;nbsp;(September 3, 2014)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:
Florida appeals court reverses lower court ruling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Fla.App.Ct.: Ruling: Judge Couldn&#39;t Block Website from Publishing Critical Stories&lt;br /&gt;
Palm Beach Post&lt;br /&gt;
The 4th District Court of Appeals on Wednesday slapped a senior judge in St. Lucie County for shutting down the website of a political committee after a judge running for re-election claimed it contained defamatory information about him. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2014/aug/120563.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2014/aug/120563.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/568392843241382339/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/568392843241382339' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/568392843241382339'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/568392843241382339'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/09/concerned-citizens-for-judicial.html' title='Concerned Citizens for Judicial Fairness v. Yacucci'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-4312608070990047936</id><published>2014-09-08T10:33:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2014-09-08T10:33:10.545-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Defamation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="precedent"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="republication"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Texas"/><title type='text'>Kinney v. Barnes</title><content type='html'>Kinney v. Barnes&amp;nbsp;(August 29, 2014)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;

STATUS:
Texas court sets precedent by ruling that court can&#39;t stop republishing of defamatory content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Tex.: New Remedy for Online Defamation&lt;br /&gt;
Texas Lawyer&lt;br /&gt;
The Texas Supreme Court recently set precedent by ruling that a court can order an author to delete a defamatory posting, but cannot stop him from reposting the same statements elsewhere. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=1202668854527/New-Remedy-for-Online-Defamation?slreturn=20140808102826&quot;&gt;http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=1202668854527/New-Remedy-for-Online-Defamation?slreturn=20140808102826&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2014/aug/130043.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2014/aug/130043.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/4312608070990047936/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/4312608070990047936' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/4312608070990047936'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/4312608070990047936'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/09/kinney-v-barnes.html' title='Kinney v. Barnes'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-7555996697424768255</id><published>2014-09-08T10:27:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2014-09-08T10:27:04.306-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="defamation;"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><title type='text'>Cornett v. Gawker Media</title><content type='html'>Cornett v. Gawker Media (August 28, 2014)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;

STATUS:
Federal judge refused order of early settlement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
D. Nev.: Surfer Loses Bid to Settle Her Spat with Gawker&lt;br /&gt;
Courthouse News&lt;br /&gt;
Noting a lack of desire on the part of Gawker, a federal judge refused to order an early settlement conference in a celebrity surfer&#39;s defamation case. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/09/02/70964.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/09/02/70964.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/09/02/gawkorder.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/09/02/gawkorder.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/7555996697424768255/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/7555996697424768255' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/7555996697424768255'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/7555996697424768255'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/09/cornett-v-gawker-media.html' title='Cornett v. Gawker Media'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-1567377789157019164</id><published>2014-09-08T10:20:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2014-09-08T10:20:04.666-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Anonymous Bloggers"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Texas"/><title type='text'>In re John Doe a.k.a &quot;Trooper&quot;</title><content type='html'>In re John Doe a.k.a &quot;Trooper&quot;&amp;nbsp;(August 29, 2014)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:
Texas court will not out identity of anonymous blogger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Texas Supreme Court Voids Order to Identify Blogger&lt;br /&gt;
Austin American-Statesman&lt;br /&gt;
An Ohio company, seeking to sue a sharply critical blogger who wrote under a pseudonym, cannot use the Texas courts to discover the online author&#39;s identity. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.statesman.com/news/news/texas-supreme-court-voids-order-to-identify-blogge/nhB7m/&quot;&gt;http://www.statesman.com/news/news/texas-supreme-court-voids-order-to-identify-blogge/nhB7m/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Opinion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2014/aug/130073.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2014/aug/130073.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/1567377789157019164/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/1567377789157019164' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/1567377789157019164'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/1567377789157019164'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/09/in-re-john-doe-aka-trooper.html' title='In re John Doe a.k.a &quot;Trooper&quot;'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-4232780495327446406</id><published>2014-08-27T12:32:00.002-04:00</published><updated>2014-08-27T12:32:12.539-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="internet"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Single Publication Rule"/><title type='text'>Mayfield v. Fullhart</title><content type='html'>Mayfield v. Fullhart (August 21, 2014)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS: Texas appellate court rules that single publication rule applies to the Internet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tex.App:&amp;nbsp; Single Publication Rule Applies to Online Publication&lt;br /&gt;
In the first Texas appellate decision to address the issue, the court held that the single publication rule applied to a television station&#39;s news report publicly available on the Internet.&amp;nbsp; The court also held that the discovery rule does not apply when an allegedly defamatory statement is disseminated via the mass media.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opinion:&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.medialaw.org/images/medialawdaily/mayfield08.22.14.pdf</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/4232780495327446406/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/4232780495327446406' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/4232780495327446406'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/4232780495327446406'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/08/mayfield-v-fullhart.html' title='Mayfield v. Fullhart'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-1585930457073972406</id><published>2014-08-25T11:56:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2014-08-25T11:56:37.516-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Default"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="improper service"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Review Site"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Section 230"/><title type='text'>Westlake Legal Group v. Schumacher</title><content type='html'>Westlake Legal Group v. Schumacher&amp;nbsp; (8/19/14)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS: Court dismissed case over improper service.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E.D. Va.: Court Sets Aside Default Libel Judgment and Injunctions Against Yelp&lt;br /&gt;
A Virginia lawyer and his firm had obtained a $200,000 default judgment over a negative review posted on Yelp.&amp;nbsp; Granting a motion to set aside the judgment, the Court held that service on Yelp was improper and dismissed the complaint as time barred or alternatively barred by Section 230.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opinion:&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.medialaw.org/images/medialawdaily/yelp08.20.14.pdf</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/1585930457073972406/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/1585930457073972406' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/1585930457073972406'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/1585930457073972406'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/08/westlake-legal-group-v-schumacher.html' title='Westlake Legal Group v. Schumacher'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-6118188853983514248</id><published>2014-08-25T11:51:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2014-08-25T11:51:34.646-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Defamation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="internet"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="republication"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Statute of Limitations"/><title type='text'>Larue/Tucker v. Brown</title><content type='html'>Larue/Tucker v. Brown&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS: Appellate Court rules that republication of defamatory content restarts clock for filing a lawsuit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ariz. App.: Republication on Internet of Alleged Defamation Restarts Clock on Lawsuit Deadline&lt;br /&gt;
The Republic&lt;br /&gt;
A new appellate court ruling says republication on the Internet of an alleged defamation restarts Arizona&#39;s deadline for filing a lawsuit within one year of publication. &lt;br /&gt;
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/0a50c90132064822a2c74410129b0e21/AZ--Internet-Defamation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opinion:&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2014/1%20CA-CV13-0138.pdf</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/6118188853983514248/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/6118188853983514248' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/6118188853983514248'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/6118188853983514248'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/08/laruetucker-v-brown.html' title='Larue/Tucker v. Brown'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-6949663945120579702</id><published>2014-07-10T11:46:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2014-07-10T11:47:31.342-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Grissom &amp; Thompson v. Browning</title><content type='html'>Grissom &amp;amp; Thompson b. Browning (6/24/2014)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS: Defamation claim filed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mlrc.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT00MTM2MDM2JnA9MSZ1PTEwMzMyOTU4MDEmbGk9MjM3MDQyOTM/index.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;Tex. Dist.: Law Firm Files Defamation Lawsuit
 Over Ex-Client&#39;s Yelp Review&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Texas Lawyer&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Grissom
 &amp;amp; Thompson alleges that Austin resident Joseph A. Browning used Yelp to publish
 &quot;disparaging and blatantly false statements&quot; about his legal representation by
 the firm. The Austin law firm&#39;s attorney claims the review appeared after the
 firm sued Browning for fees.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;&quot;&gt;http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=1202662317617/Law-Firm-Files-Defamation-Lawsuit-Over-ExClients-Yelp-Review#ixzz36z6YpmgO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;&quot;&gt;Petition:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;&quot;&gt;http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tx/Grissom-ThompsonVBrowning-petition.pdf&lt;/span&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/6949663945120579702/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/6949663945120579702' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/6949663945120579702'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/6949663945120579702'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/07/grissom-v-thompson-v-browning.html' title='Grissom &amp; Thompson v. Browning'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-3592008922228280730</id><published>2014-06-02T11:34:00.001-04:00</published><updated>2014-06-02T11:34:24.878-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="anonymous speech; Anti-SLAPP"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><title type='text'>John Doe No.1 v. Burke</title><content type='html'>John Doe No.1 v. Burke&amp;nbsp;(May 29, 2014)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:
Appeals Court upheld Anti-SLAAP motion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;&quot;&gt;In its first decision to interpret the District
 of Columbia&#39;s Anti-SLAPP law, the D.C. Court of Appeals quashed a subpoena to
 an anonymous Wikipedia user sued for defamation.&amp;nbsp; The D.C. statute goes further
 than other jurisdictions in protecting anonymous speech by affording anonymous
 defendants the ability to file special motions to quash subpoenas for their identities.
 The Court first held that it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the trial
 court&#39;s denial of the motion.&amp;nbsp; On the merits of the motion, the Court held
 that plaintiff, an attorney, was a public figure who failed to show that edits
 to her Wikipedia page were made with actual malice. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/13-CV-83.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/13-CV-83.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/3592008922228280730/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/3592008922228280730' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/3592008922228280730'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/3592008922228280730'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/06/john-doe-no1-v-burke.html' title='John Doe No.1 v. Burke'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-2532469881566991445</id><published>2014-05-29T11:35:00.001-04:00</published><updated>2014-05-29T11:35:24.915-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Defamation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="online; website"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="review"/><title type='text'>Palmer v. KlearGear.com</title><content type='html'>Palmer v. KlearGear.com&amp;nbsp;(May 5, 2014)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
D.Utah.: Judge: KlearGear Can&#39;t Collect $3,500.00 From Couple That Left Negative Online Review&lt;br /&gt;
Ars Technica&lt;br /&gt;
A federal court judge has ruled in favor of a Utah couple who criticized an online retailer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/judge-kleargear-cant-collect-3500-from-couple-that-left-negative-online-review/&quot;&gt;http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/judge-kleargear-cant-collect-3500-from-couple-that-left-negative-online-review/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Default Judgment:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scribd.com/doc/224430518/Palmer-v-Kleargear-Default-Judgment&quot;&gt;http://www.scribd.com/doc/224430518/Palmer-v-Kleargear-Default-Judgment&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/2532469881566991445/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/2532469881566991445' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/2532469881566991445'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/2532469881566991445'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/05/palmer-v-kleargearcom.html' title='Palmer v. KlearGear.com'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-1491031427674386939</id><published>2014-05-29T11:25:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2014-05-29T11:25:54.151-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="content regulation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="derivative liability"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Section 230"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Yelp"/><title type='text'>Kimzey v. Yelp</title><content type='html'>Kimzey v. Yelp (May 7, 2014)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
STATUS:
Court grants defendant&#39;s motion to dismiss. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
W.D. Wash.: Yelp Wins Another Section 230 Case&lt;br /&gt;
Technology &amp;amp; Marketing Law Blog (Eric Goldman)&lt;br /&gt;
We don&#39;t see arguments too often any more about Section 230 implications of star ratings. &lt;br /&gt;
blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/05/yelp-wins-another-section-230-case-kimzey-v-yelp.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Opinion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2013cv01734/196114/26&quot;&gt;http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2013cv01734/196114/26&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/1491031427674386939/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/1491031427674386939' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/1491031427674386939'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/1491031427674386939'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/05/kimzey-v-yelp.html' title='Kimzey v. Yelp'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-7892722039220753928</id><published>2014-05-15T15:28:00.002-04:00</published><updated>2014-05-15T15:28:47.688-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Vazquez v. Buhl</title><content type='html'>&lt;span style=&quot;color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;&quot;&gt;&lt;a choice=&quot;1&quot; href=&quot;http://mlrc.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT00MDIxMDU4JnA9MSZ1PTEwMzMyOTU4MDEmbGk9MjI4Mjk5MTE/index.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conn. App.: No liability for linking to —
 and praising — allegedly defamatory article&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Washington
 Post (Volokh Conspiracy)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Connecticut court concluded that NBC was
 acting as a “provider … of an interactive service,” that the
 linked-to-article was “information provided by another information content
 provider [Buhl]” (even in the absence of evidence that Buhl had deliberately
 submitted it to NBC or Carney), and that therefore NBC couldn’t be “treated
 as the publisher or speaker” of such information for libel purposes.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a choice=&quot;1&quot; href=&quot;http://mlrc.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT00MDIxMDU4JnA9MSZ1PTEwMzMyOTU4MDEmbGk9MjI4Mjk5MTI/index.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Opinion: Vazquez v. Buhl et al.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/7892722039220753928/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/7892722039220753928' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/7892722039220753928'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/7892722039220753928'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/05/vazquez-v-buhl.html' title='Vazquez v. Buhl'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643940815118766227.post-2992457300209349937</id><published>2014-04-23T14:35:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2014-04-23T14:35:04.082-04:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="content regulation"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Section 230"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="tort; derivative liability"/><title type='text'>Seldon v. Magedson</title><content type='html'>Seldon v. Magedson&amp;nbsp;(April 25, 2014)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
D. Ariz. Ripoff Report&#39;s Latest Section 230 Win&lt;br /&gt;
Technology &amp;amp; Marketing Law Blog (Eric Goldman)&lt;br /&gt;
Citing Roommates.com for the defense, the court says that screening content is immunized by Section 230. &lt;br /&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/04/ripoff-reports-latest-section-230-win-seldon-v-magedson.htm&quot;&gt;http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/04/ripoff-reports-latest-section-230-win-seldon-v-magedson.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Opinion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&amp;amp;context=historical&quot;&gt;http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&amp;amp;context=historical&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/feeds/2992457300209349937/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/5643940815118766227/2992457300209349937' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/2992457300209349937'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5643940815118766227/posts/default/2992457300209349937'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2014/04/seldon-v-magedson.html' title='Seldon v. Magedson'/><author><name>MLRC</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/08620652660533505193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry></feed>