In case you missed it, the first incident involved a BBC television show that claimed an unnamed former UK politician abused boys. Soon after, people on Twitter used “jigsaw identification” to conclude that the person is question was Lord McAlpine, and some of their conclusions were retweeted 100,000 times. The BBC soon acknowledged the report was false and apologized to Lord McAlpine who said the public hatred he endured was “terrifying.”

Meanwhile, in New York, a man accused Sesame Street puppeteer Kevin Clash of carrying on an affair with him when he was a minor. Even though the allegation were unproved, Twitter immediately lit up with tasteless jokes linking to the Clash story like:

“Voice of Elmo accused of affair with minor nyp.st/TVGXVd” haha no elmo you’re not supposed to tickle me! elmo stop! ahhhh elmoooo!

— Ryan MacNamara (@massnamara) November 12, 2012

Several days later, the accuser recanted his story and said he was of age and that the affair was consensual. On Sunday, the story became more confused with reports of a payoff and a criminal history on the part of the accuser.

Trial by Twitter and libel law

The facts aren’t identical but both situations involve public figures subjected to “trial by Twitter” over terrible allegations. The legal fall-out, however, has been very different.

In Britain, Lord McAlpine has already obtained a libel settlement from the BBC for falsely suggested he was a paedophile on national TV. The legal action didn’t stop there, however. Lord McAlpine’s lawyers have also vowed they will go after “a very long list” of people who repeated the claims on Twitter.

Meanwhile, neither Clash nor Sesame Street have threatened to sue the media or anyone who shared the story on Twitter. This response reflects not only different facts but also very different libel laws in the US and Britain.

“[I]n America it’s hard for famous people (and especially government officials or former high government officials) to sue people for defamation.  The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant knew the allegation was false, or at least knew it was quite likely false,” explained Professor Eugene Volokh, a noted First Amendment scholar at UCLA, in an email. ” Moreover, if the defendant is just stating an opinion (“Based on what I read in this article, so-and-so must be guilty”), that too is constitutionally protected against a libel lawsuit.”

Volokh added the rules are different for non-public figures. In the UK, however, the overall libel law is much stricter and puts the burden of proof on the speaker to show a statement is true. This means the rich and powerful in Britain have long used libel law to intimidate or silence critics.

“The English law has been completely fixated on reputation and undervalued the public interest in free speech, and has been unwilling to protect the media against good-faith mistakes,” according to an email from Professor Stephen Scott, a constitutional law expert at McGill University. “This has not only been in the context of defamation, but in book/magazine, theatre and cinema/video censorship.”

Can you sue 100,000 Twitter users?

If Lord McAlpine’s lawyers follow up their threat, it will be interesting to see how far they get. Under UK law, they can go after not just people who tweeted conclusions about the BBC show but also everyone who retweeted those conclusions. In theory, half the country could be in court by the time this is done.

Those in America are safe from the Lord’s lawyers, however. That’s because Congress in 2010 unanimously passed a law called the SPEECH Act to put a stop to so-called libel tourism — where powerful people around the world would get a libel judgement in London and then show up in America to collect.

Unfortunately, the American shield is of little help to UK Twitter users. Those users not only face legal exposure over Lord McAlpine, but will have to decide whether to self-censor the next time the BBC reports news they can’t confirm. While false accusations about paedophilia are a terrible thing, such  legal campaigns that stymie free expression may prove an even greater evil.

As services like Twitter cause news to spread faster and more broadly than ever, courts in the UK and elsewhere will have to find new ways to balance reputations and free speech.

[Update: A reader objected to the original headline which said “BBC and Elmo sex scandals.” My intent was to provide context not sensationalism but I take the point and have updated:

Hey GigaOm, you think maybe we could NOT use the phrase “Elmo sex scandal” in headlines? gigaom.com/2012/11/18/twi…

— Jillian C. York (@jilliancyork) November 19, 2012

The tweets belong to Malcolm Harris, who was among hundreds arrested last year during a protest that spilled onto the Brooklyn Bridge.

The case became a media sensation after Twitter notified Harris about prosecutors’ demands for his account. Harris then challenged the demand but, in a remarkable decision, Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr., ruled that he had no standing because the tweets did not belong to him.

After Twitter stepped in on Harris’s behalf, Sciarrino issued another unusual decision that suggested people have little or no constitutional rights in what they publish on social media.

Twitter is appealing the rulings but Sciarrino effectively shut down the appeal this month by ordering the company to turn over Harris’ account or face a contempt of court order and a large fine.

Sciarrino’s brash series of orders are all the more striking because the judge himself has been disciplined for misusing social media, including allegedly attempting to “friend” lawyers on Facebook and updating his status from the bench.

• See also: The Facebook-addicted judge and the little blue bird

According to Reuters, which first reported the story, Twitter handed over the tweets this morning and they will remain under seal under at least next week when Harris will argue another appeal. His criminal trial is set to go forward in December.

The case is significant because it is helping to define privacy and free speech in the age of social media. While tweets are by their nature public statements, Harris had deleted them. The issue of whether or not they are still public documents is an open question but the more pressing legal issue is over who owns them in the first place.

Twitter is adamant that users own their tweets, which makes Sciarrino’s ruling that Harris has no standing a potentially egregious error. If his finding is overruled, it will confirm that users can stand up for their own speech and privacy rights.

The case involves a 12-year-old girl who used Facebook to diss the hall monitor, writing “[I hate] a Kathy person at school because [Kathy] was mean to me.” She also used the social network to talk about “naughty things” with a boy. When one of her “friends” ratted on her, the girl wrote on her Facebook wall, “I want to know who the f%$# told on me.”

Three school officials, including a counselor and a taser-wearing cop, came down hard. They interrogated her in an office and badgered the sobbing girl until she handed over her passwords. They proceeded to go through her Facebook and email accounts to find the “naughty” discussion she had with the boy.

Now, the school is in hot water. U.S. District Judge Michael Davis ruled that the school appears to have violated the girl’s free speech and privacy rights. He wrote:

For more than forty years, the United States courts have recognized that students do not check their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door  …  The movement of student speech to the internet poses some new challenges, but that transition has not abrogated the clearly established general principles which have governed schools for decade

Davis noted that there is a clear exception to the rule that schools can’t infringe on students’ free speech rights —  when there is a clear threat of violence with a connection to the school. This obviously wasn’t the case in Minnesota since the girl’s Facebook activity took place outside of school.

The decision, first reported by Seattle lawyer Venkat Balasubramani, comes at a time of a growing backlash against school and workplace attempts to pry into people’s social media lives.

Davis’ ruling also provides an interesting tour of other cases in which students push the social media envelope, sometimes in very unpleasant ways. In one example, a court upheld the speech rights of a student who made a MySpace parody of his principal:

the student featured a picture of the principal (taken from a school website) and stated that the principal was “too drunk to remember” his birthday and was also a “big steroid freak,” a “big whore,” and a “big fag.”

Students’ social media activity may be upsetting or disrespectful but it’s nothing new — Bart Simpson, the Beastie Boys and others have trash-talked teachers since the dawn of school. The platform is different but the behavior is not.

Judge Davis’ decision , which came in response to the school’s request to dismiss, is here:

Minnesota Student First Amendment
(Image by 3445128471 via Shutterstock)

The Virginia man at center of the case, Daniel Ray Carter, clicked to “Like” the “Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff” page in 2009. The incumbent sheriff learned of his subordinate’s “Like” for his opponent and fired Carter shortly after he won re-election.

Ordinarily, it is against the law to terminate employees for their political opinions. When Carter sued, however, a Virginia judge ruled in April that, unlike writing a message on Facebook, the act of clicking a “Like” did not amount to speech worthy of First Amendment protection.

Carter appealed the decision and this week Facebook filed to support him. In its brief, the social network says a “Like” is protected symbolic speech like a bumper sticker or a campaign lawn sign — both low-cost ways for citizens to express their political opinions.

The appeal will turn on the original judge’s conclusion that the “Like” was insignificant speech that did not involve “actual statements.” Facebook is countering this by pointing out that the “Like” appeared on Carter’s profile page and in the news feed of Carter’s friends. The evidence also showed that others in the sheriff’s office saw the “Like” and predicted that Carter would be “out of there” because of it.

Carter is likely to prevail. US courts have long protected a wide range of symbolic speech such as arm bands and flag burning. Recently, a federal judge expressed support for a vice-principal who was fired for having a symbolic hot dog cook-out in support of poorer students at the school.

Prominent First Amendment scholars like UCLA’s Eugene Volokh have also supported Carter’s position, saying a “Like” clearly is speech.

The Facebook Like case is just the latest in a series of decisions in which courts have struggled to apply Constitutional rights like free speech and privacy in the context of social media. In another high-profile case, Twitter is appealing a New York judges’ ruling that an Occupy Wall Street protestor has no constitutional rights in his tweets.

Update: The American Civil Liberties Union has also filed a brief to support Carter.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment protects everyone’s right to express their thoughts and opinions in whatever form they choose to do so, whether it’s speaking on a street corner, holding up a sign, or pressing a button on Facebook to say that you ‘Like’ something,” said ACLU attorney Aden Fine.

Here is Facebook’s brief in support of Likes as free speech:

Facebook 1st Amendment

(Image by Vince Clements via Shutterstock)

In a post on Tuesday entitled “First they came for WikiLeaks, then the New York Times,” we wrote about how there is growing evidence that Congress and the Justice Department may be considering legal sanctions against traditional journalists who publish classified information — in other words, extending the kind of legal attacks they have been making on WikiLeaks to the traditional media such as the New York Times. In an emailed response to that post, former NYT executive editor Bill Keller said he strongly agrees that an attack on WikiLeaks’ right to publish such leaked documents is an implicit attack on the media as a whole, and that the mainstream media should protest any prosecution of the organization as a betrayal of the First Amendment.

In my post, I described how some members of a House Judiciary subcommittee seemed to be looking to experts for legal grounds under which they could charge journalists for publishing leaked classified information. The Department of Justice has also reportedly been warning reporters that if they publish such documents they could face prosecution — in the same way the DoJ is said to be pursuing a case against WikiLeaks and its controversial founder Julian Assange under the Espionage Act, (despite the fact that the government’s own researchers say using the act to go after journalists instead of leakers is a questionable strategy).

If WikiLeaks is under attack, journalism is under attack

My point was that if WikiLeaks, which I have argued before is a media entity — although one very different from the New York Times — is subject to that kind of prosecution for publishing classified information, then the NYT or any other traditional media outlet is in danger of being prosecuted as well. I also said that most mainstream media companies had been relatively silent on this point until now, but Keller noted in his email that he has repeatedly agreed that an attack on WikiLeaks is an implicit attack on media and journalism. As he put it:

I’ve said repeatedly, in print and in a variety of public forums, that I would regard an attempt to criminalize WikiLeaks’ publication of these documents as an attack on all of us, and I believe the mainstream media should come to his defense.

Keller went on to say that despite the rumblings from Congress that I referred to in my post, the government so far hasn’t made an official move against either Julian Assange or WikiLeaks. If a prosecution under the Espionage Act did in fact occur, Keller said he hoped to see news organizations of all kinds and press-freedom advocacy groups “filing briefs and otherwise objecting.” The NYT’s former executive editor also admitted that the newspaper’s relationship with Assange had been fractious, but said that personal feelings about the WikiLeaks founder shouldn’t prevent media organizations from coming to his defense:

You don’t have to embrace Julian Assange as a kindred spirit to believe that what he did in publishing those cables falls under the protection of the First Amendment.

Even if it isn’t journalism, it deserves protection

In a follow-up email, Keller also noted that he had made similar statements about the necessity of defending Assange and WikiLeaks’ publication of classified documents in a New York Times magazine piece excerpted from the introduction to “Open Secrets: WikiLeaks, War and American Diplomacy,” a book about the organization’s publication of thousands of diplomatic cables and the NYT’s role in that effort. In the piece, he said:

While I do not regard Assange as a partner, and I would hesitate to describe what WikiLeaks does as journalism, it is chilling to contemplate the possible government prosecution of WikiLeaks for making secrets public, let alone the passage of new laws to punish the dissemination of classified information, as some have advocated… criminalizing the publication of such secrets by someone who has no official obligation seems to me to run up against the First Amendment and the best traditions of this country.

As I wrote at the time Keller’s excerpt was published, it seemed as though the former NYT editor was grudgingly coming to admit that what WikiLeaks did was close enough to being journalism that — even if it wasn’t journalism with a capital J, or published by professional journalists — it deserved the full protection of the First Amendment. That’s a message it would be nice to hear from more journalists of Keller’s calibre.

Post and thumbnail images via Charlie Rose and Flickr user jphilipg

In a unanimous ruling, the court declined to take up larger First Amendment questions about the degree to which swearing and nudity are protected speech. Instead, the justices found that the federal regulator had used overly vague guidelines to sanction Fox and ABC news and failed to give the broadcasters adequate notice about the rules.

In the case of Fox, the decision turned on so-called “fleeting expletives” such as when celebrity Nicole Richie make the unscripted remark  “Have you ever tried to get cow s*** out of a Prada purse? It’s not so f***ing simple” during an award show. The FCC warned Fox but did not fine the station but it did levy a fine on ABC News for showing an actress’ bare bottom for seven seconds.

The Court concluded that, since it could throw out FCC’s swearing and nudity decisions on vagueness grounds, it did not have to take up the First Amendment questions.

The question of swearing, free speech and broadcasting remains informed by a 1978 Supreme Court decision involving comedian George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” monologue.

In an odd pairing, liberal Justice Ruth Ginsburg and conservative Justice Clarence Thomas added a one paragraph concurring opinion arguing that the Carlin case was out of date due to “time” and “technological advances” and should be reconsidered.

To learn more about the fleeting executives case, see our earlier Q & A.

That’s the conclusion of a prominent First Amendment scholar commissioned by Google to make the case that the government can’t tell search engines how to design their results.

A Free Speech Right?

According to the report authored by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh: “Google, Microsoft’s Bing, Yahoo! Search and other search engine companies are rightly seen as media enterprises, much as the New York Times Company or CNN are media enterprises” and deserve the same protections. It adds that search engines have the same freedom to choose a set of links as do news aggregators like the Drudge Report or the Huffington Post.

Search engine results are a form of opinion, says the report, in which companies offer information they think is most relevant to users.

In practice, this would mean Google has the right to punt sites like Yelp, which has complained that Google is a monopolist, to the search equivalent of Siberia if it decided that was best for users (Yelp now comes up second in a search for “restaurant review”).

The US has a long history of companies claiming First Amendment protections. One example is a newspaper that was allowed to exclude certain advertisers even though it had a “substantial monopoly.”

The courts have also made a few exceptions to the free speech rule. One case involved a publisher that was sued for providing inaccurate flight maps. Another involved cable providers which, a court said, did not have a free speech right to exclude certain channels.

Volokh’s report says those free speech exceptions don’t apply to search engines because, unlike cable providers, it’s not just a pipe for information. It also echoes Google position that consumers can easily use a competing search engine.

In an interview, Volokh said Google’s situation is also similar to a 1980′s case in which an author launched a failed suit against the New York Times’ over the accuracy of the newspaper’s weekly best-seller list.

Google’s strategy shift

In response to an email query, a source at Google explained Volokh’s report by saying, “we thought these issues were worth exploring in more depth by a noted First Amendment scholar.”

There is another likely explanation for Google’s decision to release the report — to thwart the government from regulating its search results. Recall that the company is in the middle of an ongoing federal investigation into whether it’s using its dominance to choke competition. If Google refuses to settle the matter, the Justice Department may consider filing an anti-trust suit.

Google may have released the report, then, to try and persuade government lawyers that they would lose an anti-trust case on First Amendment grounds.

The report also marks a strategy shift for Google. In the past, the company has responded to anti-trust allegations by saying that it didn’t have a dominant market position and that, in any case, it didn’t discriminate in its results. Google only claimed free speech as a fallback argument.

Now, Google appears to have given up claiming that its results are always neutral and is instead betting the farm on the First Amendment argument.

Only in America?

Courts so far appear to support Google’s view that search rankings are simply another form of opinion that is protected by the First Amendment.

In 2003  an Oklahoma ad company accused Google of harming its business when it downgraded the company in search listings. A federal judge threw out the case on free speech grounds. At the same time, in 2007,  a California court said Google’s rankings were “private property” in response to a company that complained that a low ranking violated its free speech rights.

Overall, in the US, Google may have a strong case that its free speech rights override the federal government’s antitrust concerns about its search results.

This argument, however, is unlikely to fare as well in other countries that lack America’s robust free speech protections. In places like Europe and South Korea where Google is also under investigation, the company’s claim that its results are an “opinion” could put it in deeper trouble.

Eugene Volokh, the author of the new report titled “First Amendment Protection for Search Engine Results” is also the author of a popular law blog called the Volokh Conspiracy.

Volokh First Amendment Paper Copy

(Photo by Aaron Amat)

In a case filed in Florida federal court, the maker of a “Joustin Beaver” app wants the court to declare it has the free speech right to sell its beaver game in the iPhone store.

The game in question sells for 99 cents on iTunes and features a mop-topped beaver who navigates river obstacles. The critter in question has a similar name and vague physical likeness to the “Baby, Baby” singer:

Last week, reports surfaced that Justin Bieber’s managers were threatening to sue the app makers for using his likeness without permission. App maker RC3 appears to have sued first in an attempt to get the court to declare that its free speech rights trump Bieber’s trademark rights. Here are some excerpts from the suit:

The beaver knocks “Phot-Hogs” that are attempting to take his photograph into the river with his lance. The beaver also signs “Otter-Graphs.” The beaver must also dodge the “whirlpool of success” which will lead beaver out of control

…multiple conversations took place during February of 2012. [RC3] attempted to explain .. that the App was protected under the FIrst Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Ordinarily, celebrities and famous brands can exercise strong control over how their names are used. But there is an exception in the case of an obvious parody where there is no risk that consumers will be confused. Facebook, for instance, sued a site called Lamebook but then quietly settled the case after Lamebook argued free speech.

These type of questions give rise to questions of whether the defendants are clever parody artists or simply people looking to make a quick buck when a celebrity conflict gives them a wave of publicity.

Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) doesn’t say how times a given app has been downloaded, but the iPhone version “Joustin Beaver” had been rated 86 times as of Monday. The app is also available on the iPad.

As for Justin Bieber’s other legal troubles, those appear to have been cleared up after the troubled 20-year-old who claimed to have taken his virginity had her paternity suit thrown out of court.

While technology companies always outgrow the laws that govern them, Twitter’s 140-character message system is proving to be particularly disruptive. At the same time, the microblog has been more aggressive in defending free speech than established companies like Facebook and Google.

Here are five examples that show how Twitter’s unique platform is creating a new set of media rules that are forcing the law to play catch up:

The Courtney Love Case: Twitter and Defamation

It’s never a good idea to falsely say someone is a drug-addled prostitute who lost their child. But bad-girl singer Courtney Love did just this in a Twitter rage, leading the target of the rant to turn around and sue her.

The case settled last year but it has since raised question about whether normal rules of defamation should apply to Twitter. Some say that tweets are more like an op-ed page than facts, and that they should be considered as mere opinion (which is a defense to defamation).

As one scholar has noted, it can be hard to tell from a 140-character message what parts are fact and what parts opinion. Twitter also raises questions about how to measure the harm caused by a tweet. Should the penalty be the same for Kim Kardashian who has 13 million followers as it is for a village gossip with five followers? And what about retweets?

In 2009, an Illinois judge dismissed a case after finding tweets were a form of “rambling hyperbole” but courts have yet to define for sure what, if anything, you can’t say on Twitter.

The Phone Dog Case: Twitter and Company Property

Last year, a blog called PhoneDog sued one of its former journalists, Noah Kravitz, who took his 17,000+ Twitter followers with him when he walked out the door. Phone Dog says the journalist obtained the followers only because he worked there. It added the followers were a company trade secret worth $2.50 a piece.

The court case is caught up in procedural snarls but has in the meantime gone viral as a social media parable. For now, the law is unclear about who should get the Twitter spoils in a digital divorce between a company and its employees.

The PhoneDog case will surely lead other companies to amend their employment contracts. As for the parties, Kravitz is enjoying his day in the sun and PhoneDog, which tell its side of the story here, appears to be doing just fine without him.

The Religious Leader Case: Twitter and the First Amendment

In a story that should have received more attention than it did, the New York Times (NYSE: NYT) in December reported on a judge’s decision to dismiss cyberstalking charges against a Maryland man.

The man used Twitter to spray thousands of vulgar and threatening messages concerning a female Buddhist leader. They includes tweets like “”Do the world a favor and go kill yourself. P.S. Have a nice day”

The court found, however, that prosecutors applied the cyber-stalking law used to try the man in an unconstitutional fashion: “While Mr. Cassidy’s speech may have inflicted substantial emotional distress, [it is] protected speech: anonymous uncomfortable Internet speech addressing religious matters.” He compared Twitter to physical billboards used by pilgrims in colonial times and to an internet news board.

It’s unclear if these metaphors will gain traction. As in other legal situations involving Twitter, higher courts have yet to provide an answer of what type of speech is allowed. At the time, the woman’s lawyer said she was “appalled and frightened by the judge’s ruling.”

The WikiLeaks Case: Twitter and National Security

A year ago, Twitter made waves when it challenged federal demands that it hand over data about three account holders connected to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

Online media companies typically comply with these orders as a matter of course. Twitter, though, bucked this trend by suing to lift a gag order that prevented it from telling the account holders the government was after their data. The company succeeded which in turn allowed the Wikileaks subjects to challenge the government’s demands. The defendants ultimately lost but the case is still significant for media companies because, in the memorable words of Wired, “Twitter beta-tested a spine.”

Twitter became mixed up with another security and censorship controversy this week when it announced it has a tool to censor tweets at a national level.

The Tony La Russa Case: Twitter and Trademark

In 2009, the St. Louis Cardinals manager sued Twitter after a fake Tony La Russa account spat out tasteless tweets about dead pitchers and his DUI arrest.

The baseball manager, likely realizing he would strike out, quietly ended the case soon after. But the La Russa case became the first in a series of cases in which brand owners have tried to use trademark law to shut up Twitter users.

“Life settlement” agency Coventry First, for instance, sued to grab a Twitter account that was sending satiric messages about its ghoulish life insurance policies. Other big companies like BP appear to have decided its better to quietly tolerate fake accounts like @BPGlobalPr which continues to emit hilarious comments on BP’s efforts in the gulf (sample tweet: “Please, write your representatives and tell them you’ve forgotten about the Gulf of Mexico.”)

These type of trademark claims have since led Twitter to develop new ways to protect parody, in particular with its check mark system to authenticate famous people (but the system is not perfect as the wife of news baron Rupert Murdoch can attest).

What is the Significance of these Lawsuits?

If there is a common thread here (beyond Twitter’s ability to attract interesting lawsuits), it’s that established laws are not holding up under the weight of billions of 140-character messages.

Likewise, Twitter itself deserves some credit. In addition to protecting parody and challenging government security demands, the company this week decided to copy Google’s practice of displaying messages that are forced down by copyright law.

The bottom line is that Twitter is not just creating new forms of speech but helping shape rules for how that speech can be used.

A federal judge yesterday refused the campaign’s request for an order that would have forced YouTube (NSDQ: GOOG) and Twitter to disclose details about “NHLiberty4Paul.” That name is associated with a Twitter and YouTube handle, likely from New Hampshire, that issued messages suggesting former Republican candidate Jon Huntsman is a Chinese agent.

The Paul campaign, which has disavowed the allegations, responded with a lawsuit earlier this month. Here is an excerpt:

The Video also questions Mr. Huntsman’s religious faith, refers to Mr. Huntsman as “China Jon” and asks whether his daughters are “even adopted.” The Video ends with a fictitious depiction of Mr. Huntsman in a Mao Zedong uniform and the text “American Values and Liberty – Vote Ron Paul,” thereby falsely implying that Plaintiff created, endorsed or is affiliated in some way with the Video and its content.

The people associated with NHLiberty4Paul also issued a series of tweets that insult Huntsman and claim Paul is the only real conservative in the GOP race.

In a recent filing, the Paul campaign asked US Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James to grant an order that would have forced Twitter, YouTube and other third parties to provide information about NHLiberty4Paul.

In a two-page order (shown below), James stated that the Paul campaign had not met the “good cause” criteria necessary to obtain the order.

This means that the campaign can’t for now obtain the identities of the defendants who are listed in the lawsuit as “John Doe.”

Jerrold Abeles, an attorney for the Paul campaign, said in a phone interview that the order is not the end of the road for the Paul campaign. Abeles said the campaign still has the option to file an amended request seeking to unmask the John Does.

The lawsuit accuses the defendants of false advertising, trademark infringement and libel. The suit is unusual because free speech principles of American law make it nearly impossible for a national political figure like Paul to win a defamation case.

Ron Paul is a libertarian whose followers rabidly support his philosophy of small government and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Ron Paul 2012 v. Does, C 12-0240 (N.D. Cal.; Jan 25 2012)