Milo v. Martin

"Walter Milo and Anthony Shelton sued Guy Martin, Bill Cochran, Melvin Douglas, and Sandy Martin, the editors and coordinator of The Conroe Watchdog (collectively "The Watchdog"), a website that describes itself as providing "[t]he unfiltered truth about Conroe politics and your tax dollars."

According to the court on appeal, Milo and Shelton sued for comments posted in October 2006 by anonymous users on a portion of the website titled "Guest Book." These comments referred to Shelton as a "pulpit pimp" and that he drove a $90,000 Hummer, according to the Houston Community Newspapers (HCN). Also according to HCN, the comments also contained allegations that Milo committed a drug crime in 2005 and "cut a deal" with the district attorney, reducing his sentence to probation.

The trial court granted The Watchdog's no-evidence motion for summary judgment in December 2008. The summary judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeals of Texas on April 29, 2010, which pointed to lack of evidence that the anonymous posts were created by The Watchdog and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. According to HCN, this case was the last of three lawsuits claiming defamation against The Watchdog to be resolved. Dixon v. Martin ended in July 2008 when a jury ruled for The Watchdog (see Legal Threat Entry) and a third lawsuit filed by Rigby Owen, Jr. was withdrawn in October 2009.

Related Links:
Judge Horton's Opinion Affirming Trial Court's Summary Judgment, Leagle.com.
Eric Goldman, Website Gets 230 Immunity Despite Claim of Site Content Accuracy -- Milo v. Martin, Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Apr. 30, 2010.
Nancy Flake, Watchdog Wins Lawsuit Appeal, Houston Community Newspapers, May 3, 2010.
Nancy Flake, Judge Dismisses Second Watchdog Defamation Suit, Houston Community Newspapers, Jan. 4, 2009.
CMLP Legal Threat Entry: Dixon v. The Watchdog"

Source
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/milo-v-martin#description