The jury in a Florida Internet defamation case has awarded $11.3million to a Florida consultant over comments posted on a message board for parents of troubled teens who attended a Costa-Rican boarding school.

Susan Scheff, an "educational consultant" who runs Weston-based Parents Universal Resource Experts Inc. won the Sept 19 jury verdict against Carey Bock, who had sought Scheff's help in removing Bock's twin sons from a boarding school in Costa Rica run by Utah-based World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools. Scheff succeeded in removing Bock's sons from the school.

Their relationship soured after Scheff refused Bock's request to help her get in touch with a minor who may have been abused at another World Wide affiliated school.

Originally, the Internet bulletin board Fornits.com, where the Bock's statements were posted, was also sued. The case against Ginger Warbis, the owner of the bulletin board, was later dropped. Philip Elberg, of Medvin & Elberg of Newark, N.J., who represented Warbis, comments: "People in this industry have consistently used their money and their access to lawyers to silence critics of the industry and this may be one of those examples. Sue Scheff is simply another person in the industry of people who make money from the plight of frightened parents."

In the past, Sue Scheff had been sued for defamation in Salt Lake City by World Wide, after she had posted stories to her own site that World Wide claimed were defamatory. The 2004 verdict in this case ruled in favor of Scheff.

Scheff claims the reason for her suit was to make a point that those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet should think twice. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."

Bock was displaced from her Louisiana to Texas after Hurrcaine Katrina, and could not afford to retain an attorney and could not afford to show up for the trial. Scheff's attorney, David H. Pollack, offered arguments about damages, but did not seek a specific amount in damages.

University of Florida law professor Lyrissa Lidsky who specializes in free speech matters called the verdict "astonishing" and noted that it could represent a shift in the courts attitudes towards statements made on blogs and message boards. "What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"

Some are worried that this case a href=" http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-02-bloggers-courts_x.htm">could have an impact on other cases involving negative comments on message boards and blogs.

Tom Abate points to coverage in the Online Journalism Review of the case against freelance journalist an blogger Josh Wolf. Wolf, 24, was jailed on September 22, 2006, on civil contempt charges for his refusal to turn over to a federal grand jury his unpublished video (as well as cameras and editing equipment) of a July '05 anti-globalization demonstration in San Francisco. As Tom notes, OJR's coverage spans the chronology of the case, as well as case law and "the nuances that separate his plight from that of mainstream media folks," who have been involved in similar court cases.

According to OJR, the reaction of journalists to Wolf's plight is mixed. Wolf's journalism portfolio has been categorized as "thin", but Wolf's refusal to turn over the video, and his "willingness to go to prison" has gained the support of many journalists and free speech advocates. The Society of Professional Journalists has donated $30,000 towards his legal fees. SPJ President Christine
Tatum said of Wolf :"As unconventional and non-traditional as [Josh Wolf's] work in journalism may be in many respects, he is contesting an age-old argument... and that's that journalists never should be arms of law enforcement. . .Josh has, at great personal cost, taken quite a stand – an admirable stand, and he has said..., 'I am not divulging unpublished, unedited, unaired material...for a grand jury's review. And we stand wholeheartedly behind him."

Yet others feel that Wolf's assertion that he's also an "advocate" is problematic. "You can't step in and out of being a journalist," said Jane Briggs-Bunting, director of the Journalism program at Michigan State University. Tatum added, "There is a degree of discomfort that I've felt with some of his assertions, as far as viewing himself as an advocate. I think that it's very important for online journalists to begin to understand.. that it's very, very important that you do maintain some sort of objectivity and distance."

From a legal perspective, Wolf may have an uphill battle defending his First Amendment rights. The case has gone to the Federal courts, rather than the California state courts, where he may have had some protection under California's shield law. This law "protects journalists from being required to disclose unpublished information gathered for a news story." It was found that the case could come under federal jurisdiction because the San Francisco Police Department receives federal funding, and that the damage to a police car, which was recorded by Wolf, constitutes damage to federal property.

Federal prosecutors have maintained that the tapes will help them locate the persons responsible for damage to SFPD property. First Amendment advocate Martin Garbus, Wolf's lawyer, maintains that the government isn't all that interested in "alleged crimes committed at the demonstration. "This was the use of an FBI anti-terror law to get information on people they can't get information about, such as anarchists. They know he knows nothing about the actions involving the police car," Garbus said.

Garbus maintains that Wolf's case, because he does not know anything about the identities of those he videotaped, is different than that of another high-profile case against journalists in the SF area. SF Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada were jailed for their refusal to reveal the identity of a confidential source who leaked federal grand jury testimony in the BALCO steroid scandal to the reporters.