An Internet Harassment Decision That Has Some Worried About Criminal Libel: Eugene Volokh has an interesting post on an Internet harassment case decided last week by the Ohio Court of Appeals. The title asks "The Return of Criminal Libel, With Truth Not Being a Defense?" Volokh then answers: "That's how I read the prosecution and conviction in State v. Ellison (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 10)." The case, State v. Ellison, addressed whether a high school teen could be found guilty of telecommunications harassment under Ohio's R.C. 2917.21(B) when she had posted on “MySpace” page a picture of a rival teen captioned “Molested a little boy.” Volokh's interest in the case arises from its First Amendment implications. As Volokh states: "So we have a criminal prosecution for speech that supposedly "harass[es]" (or perhaps "abuse[s]") by making allegations of criminal conduct — but the state has no obligation to prove falsity, and the defendant isn't even entitled to a defense of truth. Sounds like a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment." While the case was reversed by the Ohio Court of Appeals last week, Volokh believes the decision allows prosecution for this type of speech, "so long as it 'serves no legitimate purpose' in the eyes of a judge or a jury, and so long as the judge or jury concludes that it was intended to cause substantial emotional distress." In other words, as the Ohio law stands, and as the dissenting opinion points out, someone could go to jail just for posting a comment on the Internet.