South Carolina State Rep Kilmartin, Son Sues Over Social Media Defamation Campaign
In a high-stakes legal battle, Bland Richter, LLP has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Ian Kilmartin, son of South Carolina State Representative Jay Kilmartin and owner of a Midlands-based carpet cleaning business. The suit, submitted to the District of South Carolina, accuses multiple parties of conducting a deliberate social media defamation campaign against Ian Kilmartin, impacting his family and business.
According to the summons and complaint, the situation originated during Ian Kilmartin’s basic training with the U.S. Coast Guard in Cape May, New Jersey, back in 2018. During his time there, he briefly helped a fellow recruit by ironing a shirt in an interaction lasting under 15 minutes. After Kilmartin’s discharge, that same recruit allegedly “made false allegations against multiple service members, including Mr. Kilmartin.”
Following an extensive investigation by the U.S. Coast Guard, Kilmartin and all other accused individuals were fully exonerated, with Training Officer Commander Scott Rae confirming that no charges would be pursued.
The lawsuit identifies numerous defendants, including Brian Lee Rozek and a group operating under the alias “The Pettiest Officer of the U.S. Coast Guard,” purportedly a self-described watchdog entity. The allegations from this organization include:
- Disseminating false accusations about Kilmartin’s alleged involvement in sexual misconduct and assault.
- Urging harassment of Kilmartin’s business.
- Contacting his family, church, and local community with baseless claims.
As social media plays a prominent role in the case, Kilmartin’s legal team points to the damaging power of Twitter or X posts. In defamation cases like this, tweets serve as documented evidence of false, harmful statements made publicly. By capturing screenshots with dates, times, and metadata, Kilmartin’s legal team can establish key elements for their case, including:
- Proof of Publication: Tweets are public, providing concrete evidence that defamatory statements were shared with others, meeting the “publication” requirement.
- Identification of the Defendant: The identifiable information linked to each tweet helps confirm the person responsible for the defamatory content.
- Evidence of Harmful Intent: Threads and a pattern of similar tweets can show a consistent effort to harm Kilmartin’s reputation and business.
- Documentation of Damage: The reach of tweets, through likes, retweets, or replies, indicates the widespread impact and potential harm to public perception.
- False Statements and Malice: Tweets containing verifiable falsehoods can demonstrate malice or negligence, especially if the poster had reason to know the truth.
The legal action seeks both financial compensation and a court order to cease the campaign immediately, as well as the removal of all defamatory content from social media.

“This case exemplifies how social media can be weaponized to destroy reputations with unfounded claims that were investigated and dismissed long ago,” remarked Ronnie Richter, lead counsel for the plaintiff. “Mr. Kilmartin served his country and was cleared by the Coast Guard’s inquiry. Now he’s building a life and a business in South Carolina, but this organized effort to defame him and target his family demands legal recourse. We cannot allow social media to be used as a weapon to destroy lives.”
In federal lawsuits, IP addresses serve as crucial evidence for identifying anonymous individuals behind defamatory or harassing online content. To access this information, the plaintiff’s legal team can request a subpoena from the court, compelling internet service providers (ISPs) or social media platforms to release IP logs associated with specific posts or accounts. Once the court grants the subpoena, platforms or ISPs must provide the IP addresses and timestamps for the actions in question, revealing the user’s location and ISP details. The plaintiff’s attorneys can then trace the IP address to the ISP, which, in turn, matches it to a subscriber account, often identifying the individual behind the post.
IP addresses, along with other digital forensics like metadata and device information, serve as compelling evidence that can strengthen the plaintiff’s case by linking the anonymous actions to a verified individual. This process highlights the power of digital forensics in holding individuals accountable, illustrating that online anonymity may be pierced when defamation or harassment escalates to legal action.
Eric Bland, a partner at Bland Richter law firm is also a podcaster at Luna Shark. Luna Shark has close ties to several alleged online trolls on Twitter that have been accused numerous times of the exact same behavior towards countless others online that Bland Richter is now fighting.
Stay tuned to Crime and Cask News for updates on this evolving case, and new and upcoming new federal lawsuit cases in South Carolina that target other deliberate social media defamation campaigns, of which highlights the growing issue of social media’s influence on reputation and livelihood.