Table of Contents

Online Social Media Defamation Campaigns Get Sued, Lose Millions

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Fighting trolls in court. In a significant legal battle highlighting the dangers of online defamation, South Carolina State Representative Jay Kilmartin and his son, Ian Kilmartin, have filed a federal lawsuit alleging a coordinated social media defamation campaign. Filed by Bland Richter, LLP in the District of South Carolina, the lawsuit accuses multiple parties of spreading false information that has damaged Ian’s reputation, his family, and his Midlands-based carpet cleaning business.

The situation reportedly began in 2018, during Ian Kilmartin’s basic training with the U.S. Coast Guard in Cape May, New Jersey. After assisting a fellow recruit with ironing a shirt, Kilmartin and several other service members became the target of false allegations by that recruit. However, after a thorough investigation, the Coast Guard exonerated Kilmartin and all accused individuals, with Training Officer Commander Scott Rae confirming that no charges would be filed.

The lawsuit identifies several defendants, including Brian Lee Rozek and a group known as “The Pettiest Officer of the U.S. Coast Guard,” which allegedly disseminated defamatory statements accusing Kilmartin of sexual misconduct and urged harassment of his business. The lawsuit details that these individuals contacted Kilmartin’s family, church, and local community, spreading baseless claims to tarnish his reputation.

Bland Richter argues that tweets and other social media posts are central to the case, as they provide documented evidence of defamatory statements. Screenshots with timestamps and metadata are key to establishing elements such as publication, defendant identification, harmful intent, and proof of damages. The legal team seeks financial compensation, an immediate cessation of the campaign, and removal of 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,” said 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.”

What Happens If Defendants Lack Assets?

In cases like this, even if the defendants have limited assets, a successful lawsuit can still have significant long-term effects. If the Kilmartins win their case, a judgment could be issued against the defendants, which can remain valid for years, often accruing interest. Future financial gains or assets acquired by the defendants could then be subject to wage garnishment, liens, or bank levies. Additionally, the judgment could impact their credit scores, making it challenging to obtain loans, credit, or housing.

In cases involving anonymous online defamation, IP addresses play a crucial role. Through a court-issued subpoena, the plaintiff’s legal team can compel internet service providers (ISPs) or social media platforms to release IP logs associated with specific accounts. This digital forensic evidence links anonymous actions to individuals, demonstrating that online anonymity can be pierced in cases of defamation and harassment.

This lawsuit follows a broader trend of individuals successfully taking legal action against online trolls, particularly in cases involving private citizens:

Mathias Aven v. Online Trolls (2021) – Aven, a real estate agent, was awarded $300,000 after being defamed online, damaging his business.
Carla Franklin v. Anonymous YouTube Trolls (2020) – Franklin, a former Columbia University student, successfully unmasked and sued her harassers, setting a precedent for revealing anonymous online trolls.
John Doe v. “Rapey Unicycle” (2020) – An anonymous individual won over $1 million in damages after a sustained campaign of online harassment.
Jane Doe v. Regional High School District (2022) – A high school student received $200,000 in damages after suing for cyberbullying.
The Shaw Family v. Online Harassers (2021) – A family won $150,000 after enduring a targeted harassment campaign from neighbors and community members.
Sundeep V. v. Anonymous Reddit User (2021) – Sundeep, an IT professional, was awarded $250,000 in damages after false accusations impacted his career.
Jane Doe v. TikTok Harassers (2021) – A private individual received $100,000 in damages following a sustained defamation campaign on TikTok.

These cases underscore the growing willingness of courts to hold online trolls accountable for defamation and harassment, even when the victims are private individuals. Eric Bland, a partner at Bland Richter and a podcaster with Luna Shark, noted that online defamation has become an increasingly prevalent issue, especially as social media allows for widespread reputational harm. Luna Shark has close connections to several alleged online trolls on Twitter who have been accused of similar behavior.

As this lawsuit moves forward, CC News Network will continue to cover updates on the Kilmartin case and other federal lawsuits addressing social media defamation in South Carolina, spotlighting the legal implications of social media’s influence on reputation and livelihood.

Connect with CC News Network:

Stay updated with CC News Network’s latest investigations, book releases, and appearances by following him on social media. Join the growing community of readers and true crime enthusiasts who trust James Seidel for his insightful analysis and gripping storytelling.

Over 1,200,000 Million likes of Tiktok alone!

Join Our Close to 100,000 Social Media Fans: