"A recent ruling by the Court of Appeal of the State of California (PDF) in Krinsky v. Doe H030767 overturned a lower court ruling and decided that the First Amendment right to anonymous speech protects internet trolls, too. Specifically, the ruling said that 'this juvenile name-calling cannot reasonably be read as stating actual facts.' And, even though some of the statements were crudely sexual and accused Ms. Krinsky of being among 'boobs, liars and crooks,' the statements were held to 'fall into the category of crude, satirical hyperbole which, while reflecting the immaturity of the speaker, constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment.'"
In a recent lawsuit against my blog the Plaintiff attorney tried to argue that my calling the owner of Bidzirk a "Yes Man" was offensive and cast him in a false light. This was argued as a case for defamation against me (and this blog). My state also does not recognize false light charges for defamation. (Further proving how little the attorney knew of the actual law.) Of course, once the judge reviewed my article and saw how ridiculous the Plaintiff attorney's claims were, the charge was dropped. This ruling (Krinsky vs Doe) actually gives comment makers in blogs the right to express their opinions as well.