That court case was a gross misuse of a natural disaster, not to mention an abuse of the court system to stifle someones' 1st amendment rights. The defendant didn't even have a chance to offer their side of the case!
That being said, without knowing what the actual comments being said were, I personally can't side with the plaintiff on this one.
However, I feel if someones' life were truely ruined because of the internet, then yes, I feel they have the right to sue. But, in the case of ol' JP there, he has no clear case, because he started it himself by posting the ammunition. Had he not posted the screen shot, then yeah, he would have every right in the world to sue the snot out of those people.
But since he posted the screen capture himself, un-edited (allegedly), he has no right. It could be viewed as baiting the plaintiffs.
A perfect analogy is someone being pantsed in public, versus them dropping trou by themselves. If they drop trou on their own, they can be labeled a pervert/flasher. However, if someone yanks their pants down, then they're a victim.
It's all contextual.
