"[I]n which a plaintiff claims that something that is fictional is not factually accurate "
That's an interesting way of characterizing a 'libel in fiction' claim. WSJ Law Blog reports on such a claim withstanding summary judgment.
That's an interesting way of characterizing a 'libel in fiction' claim. WSJ Law Blog reports on such a claim withstanding summary judgment.

NY Times: Author Faults a Game, and Gamers Flame Back:
What happens when the audience can talk back.
An Expert On Such Things opined on Fox News about the video game Mass Effect. She criticized the sexual content of the game and said:
“Here’s how they’re seeing women: They’re seeing them as these objects of desire, as these, you know, hot bodies. They don’t show women as being valued for anything other than their sexuality. And it’s a man in this game deciding how many women he wants to be with.”
The Expert later acknowledged that she had not actually played the game.
Fans of the game objected to this and several factual errors about the game. They went to Amazon and wrote user comments about the Expert's book. Many comment authors acknowledged that they had not read the book.
Amazon has announced that it will take down user comments by those who had not read the book.
The Expert has now seen the game played and has retracted her comments.
EA, publisher of Mass Effect, has requested an apology from Fox News.
Via TheSmokingGun, text of complaint in Lapine and Sneaky Chef v. Jessica Seinfeld and Jerry Seinfeld (alleging copyright and trademark infringement, and defamation).

NY Times: "'Seaweed' Clothing Has None, Tests Show":
"One of [Lululemon's] lines is called VitaSea, and the company says it is made with seaweed. The fabric, according to product tags, “releases marine amino acids, minerals and vitamins into the skin upon contact with moisture.”
Lululemon, which has received positive media coverage for its fabrics, also says the VitaSea clothing, made from seaweed fiber supplied by a company called SeaCell, reduces stress and provides anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, hydrating and detoxifying benefits.
There is one problem with its VitaSea claims, however. Some of them may not be true."
. . .
". . . The company . . . prints the company’s “manifesto” on its red shopping bags.
The manifesto includes messages like, “Stress is related to 99% of all illness,” “Friends are more important than money,” and “Coke, Pepsi and all other pops will be known as the cigarettes of the future. Colas are not a substitute for water. They are just another cheap drug made to look great by advertising.”(emphasis added)
Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay has been sued by a former restaurant manager, alleging that Ramsay falsified scenes for a Fox reality show, "Kitchen Nightmares." Coverage here. Email me for a copy of the complaint.
I'm not ignoring commenting on AVVO, the numerical lawyer rating service that is the subject of lawsuits - it's just that if to answer a question such as whether I thought AVVO was good or not, I was required to analyze numerous factors, and I didn't have the time to competently evaluate all, or even a significant majority of those factors, then to offer an opinion prior to completing the analysis would certainly be premature, and perhaps even negligent (assuming that I had even chosen the relevant factors in the first place). It certainly wouldn't speak well of my opinion at all.
WSJ (reg req): "Firms Tidy Up Clients' Bad Online Reputations" (concerning firms that remove or displace negative content on the web, such as Reputation Defender, Inc. and Defend My Name)
43(B)log: "KinderStart v. Google dismissed" (Google assigned page rank of zero to plaintiff's site).
Who can not click on the headline "Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband sues Bill O'Reilly"?
Brendan Nyhan (author of 'Spinsanity'): "Michael Crichton Slurs A Critic," in which the Small Penis Rule in Libel law is discussed.

Here's a fact pattern for the libel law final: A publishes someting per se libelous about B, however they do so using a code that is only understand by A's group, all of whom hate B and among whom B has no reputation to damage. The public at large can't read the message when exposed to it. Inspiration for that odd thought here.
Discourse.net discusses the possibility of libel in fictionalized accounts.
News.com: 'GM Slow To React To Nasty Ads.'
I haven't focused on the whole Tom Park/Scientology/'suppressed' episode thing but here's commentary from Volokh and here, for now, is the episode in question. News coverage here.

He calls a fellow (female) Selectman a name at a meeting which, if they both knew what it meant, would be, at a minimum, very insulting (it's a term for the outline of something that's located close to something that rhymes with Mulva), however, she doesn't know what it means, and he claims that he didn't think it meant something as bad as what it does mean. What if no one else at the meeting knew what the term meant?
Good fact pattern for defamation class. If a vulgarity is used and no one knows what it means, is it still vulgar, or merely obscure?
Atrios is the pseudonym for a blogger who writes for the popular Eschaton blog. Three times today he posted critical comments of Arlen Specter and ended all of them by providing Specter's contact info and the exhortation that his readers call Specter and ask him provocative questions.
If many people called Specter and ask him provocative questions, Specter may well be annoyed.
Does Specter have a cause under the new Intent to Annoy law (that he had a hand in drafting)? Can he force Atrios to testify as to his 'intent'?
Atrios provides a link to what he says is his real name. Is that a complete defense? Does Atrios have to forego anomynity because of this law?
More on Intent to Annoy here from Professor Volokh, (emphasizing that for purposes of anti-stalking laws, one-to-one communications such as phone and emial, are qualitatively different from one-to-many communications, such as websites.
A TV Ad linking Congressman DeLay was pulled after threat of legal action by the Congressman, alleging that the ad contained falsehoods. Via Chron.com.
'Minnesota Political Blogger Sued For Defamation,' via Media Law Blog.
Internet damage control in action. A neighbor forwarded me an email this morning indicating that Swiffer WetJet contains anti-freeze, and that pets die after licking the floor where Swiffer has been used. As we use Swiffer and have two extremely bad dogs, this concerned me. I Googled 'Swiffer pets' and got this disclaimer from Swiffer.
How do these things get started?