Updated at 6:30 p.m.

COLUMBUS, Ohio – An out-of-state person or business can be sued in Ohio for posting derogatory Internet comments about someone who lives in Ohio, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The full impact of the ruling isn't clear yet, given the ever-growing world of technology and the challenge of constantly updating legal guidelines to keep up with it.

But the lawyer who won the decision said it's a warning to people who use the Internet to disparage others.

"I think it sends a very clear message to people both in this state and throughout the United States that the Internet is not to be used for means to destroy people whether intentionally or unintentionally," said attorney Brett Jaffe, who represented Kauffman Racing Equipment in the case.

"When defamatory statements regarding an Ohio plaintiff are made outside the state yet with the purpose of causing injury to the Ohio resident," then courtrooms here -- not elsewhere -- are the proper settings for the complaints, Justice Paul Pfeifer wrote for the court's majority in a 4-2 decision.

The case stemmed from a 2006 business deal that soured. Scott Roberts, a Virginia resident, purchased a Pontiac automobile motor from Kauffman, a Knox County company that specializes in building and selling auto racing parts.

After having the motor for eight months, Roberts sent it back to Kauffman claiming it was defective. Kauffman refused to refund Roberts money after learning the motor had several modifications made to it, alterations Roberts admitted making.

A dissatisfied Roberts took to the Internet to seek revenge, posting negative comments about Steve Kauffman and his company on several websites popular with racing enthusiasts, the ruling said.

Kauffman sued Roberts in Knox County Common Pleas Court. But Roberts successfully had the case dismissed on grounds that an Ohio court had no jurisdiction because he lives out-of-state.

A state appeals court, however, reinstated the case. Roberts then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The court's challenge was to determine whether Ohio's "long arm statute," which allows lawsuits against people who live outside of the state, applies in this case.

Roberts had argued the answer was no because he did not directly send the Internet comments to Ohio or publish them from Ohio. They were posted from Virginia and sent to Internet sites available to anyone with a computer and Internet access.

But the court's majority said Roberts' comments could be accessed in Ohio and were clearly intended to hurt an Ohio business.

"How much of the world saw the comments is unknown," Pfeifer wrote. "But we do know . . . that at least five Ohioans saw Roberts' statements. The comments were thus published in Ohio."

Eric Goldman, an associate law professor and director of the High-Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University, said the court's ruling is in line with other states that have addressed similar cases. He agreed with the court's majority.

Because Roberts' comments named a company that was known to operate from a specific location, it is clear he was attempting to hurt Kauffman's business, Goldman said.

"Roberts was spoiling for a fight and went out of his way to tangle with a tiger," Goldman said.

Had this been a major company like Sony, Goldman said, Roberts would have been on safer ground because it would be harder to say where exactly an international company is most harmed by Internet comments.

Still, Goldman questioned why Kauffman would bother fighting the grammatically challenged rants of a disgruntled customer to begin with.

"They are spending lots of money that will potentially get them nowhere," Goldman said, because most of the time these cases get settled with little or no money exchanging hands.

Jaffe, Kauffman's lawyer, acknowledged that after four years, all his client has to show for it is a chance to fight his case in Ohio and not elsewhere.

"We have spent all this money and all this time to essentially go back to state court to argue the case," Jaffe said.

Still, Jaffe said, this case is about principle.

"We had to absolutely take this position because if we allow one person to do this, then everyone could do it and the line had to be drawn in the sand to let people know that businesses and people are not to be trifled with through use of the Internet," Jaffe said.

Pfeifer was joined in the majority by Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O'Connor and Robert Cupp.

Justices Terrence O'Donnell and Judith Ann Lanzigner dissented. O'Donnell said it was a stretch to say Ohio has jurisdiction over an out-of-state person who posts comments that may or may not be seen by someone in Ohio.

"By merely posting to general websites," Roberts didn't do enough to be sued in Ohio, O'Donnell wrote in his dissent.