TIGARD -- A million dollars, a modern twist on an old legal issue and, potentially, hundreds of millions of

users around the world -- it's all part of Oregon's first possible Twitter libel lawsuit, moving toward a courtroom showdown in Portland later this month.

Portland blogger

is facing a $1 million lawsuit from Tigard medical spa doctor

, after she blogged and tweeted about his practice. The suit filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court in July claims Craig

on her Twitter account and blog.

In the June postings, Craig called Darm, 62, "ubiquitous" for a television commercial advertising his Tigard-based medical spa,

. Citing a 10-year-old order against the doctor by Oregon's

, Craig wrote, in part, that the doctor tried to get sex in exchange for treatment.

Libel awards against media defendants, 1980-2009*

Initial awards

- 334 cases

Average

- $2.8 million

Median

- $300,000

Highest

(in order) - $222 million, $58 million and $40 million

Final awards after appeals

- 143 cases

Average

- $679,000

Median

- $100,000

Highest

- $58 million, $29 million and $24 million

Source: Media Law Resource Center

* This data comes from a 2010 survey of libel cases against media defendants between 1980 through 2009. Because libel cases takes years to go through the court system before a final ruling, most of these cases do not involve online speech. Going forward, however, online speech including blogs, Twitter and other social media would be included in this data.

Darm was

for a violation of the Medical Practices Act, citing"unprofessional or dishonorable conduct." A state board investigation into a complaint found that Darm agreed to treat a patient's spider veins for free after closing time at his clinic in 2000. After treatment, Darm kissed and touched the patient and inferred the contact would be payment, according to a stipulated order that said the conduct was "an inappropriate boundary violation." It does not mention sex.

The stipulated order held Darm to restrictions to continue his practice, including required chaperones to see female adult patients, probationer interviews with the state board, mental health reviews, and courses on doctor-patient boundaries and risk management.

. The Lake Oswego man says he is a former emergency room doctor.

Craig's lawyer,

, filed a motion in August under Oregon's anti-SLAPP laws to get the case dismissed. SLAPP, or

, suits are recognized as threats or attempts to shut down speech on public issues by the heavy burden of a lawsuit itself.

Williams' filing said "the gist" of the blog entry is true and the statements, in context with a provided hyperlink to state medical board records, were opinions based on those facts. Calling Darm a prominent doctor, Williams also contends his disciplinary record is a matter of public interest. Darm's longtime lawyer,

, however, argues the case is not a matter of public interest because Craig has never been treated by Darm.

In September, Judge Jerome LaBarre ruled with Williams that the case is a matter of public interest and Twitter is a public forum, potentially clearing the way for anti-SLAPP laws to be applied. A second hearing is set for Oct. 20, when Darm's lawyer will have to prove a valid defamation claim.

While similar Twitter libel cases have been filed in the nation, none have actually gone to trial, according to

, deputy director of the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Courts and Media at the University of Nevada.

"This is just a new dressing of a recurring situation and it happens to be on Twitter," Robinson said. "Legally, this case is no different than prior defamation cases."

Defamation cases stem back to the 15th century, according to Robinson, who is an attorney and expert on libel cases involving social media. Robinson said he began tracking related lawsuits eight years ago at the beginning of the rise of blogging.

Since then, these kind of suits have become relatively common. The San Francisco-based

even offers a popular legal guide for bloggers on their website.

"It's important for people to know their rights so they can't be intimidated into not saying what they have a right to say," spokeswoman

said. "And you do have a right, but you also have responsibilities."

--