If some one puts up a Web page with your name on it with mugshots is that slander? Particularly if I was never convicted.

Does the webpage say that you were convicted when you really weren't? Or does it just say you were arrested and charged? If all it says is something true and public (that you were arrested and charged), then there's not much you can do.

A California man was recently convicted of posting "hate porn" (nude pix of former girlfriends sent in by spiteful men); then contacting the one whose photo(s) was posted and asking for a fee to un-post the nude pictures. In California, that is a felony (over a year in jail) Arrest records and mug shots of non-ongoing criminal cases are permanent public records. Posting them on a website is mean-spirited, to say the least. Is is libel? Is it slander? Does it sensationalize a less than sensational event? Is it malicious? Probably. But, is it actionable, and what would the damages be? How can we stop it? On the other hand, if the Poster is trying to extort money from you, we are now talking possible criminal charges. Contact your local police dept., and make an inquiry. Also, contact the Federal Trade Commission, and Federal Communications Commission. Ask them if the posted pictures are allowed and can they intervene, based on the attempt at extortion by your nemesis? You may need to hire a lawyer to write a "cease and desist" letter to your Tormentor. The attorney might have some other avenues to help with your dilemma. Threatened legal action by an attorney always gets the other side's attention pronto. You might try taking your complaint to Magistrate Court and see if the judge will enter a temporary restraining order and impose a monetary fine on this person. Call the Court and see if you can file your Complaint for damages and ask for a restraining order. It can't hurt to try. In "New Your Times v. Sullivan", a famous libel case, some of your issues were addressed. That case centered around the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, i.e., free speech. It was determined that the Courts will allow quite a bit of latitude in protecting free speech. The reason I mention this case is simply to illustrate that what this person is doing may fall under the purview of freedom of expression, or free speech. On the other hand, hate speech is not free speech; it is intended to destroy both the reputation and well-being of the person or persons targeted. This appears to be just such a case. I would would check with a personal injury attorney to discuss the possiblities of your actions in reply to what is clearly (based on your facts) showing hatred toward you. I would add the Latin-sounding phrase, "Illegitimati non carborundum est".