The Volokh Conspiracy - Injunction Ordering Blogger To Stop Blogging About Someone,

reversed today (though on statutory grounds rather than First Amendment grounds) by the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

Plaintiffs alleged defendant had “posted information on her website stating that [E.K.] [Linda Ramsey's daughter] harasses other children and accused [E.K.] of being the reason kids hate to go to school.” Plaintiffs also alleged that on numerous occasions defendant had referred to [E.K.] on her website as “endangered,” “offspring,” “bully,” and “possum,” which caused [E.K.] to suffer emotional distress. At the hearing, defendant admitted publishing the following message on her website:

With all the bulling [sic] and harassing that goes on in our school system. Then the trouble that went on Friday at Madison Middle. The first student in that age group that came to mind was Linda [Ramsey]'s daughter. Wasn't this the student that harassed the Cantrell child? And we wonder why some kids hate to go to school.....

Defendant's website also featured: (1) a voice recording of plaintiffs' deceased mother and grandmother [possibly “an alleged threatening phone call defendant had received from plaintiffs' mother and grandmother” -EV] and (2) references to Linda Ramsey as being a “crow,” “idiot,” and “wack.” ...

[T]he trial court granted plaintiffs' request [for a temporary civil no-contact order] and ordered defendant to cease entering comments on her website regarding [E.K.] or other members of plaintiffs' family....

The trial court reviewed several of plaintiffs' exhibits including the following “blog” written by defendant and published on her website on 7 May 2007:

If anyone retaliates against anyones [sic] children - Let me know - I will report it and follow up at the state level- This is all the more reason to do this. Why do you think there is so much of a problem at the schools- when it comes to bullying? Because these children watch their parents. Fine example Linda Ramsey- one of the biggest bullys [sic] in this county. She gets it honest...

She learned from her mother and now she is teaching her daughter the ropes. This is fact and this county knows it. [] But it is going to stop and if you want change- WRITE THE LETTERS.... CH

The trial court found that defendant had harassed plaintiffs within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50C-1(6) and (7) and issued a civil no-contact order against defendant based, inter alia, upon the preceding message. Defendant was ordered to: (1) cease “cyber-stalking” plaintiffs; (2) cease harassment of plaintiffs; and (3) not contact plaintiffs by telephone, written communication, or electronic means. Defendant appeals.

I infer from the earlier no-contact order that the permanent order to stop "cyber-stalking" was, like the temporary order, an order "to cease entering comments on her website regarding [E.K.] or other members of plaintiffs' family."

The Court of Appeals concluded that this order wasn't statutorily authorized, because the statute applied only applied if the defendant intended to threaten (and there was no finding of that by the trial judge) or if the defendant "intended to and in fact caused plaintiffs to suffer substantial emotional distress."

“Substantial” is defined as “considerable in [] value, degree, amount or extent[.]” Black's Law Dictionary defines emotional distress as “[a] highly unpleasant mental reaction (such as anguish, grief, fright, humiliation, or fury) that results from another person's conduct.” Applying the plain meaning of these terms, we hold that no substantial evidence waspresented that tended to showed defendant intended to and in fact caused plaintiffs to suffer substantial emotional distress to warrant issuance of a civil no-contact order.

And, "[w]ithout condoning the language used on defendant's website, the statute does not allow parties to implicate and interject our courts into juvenile hurls of gossip and innuendo between feuding parties where no evidence of any statutory ground is shown to justify entry of a no-contact order."

This conclusion made it unnecessary to decide whether the First Amendment barred such an order, or what another statutory requirement -- absence of "legal purpose" for the allegedly distressing speech or conduct -- might mean. (Even if an intent to inflict substantial emotional distress is shown, the statute applies only if the defendant acted "without legal purpose," though it doesn't define what constitutes "legal purpose.")

	[Eugene Volokh, June 17, 2008 at 8:31pm] Trackbacks Injunction Ordering Blogger To Stop Blogging About Someone, reversed today (though on statutory grounds rather than First Amendment grounds) by the North Carolina Court of Appeals: Plaintiffs alleged defendant had “posted information on her website stating that [E.K.] [Linda Ramsey's daughter] harasses other children and accused [E.K.] of being the reason kids hate to go to school.” Plaintiffs also alleged that on numerous occasions defendant had referred to [E.K.] on her website as “endangered,” “offspring,” “bully,” and “possum,” which caused [E.K.] to suffer emotional distress. At the hearing, defendant admitted publishing the following message on her website: With all the bulling [sic] and harassing that goes on in our school system. Then the trouble that went on Friday at Madison Middle. The first student in that age group that came to mind was Linda [Ramsey]'s daughter. Wasn't this the student that harassed the Cantrell child? And we wonder why some kids hate to go to school..... Defendant's website also featured: (1) a voice recording of plaintiffs' deceased mother and grandmother [possibly “an alleged threatening phone call defendant had received from plaintiffs' mother and grandmother” -EV] and (2) references to Linda Ramsey as being a “crow,” “idiot,” and “wack.” ... [T]he trial court granted plaintiffs' request [for a temporary civil no-contact order] and ordered defendant to cease entering comments on her website regarding [E.K.] or other members of plaintiffs' family.... The trial court reviewed several of plaintiffs' exhibits including the following “blog” written by defendant and published on her website on 7 May 2007: If anyone retaliates against anyones [sic] children - Let me know - I will report it and follow up at the state level- This is all the more reason to do this. Why do you think there is so much of a problem at the schools- when it comes to bullying? Because these children watch their parents. Fine example Linda Ramsey- one of the biggest bullys [sic] in this county. She gets it honest... She learned from her mother and now she is teaching her daughter the ropes. This is fact and this county knows it. [] But it is going to stop and if you want change- WRITE THE LETTERS.... CH The trial court found that defendant had harassed plaintiffs within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50C-1(6) and (7) and issued a civil no-contact order against defendant based, inter alia, upon the preceding message. Defendant was ordered to: (1) cease “cyber-stalking” plaintiffs; (2) cease harassment of plaintiffs; and (3) not contact plaintiffs by telephone, written communication, or electronic means. Defendant appeals. I infer from the earlier no-contact order that the permanent order to stop "cyber-stalking" was, like the temporary order, an order "to cease entering comments on her website regarding [E.K.] or other members of plaintiffs' family." The Court of Appeals concluded that this order wasn't statutorily authorized, because the statute applied only applied if the defendant intended to threaten (and there was no finding of that by the trial judge) or if the defendant "intended to and in fact caused plaintiffs to suffer substantial emotional distress." “Substantial” is defined as “considerable in [] value, degree, amount or extent[.]” Black's Law Dictionary defines emotional distress as “[a] highly unpleasant mental reaction (such as anguish, grief, fright, humiliation, or fury) that results from another person's conduct.” Applying the plain meaning of these terms, we hold that no substantial evidence waspresented that tended to showed defendant intended to and in fact caused plaintiffs to suffer substantial emotional distress to warrant issuance of a civil no-contact order. And, "[w]ithout condoning the language used on defendant's website, the statute does not allow parties to implicate and interject our courts into juvenile hurls of gossip and innuendo between feuding parties where no evidence of any statutory ground is shown to justify entry of a no-contact order." This conclusion made it unnecessary to decide whether the First Amendment barred such an order, or what another statutory requirement -- absence of "legal purpose" for the allegedly distressing speech or conduct -- might mean. (Even if an intent to inflict substantial emotional distress is shown, the statute applies only if the defendant acted "without legal purpose," though it doesn't define what constitutes "legal purpose.")