I was on the California Appellate Law Podcast discussing this, though my analysis isn't limited to California. An excerpt from the podcast summary:
Prof. Eugene Volokh joined us to discuss restraining orders, how many of them violate the First Amendment as unlawful prior restraints, and how you can spot the First Amendment problems. The purpose of a restraining orders is to get a person to stop harassing you, but "harassment" can be a pretty vague term—and the same goes for "bullying," "cyberbullying," "hate speech," etc.—especially when no physical violence threatened or happening. The result is that many restraining orders not only prevent the subject from speaking TO the plaintiff, but from speaking ABOUT the plaintiff, and last INDEFINITELY….
[Some] items discussed in the episode:
- One-to-One Speech vs. One-to-Many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws, and "Cyberstalking", 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 731 (2013)
- Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech (Especially in Libel and Harassment Cases), 45 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol. 147 (2022).
- Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971)
- Chan v. Ellis, 296 Ga. 838 (Ga. 2015)
- "The First Amendment and Refusals to Deal" via Reason
- Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.
The post Free Speech and "Harassment Restraining Orders" appeared first on Reason.com.
