Share:

People often wonder if orders of protection can be filed against someone who is threatening or harassing them via the internet. In today’s world, it is not uncommon for people to be harassed or stalked through online websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and many others.

Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-605 sets forth the procedure that allows victims of domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault to obtain orders of protection.

This post focuses on a specific case in which a Tennessee court granted an Order of Protection based on internet postings. The Petitioner was a Tennessee attorney, and the Respondent was an occupational therapist.  

The Petitioner/Attorney’s Facebook account received a friend request from the Respondent under an alias name. The request was made only months after Petitioner testified against the Respondent on behalf of one of her students. As Petitioner looked through the Facebook page, she saw videos the Respondent had posted that referenced her by name, called her offensive and derogatory terms, and called for her to be disbarred.

After confronting the Respondent and asking him to take down the videos, the Respondent refused to do so. The Petitioner then brought suit against Respondent, alleging defamation and negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and she also sought a temporary order of protection. The Tennessee Order of Protection would prevent the Respondent from using her name in videos on Facebook, from visiting her or her office, and it would prevent any other form of direct or indirect contact with her/her family/her employer. Not only did the Respondent continue to post videos on Facebook about her, but he was also spotted outside her office on multiple occasions.  

The Petitioner later filed for a permanent order of protection because of the Respondent’s ongoing actions in violation of the initial Order of Protection. 

The Respondent argued that his videos were protected by the First Amendment and the right to free speech. He argued that these “rants” he posted to Facebook were not harmful or offensive and noted that the statutory definition of harassment “does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315(a)(3). The Respondent felt he was able to express his opinions through Facebook because his videos were not an actual “contact” with the Petitioner, as they were not posted to her personal page.

The Tennessee court, however, disagreed.

In this case, the court noted that “electronic communication” does not need to be directed at a specific person. The court also directly rejected the Respondent’s argument that his posts were not contact with the Petitioner because they were posted publicly online and not sent to the victim. 

Ultimately, after a lengthy trial process, Petitioner was granted the order of protection based on the Respondent’s Facebook posts, which the Tennessee court considered to be stalking, as defined in the Tennessee order of protection statute. The court noted that Respondent’s intent in posting the Facebook videos was to harass, humiliate, threaten, degrade, and intimidate the Petitioner—conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. 

If you are concerned about your own safety or that of your children, you may have grounds to pursue an order of protection. If you feel like you  need an order of protection, contact our office today to discuss how we can help.

tracking