[Eugene Volokh] ‘We once again caution trial courts to be hesitant with respect to granting injunctions that restrict protected First Amendment speech’

So said the Florida District Court of Appeal, in O’Neill v. Goodwin (decided late last month):

In this case, the trial court placed a premade stamp on the final order stating that Appellant “shall not ‘post’ on the internet regarding” Appellee. As seen in David v. Textor, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D131 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 6, 2016), and Neptune v. Lanoue, 178 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), such a restriction “prevents not only communications to [the petitioner], but also communications about [the petitioner].” David, 41 Fla. L. Weekly at D132. “Such prohibition by prior restraint violates the Constitution.” Id. …

There is insufficient support for the trial court’s finding that Appellant had no legitimate purpose for contacting Appellee; the injunction in this case is therefore reversed. We also encourage trial courts to more carefully craft injunctions so as to balance the need for protection for petitioners with the constitutional rights of defendants. See Neptune, 178 So. 3d at 522-23 (holding that an injunction that “paints with unduly broad strokes on a very large canvas and goes far beyond [the purpose of the injunction] … must be reformulated and narrowly tailored in order to more properly balance the desire to protect the [victim] from harassment and stalking with the need to safeguard Appellant’s First Amendment rights.”).

Sounds right to me, for reasons I discussed in this article, though it’s unfortunate that courts need so much reminding. The facts of the case are pretty interesting: Joseph O’Neill is a Columbia University film student, who is working on a documentary — called “The Instagram Suicide(s)” that mentions someone (Sara Skye Goodwin) he knew a few years ago:

[O’Neill] met [Goodwin] three years prior to the allegations at issue. [Goodwin] briefly worked with [O’Neill] until she began to believe he was romantically interested in her. At that point, [Goodwin] informed [O’Neill] she wanted no further contact with him. [O’Neill] complied and two years passed without contact between the parties.

During this two-year period, [O’Neill] attended film school and began to make a documentary exploring subcultures on social media. This documentary prominently featured [Goodwin] and made use of photographs she had posted on her Instagram page. Although [Goodwin] had previously blocked [O’Neill] from viewing her Instagram profile, she admitted that she had accepted anonymous friend requests that allowed these unnamed persons access to her photos.

[O’Neill] testified that he was worried about the possible negative effects this documentary might have for [Goodwin], and that he was particularly concerned about violent reactions by [Goodwin]’s boyfriend, who was also portrayed in a negative light in the film. Accordingly, [O’Neill] visited [Goodwin]’s home to inform her of the pending film. [Goodwin] did not challenge [O’Neill]’s contention that this was the purpose of his visit and acknowledged that [O’Neill] had never been violent towards her or threatened her. Nevertheless, [Goodwin] informed [O’Neill] that she would call the police if [O’Neill] did not leave her home. [O’Neill] left without fully explaining the purpose of his visit.

A “few days to a few weeks later,” [Goodwin] received a text message from [O’Neill] again seeking to inform her about the upcoming documentary. [Goodwin] found the documentary online and became upset about the contents thereof, which she felt unfairly portrayed her and her friends. [Goodwin] also learned that [O’Neill] had visited her friends in Jacksonville to discuss the film with them. After the one exchange of text messages between the parties, there was no further communication between them.

[Goodwin] subsequently filed a petition for an injunction for protection against stalking, alleging that [O’Neill] had “threatened to harm” her or her family members, and “cyber stalked” her Instagram account and “stole pictures” she had posted. [Goodwin] claimed she was “very afraid about what he might do next.”

After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motion for permanent injunction. A Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking was entered against [O’Neill], permanently barring him from contacting [Goodwin], posting on the internet regarding her, possessing a firearm, or defacing/destroying [Goodw