valkerburg v gjoni
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
1/78
June 20
5
SUPREME J UDI CIAL
COUR
T
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF M S
S CHU
SETTS
DIRECT APPEL
L
TE REVI
W
No .
C
HE
LSEA VAN V LKER URG
Appe l l e e
l
a i nt
vs .
ERON
GJONI
Appe l l a n t De
fend
a n t
M SS C
HU
SETTS APPEALS C
OU
RT
NO. 2015 P 05 40
DEFEND NT S PPLIC TION
FOR
DIRECT
PPELL TE
REVIEW ND
DDENDUM FROM THE
DORCHESTER
V S ON OF THE OSTON MUNICIP L COURT
J e f
frey
G. Ha r r i s
GOOD SCHNEI DER CORM
IE
R
83
At l an t i c Ave .
Bos ton
M
02
617 52 3
5933
j h@gs
cb
o s t on . c om
oun s e l f
r
Mr Gj
i
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
2/78
With
th
e
INTRO U TION
ac c
e l
era t ed u s e o f in
t e r ne t
c ommun
ic a
t
io
n ,
ou
r
t s
a
ro
u
nd
t
he
co
u
n t
ry an
d t h i s
Commonweal th
a re in c r e a s i
n
g ly conf ronted
wi t h
i s su
e s
inv
o
l v i n
g
the
con
s t i t u t iona l i
ty
o f on
l ine s
pee
c h .
Whi l e c i v i l
an
d c
r imin
a l s
ta
tu t es a l
lo
w c
our
t s t o
regu l a t e on ne
speec
h
under ce
r t a i n na r r owly def ined
c i
rcumstan
c
es
, b
ro
a d a nd
- c on
s ide r
e d
in
j
unct ions on
s p
eech
a r e i n t
o le r
a b l e w
hen
t he y v
io
l a
t e t h e
r e s t r a
in
e d p
a r t i
es
f r
e e
s pe
e ch r i gh t s ,
es pe c
ia
y
whe r e th e pu b l i c
debate
i s s t i f l e d .
Such an in to l e
ra
b le
p r i
or r e s t r a in t was i s s u
ed
in
th i s case a
nd
to
t h i
s
day t
i
nfr inges upon th e
de
fe ndan t s cons t i t u t iona l r gh t to speak on
h i
s own
beha l
f
and
i n h i s own d
efense
. Su c h a p r i
o r re
s
t r a in t
on
pr
o t e c t ed speech , espe
c i
a l ly wh
e re
the
sp
e e c h
co
ncer
ns
i s s
ue s o f publ
ic impo
r
t a nce
,
sho
u ld not
be
e ndorsed b y th i s ourt. As Eugene
Volokh ,
a
na
t i o n
a l
ly
r e
c ogn i zed Fi r s t
e
ndme
nt e x p e r t ,
no
t e s ,
t h i s
cas
e r
epresen t s
an
i s s ue
of g r
ea t
p
ubl
i c
in te r e s t
H
be
c
au
s e i t d e a l s wi th a
kin
d
o f
con t r overs y
t h
a t ha
s
be
e n
a r i s i
ng r e
pe
a t ed ly
in
r
ece
n t y
ea rs
,
and
- 2 -
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
3/78
i s su re t o a r i s e a
ga
in . 1
REQUEST
FOR
DIRE T PPELL TE
REVIEW
T
h is
c
ase
concer ns an abu s e
pr
e ve n t i on o rde r
i s sued
by t
he
Di s t r i c t Court
Geo rg
es ,
J ,
o rde r ing
t h e de fen d an t n o t to pos t
any
fur ther
informat ion
about the
P la in t i f f
or her persona l li
on l ine
or to
encourage
h a t e
mobs , 2
where t
he re was
no
evidenc
e
p r e s en t
ed
th
a t
t he
def e ndan t
had
d i
rec ted
an y
l a n g u a g e a t , o r so l i c i t ed a n y
v i
olenc e
to wards
, t h e
p l a in t f .
Th i s
p r
ov i s i o n, h
an
d-w
r i t t en by t he Court on to
Pa
r a g r
ap
h 14
of
t h e 209A o r de r , was
an
un c o
n s t t
u t i o n a l p r i o r
re s
t ra i
n t
be
caus
e
t
i mpo s e d a
b r o a d r es tr c t i on on speech p ro t ec t e d by t he Fi r s t
Amendmen t ; because th e Court over looked th e law o f
p r i o r r e s t r a i n t and im posed t h e
re s
tr i c t o n absen t a
f i
nd i ng
o f a compe l l i ng s t a t e in t e r e s t ; and because
th e Cou
r t
imposed
th e
r e s t r i c
t
ion
p r i o r
to
any
See Exh . A, Le t t e r i n S
uppo
r t o f
Di
rec t Appe l l a t e
Rev iew
, f i l e d by UCLA Law
Pro f
ess o r Eugene
Volo
kh
an
d
Lo yo l a Law Sc hoo l Pr o f e s s or A
a r
on Cap l a n , p r o sp e c t v e
am
i cus
cu r i ae i n
th
i s ca se , a t p . 1 ,
to
b e f i l ed b y
Pro f e s so r Vol okh unde r s e pa r a te c ove r .
2 Se e
Add
. 38 - 39
2
09A O
rde
r
)
.
- 3 -
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
4/78
determ i n a t ion about whet he
r
the
s
peech
was pro tec
ted
.
Be yo
nd
t
he
f
re
e -
speech conce rn
s t
he Cou r t also
v i o l a t e d
the
de
fe
nda n t s
due p r
o c e s s
r igh t s
i n
s
ev
e r a l
ways
. Fi r s t
the
C
our t
us
ed
t
he
wr o n g
s t and a rd
und
e r c 209A to ex t end t he o r der . M
oreo
ve r
Counse
l f
or
th e defe
nd an t was prec
luded
from
c
ross
-
examin
in
g t
he
p la i n t i f f
dur in
g th e
hear ing
p r e s en t i ng
ev idence
on t
he Fi
r s t Amendme nt
c la
i m o r
e ven
makin
g a
F ir
s t Amendme nt r um
t Couns
e l was
in s te ad to ld
b y
the
C
our t
I
l e a ve
t ha t
[a rgu
men t ]
to
yo u r
appe l l
a t e
r igh t s
. I v e ma de my
de ion
Th i s o
rde r went
fa r beyond
t he s t a t u t o r y pu rp o s e
o f c
2 9A
.
I t con t i nues to
day
to se
r v e as a
b r
o a d
ga g o rder
on the
d
efe
nda
n t
s
f r
e e
spe
e ch p
rec lud ing
him f r
om
exp
l
a i n i ng or
de f
ending
h im
s e l f to th
e
me d i a to h i s pe e r s
or
t o h is
co
un i ty
fo r fear of
c r
imin
a l
pros
ecu t
ion .
The
def
e ndant t
he
r e
fo re
re qu e s t s t ha t t
h i
s Cour t e xped i t io
usly addre
s s h is
c a s e o n Di r ec t
ppel la t
e
Review
.
3
Add . 29 .
- 4-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
5/78
ST TEMENT O PRIOR PRO EEDINGS
Che l s e a Van Valk
erburg
t he
p l
a in t
i f
f i s a
wel l k nown and cont rover s ia l v i deo game des i gner
E
ron
Gjon i the de
fendant
i s an ex boyfr iend of her s
with
h is own
onl ine
presence .
5
On Septembe r
16
20 14
t he
pla
i n
t
f a pp
ea
r ed in t
he
Dor che s t er Di s t r i c t
Cou
r t a nd f i lle d o
u t
a n a ff i da v i t i n s up po r t of an
a
buse
p revent ion o rder aga i n s t the defe ndant.
6
Afte r
an
e x
par te hea
r in g
on tha t same
day J udge
Tyne
s
i s s ued a t emporary r e s t r a i n
ing
or der aga i ns t th e
de f endan t .
7
Beside
s
orde
r i ng t he
defe
ndan t
not
t o
ab
use o r
con t ac t
t he
p l a in t
i f f
the
o rder a l s o
o rd e red him
not
to pos t any f ur t he r i
nf
o r ma t on
about
t he [p l a i nt i f f ] or her per s onal l i f e on l i ne or
to
enco ur age ha t e mobs .
On
September
30
2014
the pa
r t i e s
ap
peared i n
the Dorchester Dis t r i c t Court fo r an ev i den t i a ry
hear
i ng
on
exte ndi ng
t he
tem
po r ary
o r d e r .
The
See Add . 22 .
5
A d . 5 .
6
Add . 2 .
Add
8 9
B Add . 38 .
5 -
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
6/78
p l
a i n t i f f t o l d
he
r s to ry t o t he Cou r t . Counse l
fo
r
the
defendan t
ho
we ve r was d
enied
the oppo r t un i t y to
cross
-
examin
e the
p l a i n t i f f
to
m
ake a
Fi r s t
m
ndme n t
arg
um
en t
o r pre s e n t
favo
rable
ev
id
enc
e on
t he de
fen
da n t
s
beha l f .
9
W
hout
an y
f ind
i
ng
s w h
respect to t he Fi rs t Amendment claim th e Cou r t
e xt e nd e d the or de r t o Sep t ember 16 20 15 .
10
The
de f endant appea l e d f r om t h is
dec is io
n .
11
Th e cas e was
doc kete d in th e Appeals Cour t
on
Apr i l 21
2015
.
.
SHORT ST TEMENT
OF
F TS
We l l be f
ore
she knew the de f endant the p l a i n t i f f
- a wel l - known and cont
rov
e
r s ia
l v
ideoga
me des ign e r
wit h a p ub l i c per s
on
a had been i
nvolved
in
con f l i c ts with a number of
onl ine
groups
. 12 Some of
thes
e
co
n f l i c t s had le d to a ba cklash
in the
fo r m
of
thr
e a
t s o
r pe and ot he r cr i me s 13 a
gain
ev
e n
bef
or e
she
kne
w
t
he
defendan t . Among th e s e
cont r
ove rs i es
was
a f a l l i ng out
with
a
non p ro f i t
9
Add . 2 l .
10 Ad
d.
2 8 .
11
Ad
d.
40 .
12
See
Add . 2122 .
13
See Add . 22 .
- 6
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
7/78
g r o up
by
t h e name o f The Fin e You
ng Cap it l i s t s
, l
wel l a s c r i t i c i sm ove r her d ec i s ion to a nnou
nc
e the
rere l e ase o f her
cont
r ov e r s i a l
gam
e De p r e s s i on
Que s t i n t he w
ak
e
of
th e su ic
ide
o f a
c t
o r Robi n
Wi l li ams .
1 5
On Sep tember 6 , 2 04 , t h e p l a i n t
iff
ma
de
a
l i t an
y of
un
subs ta
n t i a t ed
a l l e
ga ti
on s aga i n s t
th e
defe nd a n t in
suppo
r t
of
he r reques t fo r a 20 9A ord e r .
irs t , i n h e r a f f id
av i
t sh e c l a imed :
t h a t
th
e
de fend
a n t
had
p
os
t
ed an
a r t i c
l e
on the
i n t e r ne t about her
s e x
l
if
e and p r iva t e
d e a l
ing
s on f t several w
ebs i t e s t ha t
he kn ew had
a
h is
t o
ry
o f ha
r a s s
i
ng
he r
and
op
enly
a dm
it [ t
e d ] t o doing
so to damag
e [h e r ]
pro
f e s s i on a l re pu ta t i o n
as
an inde p e n d en t
a r
t s t
;
t ha t sh e ha d r e c e ived riume r o u s d e a th
an
d r a p e
t
h rea t s
f
ro
m a n
anonymous
mob
th
a t he
had
g
iven
de ta
ils
t o ;
t ha t he r
p
e r s ona L i n
fo
li ke [h e r] home a d
d r
ess ,
phon e numb e r , em
a i l s
pa s swo r
ds
, and t hose o f
[h
e r]
fami
l y have
be
e n wid e ly d i
s t r i bu t ed
,
a lon g s ide nude pho t o s o f
[he
r ] ,
an
d
se ve r
a l o f
[he r ]
p r
o f e s s i on
a l
ac
coun t s an
d t ho
se
o f [h
e r
]
c ol leag ue s have bee n hack ed ;
t h a t t he defe ndan t ha d c oa c h e d t h i s mob ; had
ma d e
mul t i p l e
s o c
i a l med i a acc
o
un t s
t o
smea
r
[ h
e r
] na me p ub l i c l y and ha d s t o ke d t h e f i r e o f
t h i
s on many
occas
io n s and [d i d ] n t se em t o be
14 I d
15
Add
- 7 -
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
8/78
s topping ;
th
a t t he def endant had c a l l e d ho t e l s t ha t he
s us p ec te d (her ]
o f
s ta y i n g
a t
,
fa
l s i f y ing
i
nfo
r
mation
to give mo r e pe r s on
a l
in
fo
t o t he
mob ;
t h a t def endant was not repen tan t f or th e mob s
harassmen
t of [her] and k e e p s
hint ing
a t
g iv i ng
them
more in formation , wh
ich
he
kn
ows
wi l l con
t inue i n c i t i ng
th e
t h r e a t s a
nd
h
r s sm nt ;
an
d th a t d
efen
d a n t b r uised her du r i ng a sexua l
encounter ; admit ted me nt a l
i n s t ab i
l i ty to
he
r
and to ld
her
t h a t
he
had once been v i o l e n t with
a f ami l y
member
.
16
At the ex pa r te hear ing on September 16 ,
20
14 ,
t he p
la
in t
i f f pre
s
ented
no doc umenta r y
ev
i dence , b
ut
complained a gain a bou t t he defendan t
s
a r t i c l e
an
d
a l leged t ha t he planned to b oo s t [ the ] morale o f th e
mob
17
Af t e r
th
e p la i n t i f f made t hese a l leg a t i ons , J udge
T
yn
e s
ca
ll
ed
he r to s i
deba
r . The tra
nsc
r ip t n o t e s
t h a t
t h e i r 42s ec ond
exchange
i s l a r g e l y un in te l l ig ib le ,
bu
t t
i s
c l ea r
t h a t her main
c
oncern was
ab
out
in f orma t i on po s t ed on l i ne
ab
ou t
he
r :
M
S. V
N V
LKERB URG
:
W
i ll t ha t wo r k wi th t hem
cont inu ing , urn, f e e d these mobs wit h , urn, p r iva te
c o
mm
un i c a t io n s between us?
16
See
Add . 2 .
17 Add . 5
.
- 8 -
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
9/78
TH
E COURT : I j us t
ho
pe to a t l eas t ,
yo
u
know, g i ve you s ome
r e l i
e f
MS . V N
V LKER UR
G:
s t a t e d t h a t he .
t
h is
mob ?
Wi ll
ca
n t ke
ep
be spe c i f i ca l l y
.
en
c o
uraging
THE
COURT
: He r e s wha t I m going to do . I m
going t o wr i te , You a r e a lso ordered not to
a l l r
igh
t [ s ic ] - no t
to
pos t a ny fu r t
her
- I m
going t o pu t in f o
rma
t
ion
a
bout
yo
ur p r
iv a
t e
l i f e ,
d oes
th a
t s
ound r ig h t?
Any
fu r
t h
e r in f
ormat ion
about th e p
l a i n t i f f s
o r p e r s onal li f e on line
I m ju s t
go
in g t o p
ut
on l i ne in g
en
e r a l . Or t o
encou rage
what
s t he f i r s t a d j e c t i
ve
,
someth i
ng
mob -
what
was the mob ?
MS . V N V LKERURG : Uh, hate .
THE CO
URT
: Ha t e mob - a l l r ig h t l l pu t t h a t
i n quot a t i
ons
. Good
luck
, ma am . So lo n g .
18
The C
our t
t he r
eupon
en te re d
an ex par t e
t emp
ora ry
r e s t r a i n i
ng
o r d e r aga in s t t he defend
an
t .
19
On Sep t embe r 30 , 20 14 , th e Cou r t
co
nvened a
hear ing to determine whether t o e x t e nd th e orde r .
The
p la in ti t e s t i i
ed
,
re
i
te
r a t i ng he r
conce
r n t ha t t he
d e fend a n t
s
c r i t ic ism o f her was i nc i t in g o t he r s
o n l ine . Fo r
i n s t a
nce ,
th a t
on
August 1 6 , 20 14 ,
defendan
t publ i shed a
d i a t r i b e
a b ou t [ t h e i r ] re l a t ionsh ip and
[h
er]
persona l l i f e t o severa l o n l i ne s i te s , s ome o f
wh
ich
he knows ha s a h i s t o r y of har as s
ing
woman
an
d
har
a s s in g [her]
and
s end ing them r a p e
and
18
A
dd
. 7 - 8 .
19 Add . 8 .
- 9-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
10/78
death t h rea t s ;
t hat d e f e
ndant
c on t inu e s
to ta
lk a
bo
u t [h
er]
persona l l i f e on l ine ;
th
a t
d
e fe
ndant
had
go
ne
on
th
e r a d i o t o d i r e c t
ly
add re s s the mob
tha
t
was
th r e a t en i ng he r ;
t hat defendant ha d been r a i s i n g f unds fo r a l ega l
def
ens
e ;
th a t def endant
p
romis led]
he
would re l e a s e the
a f f i d av i t a nd mor e i n f o rmat i o n
ab
ou t [her]
t
ha
t t he mob s c e n e
[h
a s] been r
unni
ng wi t h i t
and t h a t she c on t i nued
to
ge t emai l s with [
her]
home
a d d r e s s
a t t ached
a nd
very
s p e c i
f i
c
th rea
t s
;
th a t d e f e n dan t had been in
o f
an
onymous pe
op
l e a nd
t
hrea te
n e d [he
r]
;
con tac t
with
a
t
ha t
th
e mob
mo
ha
d
and
t h a t de f e nda n t had
be
e n in in d i r ec t
conta
c t
wi th t he mob th r ough
the i n t e rne t
. 20
Again
,
t he p l a i n t i f f offe red
no
documenta ry
e v i
dence
i n
suppo
r t
o f
he
r
cla ims
. When
co
u
nse l
fo
r
defen
dan t
re
que s t e d c r o s s - e x ami na t io n
of the
p l a i
nt f , th e Cou r t den i
ed
t
he
re qu
es
t , s ta t
in
g :
T h e r e s going
to be
no cross -examinat
ion of th
e
p l a i nt f . 2 1
Cou
nse l then in fo rmed the Court tha t :
(1 )
t he p la in t i
f f
i s a pub l i c f i g u r e ; 2
the
p l a i n t i f f
h a d
a l r
e
ady been
invo
lv
e d
in
p
r i o r
20
Add
. 21 . Notab ly ,
non
e
o f
th e
a l lega t ions
she
t e s t i
f i ed t o sugge s te d
t h a t
the
pe t
i t i one r
th rea tened
he r or d i r
ec
t
ed
anyone e
l s e
t o do any t h i ng.
2 1 Add . 21 .
- 1
0-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
11/78
cont rovers ies
wherein
she
re ceived
o n l i n e
t h rea t s
p r io r
to
her re l a t ionsh ip with t he d
e f
e n d a n t ;
3)
a nd
t h e
re
i s no t a
s i
ng l e s
hred
of ev
i de
nce
t h
a t
defendant
had re leased informat ion t h a t pu t the
p l a i n t i f f
in danger
.
22
Couns
e l
f o r th e p
l a i n t
i t h
en made severa l
s t a r t l i ng
ad
mi s s i
ons
:
t ha t defe ndan t was not
th
sour o f h i s c l i en t
s
leaked personal in format ion
bu t
ins tead
he r
soc i a l
media
websi te s []
were
hacked and
[ p l a i n t i f f
s ]
name[]
addresses
b i l l i ng
informat
i on
and
o t h e r
pr iva te informat ion
[] was
prov ided i n th ese cha t r
ooms
23
t ha t th e a r t i
c le
did not
ev
e n con t a in t he
p l a i
n t i s r e a l
name
;
Most
s ign i f i c an t
ly when th e Judge noted th a t
counse l
fo r
th e p l a i n t i f f
was
descr ib ing t h i rd -pa r ty
commun
i c a t
ions
and t h rea t s
( i
.e
. s ta tement s not
made
by
de
fen
dant)
cou
nse l fo r
th
e p l a in t i f f ac knowledged
t h a t
Mr . Gjoni
had not di rec t ed anyone
t o
do anything
:
I
wouldn t
say [ t h
a t th e
mob
i s
ac t ing]
a t th e
behest
o f the
de fendant
.
here
s no inform tion
w s ~ e to determine in
my
~ e n g t h pouring
ove
where the defend nt
i s
d i r e t ing th i s t ion
4
Counse l
fo r de f enda n t then c it
ed
the s t andard fo r
22
Add
. 22 -23 .
23
Add . 24 .
24 Add
. 25 .
-11
-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
12/78
the extens i on of an abuse p re ve ntio n o rd er : whether
the defen
dant
had caused
her f ea r
of i i ne nt
sever
e , phys i
ca l
harm o r
physi ca
l ha r m. ,,25 The
Cour t , howeve r , disp
uted
counsel s a r t i c u l a t i on o f
t he l aw, s t a t ing , [ t ]he re s a ls o the in t imidat ing o r
contro l l ing conduct o f the def
endant
. That s bee n
well e s tab l i shed
by
c a s e law . ,,26
Al
though counsel f or
de fendant aga in argued th a t the Cou r t was u
sing
th e
wr
on
g s tandard , the Cour t
ext
ended t
he
or de r f or a
year w thou t fur ther cons idera t ion .
The
Cour
t
le
f t i
nt
a
c t
Paragraph 14 , the
provis i on
b
ro
a d ly r e s t r i ct ing defe nd a
nt
s s
pe
ech a nd imp
l i c i
t ly
f i nd i ng t h a t h is a r
t
c l e
was
no t protec ted spee ch .
Cou
nse l
f o r the defendant objec ted : Judge , may be
heard on t he
Fi r s t
Amendmen t
i ssue
and t he
r e s t r ic t i
ons
p laced upon t he de f e n d a n t , w thin t he
scop
e o f
the
o r
i g ina l orde r?
T
he
Cou
r t refused
,
s ta t ing t had a l re ady m
ade
a d
ec i s i
on and t ha t t
wou l d l e a ve [ t he Fi r s t Amendme nt a r gu
ments
] t o [ t he
de
fendant s]
appe l l a t e
r ights .
Cou
nse l
ob j e c t ed
25 Add . 27 . The r e
was
no a l l ega t io n of
inv
olunta r i ly
in sexua l re la
t
on s b y fo r c e .
See
G.L . c . 209A s .
1 c) (
def i
n i t io n o f abus e) .
26 Add . 27 - 28 .
- 12-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
13/78
aga in : I d j u s t l i k e t o ob j e c t on t h e
reco
rd to the
e x t
ens i
on o f t
he
o r d e r a nd
to
t
he
Cou r t s d e n i a l o f
t
he
d
e fendan t
s
mot i
o n
to
s
t r i k
e
the po r t
i on of
th e
o r
de
r
th a
t
a f f e c t
s
h is
Fi r s t
Ame
nd
m
en t
r
ig
h t
to f r
ee
s peech . T
he
Cou r t
noted
the obj
ec t ion and
motion
to
s
tr
ik e
Par
agrap h 14 .
27
V SSU S OF L W R ISED Y PPE L
1 . I s Pa r a g r ap h 14
of
th e 209A orde r , e n j o i
ning
defe ndant
f r
om p o s
t i
ng] any f ur t h e r
in
fo
rmat ion
a b o u t th e
p la
i n t i f f o r
he
r per sona l
lif
e
on l ine
o r
to
encourage
ha te
mobs
, a
con t i nuing uncons t i t u t i o n a l p r i o r r e s tra i n t ,
beca
u se it i s
not
na r r owl y
t a i
l o r e d t o fo rb id
on
ly
un p
ro t e
c t ed s pee ch , b e ca
us
e it wa s impos e d
i n t h e a b s e
nce
o f d
e t
a
i l ed
f in d ing s o f a
compe l li ng s t a t e i n t e r e s t , and b eca u s e it wa s
made p r i o r t o a f i nd in g t h a t t h e s p eech was
un p ro t e c t ed?
2 . Was t h e en t i re 209A o rd e r is sued in v io l a t i on
o f th e
defen
dan t s con s t i t u t i o n a l r
i gh t
to d ue
pr o ces s , w
he re
t h e
de
fend a n t wa s
de
n i e d
th e
r i g h t
to
c
ro s s e
x a
mine
t h e p
l a
i n t i f f , t o
pr esen t e v i d e n c e , o r t o argue und e r th e F i r s t
e ndment
in
h i s own def en s e?
3 . Was t h e
en t
i
re
wher e th e Cour t
rev iew?
209A
used
o rd e r
t he
i s s u
ed in
e r
ro
r ,
wrong s t andard o f
27
Ad d .
28 29
.
- 1 3-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
14/78
RGUMENT
THE
LOWER COURT S ISSUANCE
ND
EXTENSION OF
P R GR PH 4
IS
A CONTINUING UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PRIOR RESTRAINT
EC USE IT
W S NOT N RROWLY-
TAILORED TO FORBID
ONLY
UNPROTECTED
SPEECH,
EC USE
IT
W S IMPOSED IN
THE
SENCE OF
DETAILED FINDINGS OF A COMPELLING STATE
INTEREST, ND
EC USE IT
W S
IMPOSED
PRIOR
TO
NY
FINDING AT ALL
UNDER
THE FIRST MENDMENT .
A p r i o r res t
ra in
t
i s
a n adm i n i s t ra t i v e [o r ]
j
ud ic i a l
orde r [ ] forbidding
ce r t a i
n commun i ca t ion s
when i ssued
in
advance of the t ime tha t such
commun i ca t ions a re
to
ur
f
Commonwealth v .
Ba rnes , 46 1 Mass . 644 , 651 2012 , quot i ng Alexande r
v .
Uni te
d St a t e s , 50 9 U. s . 544 , 55 0
1993
. Cl a s
s ic
examples
of p r io r r e s t r a in t are [ t ] emp o r a r y
r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r s and permanent in junc t ions - i
e
. ,
cour t o rders tha t ac tua l ly
forb
id
speech
ac
t i v i
es
... Id . ; Se e Add . 38 .
Pr io r
r e s t r a i
nt i s an e xt r a
ord i
na
ry rem
ed[ y
], ,
28
to
be
used
in
only the most e xc ep t i ona l cases . ,, 29
I
ndeed
,
in 225
years t he
Supreme
Cour t has v r
uphe
ld
a pr io r r e s t r a i n t ,
even
faced
with th e
comp
e t
ing
in t
e r
e s t
of na
t ion
a l
se
c
u r i t
y o r th e Si x t h
Amendment r i ght to a f a i r t r ia l Procte r
Gambl e
Co . v . Bankers Trus t Co . , 78 F .3d 219 ,
227
6t h
Cir
.
28 Nebraska
Press v .
Stua
r t , 427 U
.S
.
539
, 562 1976) .
29
Nea
r v . Minneso ta ,
283
U
s
. 697 , 716
193
1) .
- 1
4-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
15/78
1996 ) , op i n
io
n c l a r i f i e d May 8 , 1996
added
emphas i s
Pr i or
res
t ra
in t
i s ra r e ly cons t t u t iona l
beca
use
on
l
in
e s
peech
l i
ke
o t
he
r f
orm
s o f
speech en
joys
the h i g h e s t pro t ec t i o n s
und
e r th e Fi r s t Amendment
and Art
i
c l
e 1 6 .
Reno
v . AC
U
, 521 U.S . 844 , 8
67-86
8
1997
) . 30
Content
-based pr io r
re s t r a in t s on speech
a re
s
ubjec t
t o s
tr
i c t
sc
r
ut
i
ny by t h i s
Cou
r t
. Ba
rnes
,
4 61 Ma s s . a t
651
; Commonwe
a l th
v . A
Juven i l
e , 3 68
Mass
. 580 197 5)
To s u
rv iv
e s t r i c t s c r u
t in
y , a
pr
io r
re
s t r
a in
t
must be ba s ed
on
de ta l e d f i n
ding
s of f a
c t th
a t
a
i d e n t
y a c
ompell ing
i n t e r
es
t
t ha t
t h e r
e s t r a i n t
wi l l
se rve
and b ) dem
ons
t
r a t
e t ha t n o
re
a sona b l e ,
l e s s r e s t r i c
t
ve
a l
t e r na t i v e
to th
e o
rde
r i s
a v a
i l a b le Id
. a t
652
.
31
Using
t h is a na
lys i s
, t h
i s
Cou r t may
s t r i ke
down
so
much of a j udi c
i a l
orde r a s
co
ns
t i t u t e s
an
imp
roper
pr i or r e s
t r
a i n t
on pr
o t e c t e d
s p e e c h . See ,
Care
Prot . o f Ed i th , 421 Mas
s
3
Se e U. S . Cons t . me nd s . I , XIV; Ma s s . De
c l
. o f Rt s .
Ar
t s
.
16
, 77 .
3 This
Cour t ha s recogniz ed
th
a t media a nd non
-medi
a
s
pe
a ker s
should
be t r ea t ed equa
l ly
unde r
th
e
F ir
s t
Amendment . Se e Sha
a r i
v . Harvard S
tuden
t Agencie s ,
In c . , 42 7 Ma s s . 12
9,
134 1998 The p re s s
in
i t s
h i s t or ic connot a t ion comprehends eve ry s o r t o f
pub
l
c a t
on
which
af
fords a
vehicle of in
f ormat i
on
a nd
o
pin
io n . ) .
- 1
5-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
16/78
703
,
705
(
1996)
.
The
lower
cour t
in th i s
case
i s s ue d a c l a s s i c
e xamp le o f pr io r re s t r in t th
roug
h Pa r agr a ph 14 of
the
209A o
rde
r . Barnes , s u p r a t 65 1 . Eve n t oday i t
forb id s
the
defendant
from
publ ishing
h is
own
th
ough
t s a bou t h i s own e xper i ences . Th i s res t r
i c t ion
does
not
pass
cons t i t u t ion l muster
fo r t l e s t
th ree r e a s o n s .
A he speech
res tr i t i on
t i lored to re s t r i t
only
i s not n rrowly-
unprotected
speech
The language of
the
r e s t r i c t ion i t s e l f
i s
not
n a r r owl y
t
i l o r e
d be
ca
us
e
p l i
nl
y
do
e s no t
r e s t r i c t
on
ly
un protected speech . See Pla nned
Pare
nthood
League
o f Mass chuset ts , Inc . v . O
per t ion
Re s c ue ,
406
s s .
701
,
715 (1 990) . I n cases of
jud ic
i l s p e e c h r e s t r i c t i ons , a Court
must
make a
f ind i ng th a t t he re i s
no
reasonab le
,
l e s s
r e s t
r i
c t i ve l t e rn tive a va
a b l e .
Id
.
That
i s , the
Court
~ u
ensu re
under
the
s
t r i c t sc ru t in
y s t a n
da
r d
t ha t t he s pe e
ch
r
es
t r a i nt is t a i l o r ed t o r e s t r i c t
only
speech
not
pro t
ected
by
the
Fi
r s t
Amendme
n t
.
Id
.
Such
un
pr
ot e
c t
ed speech
f l l s
i
nto
c e r t a i n
we
-def ined a nd na r rowl y
m
i t ed
c l a
sse
s , O Br i e n
v . Borowski , 461
Mass
. 415 , 422
2012
) , such
as
- 1
6-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
17/78
f i g h t i n g words ,
32
t r u e t h r e a t s ,
, , 33
speech
t h a t
i s
i
n t e g r a l t o
c r
im i na l conduc t , ,, 34 an d s o l i c i t a t i o n
(o
r in ci tem
en t
) .
35
,3 6
Id
.
The
o
rde r here
,
en jo in ing de f endan t
n o t t o po s t
any
f u r t h
e r
i n fo rmat ion about th e [ p l a i n t i f f ] o r h e r
pe r s ona l l i f e on l ine o r t o encou
rage
h a t e mobs i s
not
l im i te d t o unp r o t e c t e d spe e c h ; i t i s
vas
t l y mo re
e xpans i ve t han t h e n a r r o wl y limi t e d c l a s s es c i t ed
above
.
Even cons
i d e red
i nd iv idua l ly , n o ne o f th e sub -
o rd e rs em
bodied
in
Paragraph 1 4 a re n
a r r
owly t a i l ored
t o
cover
on l y unp ro t e c t e d sp e e ch. Fo r i n s t a nce , t h e
o
rde r
no t
to
p o s t
any
fu r
t h e r i n fo rmat ion about th e
p
l inti could
,
in p r i n c i p l e
, p reven t
th e de f endan t
from commenting
on
,
e . g .
th e
p l
a i n t i
f f
s
q
ues ti
o
nab le
i n d u s
tr
y prac t i c
es and
he r on l i n e
d i s p
ute s with o t
h
e rs
, i
nc lud ing The Fi ne Youn
g
v .
41 4
B
ra
ndenb urg
v .
Indiana
,
Mass . a t 630 -3 1 ;
447
(1969 ) ; He
ss
32
See O
B r i en
,
461 Mass
. a t 4
23
; Chapl insky v . New
Ha mp s h i r e , 315 U.S . 568 ,
571
(1942) .
33 See O
B r i en
,
461
Mass . a t 423 ; V
i r g i n i a
Bl a c k ,
538 U. S . 343 , 359 -60 (2003) .
34
Se e Co
onwea l t h v .
Jo
h
nso
n , 4
70
Ma s s .
300
,
311
(20
14 ) .
35
Yakubowic z , 40 4
Oh
io
, 395 U.S . 444 ,
U.S . 105 , 109 (1973)
3 6 Knowing
ly
fa l se s t a t emen t s
about
a per son can a l so
be
r e s t r i c t e d
,
but the re i s no a l l e ga t i on here t h a t
any pe t i t i one r
sa id
was f a l s e .
See
G
a r r i s on
v .
Lo u i s i ana , 379 U.S . 64 , 75 (196 4) .
-
17-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
18/78
Cap i ta l i s t s - langu age t h a t i s c l e a r l y p ro te c te d a s
p
a r t
o f t he p u
b l i
c
deb
a te .
Si
mi l a r l y , the o rder no t to p o s t
about
he r
pe
r sona l l i e i s no t l im i t e d t o re s t r ic t o
nly
unpro
t e cted spee
ch
. To
the e
xten t
tha t the
p la i n t i f f ' s publ ic and personal l i fe has i n t e r s ected
subs t an t i
a l ly
wi t h
t he defendant s
l i f e
,
th e
defend an t ha s the r i gh t to spe a k ab
ou
t it (
as
d oe s
th e p l a
i n t i f f
) . Unle ss the onl y i n f
or
ma ti on the
defendant
could
poss
i bly publ ish would
cons t i tu t e
unp ro t e c t e d
spe
e c h (wh ic h it c l e a r ly wou l d no t ) , t he
Cou r t cannot b ro
ad
ly pr o s c r ib e t he de f e ndan t from
spea
k ing onl ine a bou t h i s own expe r iences , a t t i t ude s
and
op
in ions , simp l y because the p la i n t i f f i s
i mp l
i c a t
ed
in
h is
speec
h .
Li kewi s e the o rde r not t o e n c o u r age hate mo
bs
i s
unde f ined and ,
nonet
he less , not t a i lo red t o
r e s t r
i c t on
l y un p ro t ec t e d s pe e c h .
See
Ca r e Pr o t . of
Ed i t h ,
421 Ma
ss
. a t 7 6 . Sh o r t of i
ssu
in g t r ue
t
hre
a t s o r inc i t ements to violence which
are a lready
Bec a u s e t h
ere
i s no c lea r de f i n i t i on t o the word
pos t , th e Cour t
s in j
u
nc t i
on could e ve n ,
theo r e t i c a
l l y
, c r i
minal
i ze p r iva te e m
a i
l s or ch a
t s
o f
the
de
fen
dant about , e . g . , the pl a in t i f f
s
indust ry
p rac t i ces , see Add . 22 , even though the pla
i n t i
f f
ass
e
r t s
t h
a t
the cont
roversy
s u r r ou nd i n g t h i s c
ase
has
made
i
nt
e r
na
ti
onal ne ws . See Add . 6 , 21 .
- 18 -
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
19/78
i l l e ga l under
the c rim ina
l
s t a tu t e s
, t
he defendan t
has no
way o f kn owing wha t wo r d s mi gh t en c our ageH a
ha
t e mob
8
In
te
rne t pos t ings a re ava i l a b le to everyone .
Sadly ,
t h i s
inc ludes
ha t e f u l
, i r r e spons i b l e
and
obnox io us p e o p l e , man y o f whom nee d
no
encou ragemen t
what s o
ever to
make a nonymou s a nd r e c
kl ess
t
hrea
t s .
There i s eve n
a
nam
e
fo r
t h i s
p r a c t i c e :
tro l l i n g . H 9
But
th e def endant cannot not be
held
r e s p on s i b l e fo r the rep re hens ib l e b e h a v i o r o f o the r
i
n t
e rn e t
use r
s a ny mo r e
th
a n
boycot t orga
nize r s c an
be he
ld
l i ab l e fo r a t t a cks by th i r d pa r t i e s again s t
those
who
d id no
t
pa r t i c
i
pa te
i n
th e
boycot t . See
N P
v .
laiborne
Ha r dwa r e Co . , 458 U .S .
886
1982) .
I t
i s impor
t a
n t
t o em
phas ize
t h a t
t
he
r e
i s
no
ev iden e
o f t hre ts made by Mr . Gj
on i
aga in s t th e
p la
i n t i f f . Moreove r , t he p l a i n t i f f
s
a t t o rney
have
been
Tynes d i d
p l
a in ti f
38
Indeed , t h i s p r o
v i
s i on
appea r s to
au tho red
in p a r t
by th e
p l a
i n t i f f
,
as Judge
not
appea
r to und e
r s t a nd
ex a c t l y wh a t the
mean t b y
th e
term ha t e mob .
H
Add .
8 .
39
Th e
Cour
t
i s
d i
r e c
ted to
Dic t i o n
ary
.com
s
ap t
de f i n
it
i o n o f in t e r ne t t r o l l i ng
H:
Di
gi
t l
T
echnology
I
n for
mal :
to pos t
i
n f l
amma t or y o r
in appropriate messages or comments on the nternet
espec i l l y a message
board f or
the
purpose
o f
upset t ing
other u
sers
and provoking
a
response ; t o
upse t o r provoke
other
users by pos t ing such
me
ssages or
commen
ts
.
H
- 1 9-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
20/78
acknowl e d g e d th a t t h e re was no ev i d e nc e th a t Mr .
Gjoni w a s d i r e c t i ng
H
th e behav io r o f o th e r
peop
l e
on
t
he
i n t e rn e t .
Though
t he p l a i n t f f
i n ti a l l y
sugges ted
t hat
th e
def e ndant was d i r e c t l y
a dd r
ess
[ i ng ] a nd en c
ou
rag in g
t
he
mob , her
a t to rney
app ro p r i a t e
ly
r e t r e a t
ed
f r om t h i s
accusa t ion
,
ac
know
l edg i
ng ,
[ t] here
s
no
i n f o r ma t i o n
I was a b l e to de t e
rmine
i n my ~ n t h y pour in
ov
whe re the
de fenda
n t
i s
d i
r e c t i ng th i s a c t i o n .
H
I n d e e d , no
evide nce
o f defendant
e i t h e r
encourag ing a
ob o r l e a k ing i n fo rmat io n
was
p r
e s
en
t e d
to
t he
Cou r t .
Where ,
as
here , pro tec ted s peech
i s
c r
i t i c
a l o f
an u nwi l l i ng sub j ec t , a
th i rd p a r t
y
s ac t io ns
-
even
i f r ep r e h en s i b l e - a r e not
the re s
pon
s i b i l i ty
of t he
speaker . As
Pr
ofe ssor Volo kh poin t s out :
That s p e e c h
harshly c r
i t i c i z e s
i t s
t a r ge t does
not s tr p i t o f pr
o te
c t i on ,
ev
e n i f some
l i s t
ene r
s mi
gh
t
rea c t
to th e
spee ch
b y a t t
ac
k
ing
o r
th r
ea t ening th e t a rge t . Th us ,
fo
r i n s t a nc e , i n
N P v .
Cla ibo
r ne H
ar
dwa r e
o
th e
N
P
o rganized a blac k
boycot t
o f white owned s to re s
and
publ i c i
zed
the
names
o f b lacks who we ren t
fo l lowing
the
boyco
tt
in
order
to
pre
ssu
re
peop
le
in t o go i ng a l o ng w th
th
e boyco t t . Some of
th
e
people whose names
were
so pub l i c i zed w
ere
bea ten ,
ha
d
th
e i r p r oper
ty
vanda l i z e d , o r
had
sho ts f i red i n t o t he i r home s . B
u t despi te
t h i s ,
0
Add .
5
.
41 I d . (emphas i s a d d e d ) .
- 20-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
21/78
the Cou r t held t ha t the N
CP and the pe op l e w
ho
pa r t i c ip a ted in ga t he
r ing
a nd pub
l i c
iz ing t he
names cou l d n t b e he ld l i a b l e f
or
t
he
boyc ott . 2
Pl a in t i f s
coun
s
e l
a ls o a cknowle dged th a t e ven
th
p la i
n t i f f s
r l n m i s no
t in t he a r t
i c l
e
(de f endan t r e f e r s t o her by a pseudonym ) . 3 And
whi
l e
the p
la
i n t i f f a l l eged
t ha t
the def e nd an t hims l f
reveal
ed
he r perso na l in forma t i
on
onl in e (
he
, l ike ,
mai
l e d my pe r s ona l i n f o rma t i on
to
t hese ha t e mobs
U
,
he r a t to r ney app ropr
ia te ly
pointed ou t
t ha t
he r
p r i v a t e in f o r ma t i on
U
was in
fac t
l ea
ked by
those who
ha d
ha cked
u
he r s oci a l me
d ia
acco u
n ts
-
no
t by t he
defe
nd
ant .
Un
de
r Cla i bo rne Ha r dwa r e Co . , supra , the
de fendant canno t be lia
b le
f o r o t he r s ac t ion s .
Although
vague ly referenced,
the language
co
mp
la
i
ne
d
of in
th i
s
case
amount s
to
speec
h
ou t
unwi l l
in g su j e c t s
oppo s e d t o
speech
unwi l l in g
l i s t ene
5 Ba ns on spee c h abou t unwi l l ing
subjec t s , as oppos ed to speech to unwanted l i s t e n e r s ,
2
Eug ene Volokh ,
ONE
- TO-ONE SPE
ECH
VS.
ONE
-TO-M NY
SPEECH , CRIMINAL H R SSME
NT
L S,
ND
CYBERSTALKING ,
107
Nw
. U. L. Re
v. 7 31 , 754
2013)
(
One
- To
-Many
Spe
e
ch
U
.
See
a l
s o
Commo
nwe a l t h v . Fi l o s , 42 0 Ma s s .
3 48 , 359 (1995) (Nolan , J . ,
d isse
n t ing ) ; Bra ndenburg ,
395 U. S . a t 44 7 -448 (pe r cur iam (e v e n
abst ra
c t
advocacy
o f unlawful conduc t may not be proh ib i t ed ) .
3 Add . 24 .
5
Se e Volo kh , One - To -Many Spee ch , sup r a a t
Par
t I I .A .
- 21
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
22/78
are
genera
l ly un cons t i t u t i ona l .
4 6
The rec
ord
shows
t ha t the defendant s pas t spee ch was no t
d ir ected
a t
t he
pla in
t .
Indee
d , s
he d i
d
not suggest t
w
as
d i rec ted a t
h
e r
, b
ut tha
t she was
an
u
nwi l l i
ng
t a rg
e t
of t h r e a t s
by other people .
I t
i s
un
c l ea r
unde r what
th
e
ory
t
he defendant
s
f u tu r e spee ch c
ould
be r
egula
t ed , i n
de
ed none wa s
offe red to
the def
endant by
the Court . E
ve
n
i f th ere
were
s ome
th
e
ory
un
de
r wh
ich
t
he
Cou r t c ou ld ha ve
res t r a in ed
spee
ch
and
t
here
was not t
he
C
our
t
must make a f ind in g tha t
the re
was n o re a s
onable
,
l
ess
r e s t r
i c t i
ve
a l t e rn
a t ive
avai lab le . Planned
P
are
nt hood , 406
ss
.
a t
715 . The Cou r t made no
such
f indin
g
be
c au s e
th
e
re
was no ba s i s f or s uc h a
f inding .
4 7
B . he speech r e s t r i c t i o n w s
bsence o f
d e t i l e d f in d in g s
s t t e
i n t e r e s t
imposed
in
th e
o f
compel l ing
Si mi l a r l y , t he
s t r i c t
scru t iny
s tand
ard
r
equ i r
e s
th
e Cour t t o
make
a
f ind i ng of
a
compe l l
ing
s t a t e i n t e
re
s t . Barnes , 461 s s . a t
652 . Here ,
the
Cou
r t
made no su ch f inding . Inde ed ,
46 Id . a t 794 .
47
One
cou l
d i mag i ne , f
or in
s t a
nce
, a
le
s s r e s
tr c t
i
ve
a
nd
more us e f u l ) re s t r i c t i on e nc ompa s s in g on ly
unp ro t ec t e d s
pe
e c h , e . g . , o ne t ha t t r a c k s t
he
c r imin a l
s ta t ut es : Do not a s sau l t or th rea ten t
he p l
a in t i f f .
- 2
2
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
23/78
t
he
C
ou
r t
made
no fac t f i ndings a t a ll l
ink
ing
th e
de f e n dan t
s
speec h to a n y i i ne n t un l aw fu l conduct .
The r e i s
lit
t l e , i a ny ,
j u s t
i f
i c
a t io n f
or
p r
io
r
r e s
t r a
in t g i v e n b y t he Cou r t o r t h e p la in t i f f , l e t
alone any th ing tha t wi t h s t a nds t he s t r i c t sc ru t iny
req
u i r e d b y our s t a t e a
nd
f ed e r a l
co
ns t i t u t i o ns .
c.
The
speech res t r i c t i on was imposed p r io r
to
a
in in t h a t th e speech
was u
np
ro tec ted .
Fina l
ly ,
as
a gene ra l p
r inc ipa
l , it i s
uncons t i t u t iona
l
fo r
a
cour t
t o
re
s t r a i n
speech
r i o r
to
a
dete
r mi
nat ion
tha t t h e
speech i s
no t
pro te
c t
ed
. Pitt sburgh Pr
ess
Co . v . P i t t s burgh Co n
on Human R
e l a t i
o ns ,
413
u . s . 3
76
, 390 (1973 ) . The
dec i s i on
to
r e s t r i c t th e de
fendant
s speech must come
on ly f t r
du
e
conside ra
t i on of
F i r s t Amendment
p ro te c
tions
a s a pp l i ed to
the
f a c t s
of
th e
ca
se . 48
Her e , a l though co un s e l fo r th e
de
f e n d a
n t
a t t e mpted
to
pu t t h i s i ssue in f r o n t o f
th
e lowe r cour t , t
he Cou
r t
to ld h
im
, I l l leave tha t [a
rgument]
to you r
a ppe l l a t e r i gh t s . I ve made my dec i s ion . 4 9 The r e wa s
t h e r e f ore in su f f ic ien t co n s i dera t i on of th e
Fi
r s t
Amendment im
p l i c a t ion s o f
su ch
a r e s t
r i
c t i on .
48 Mark A . Le ml e y Eugene Vo lo kh ,
I NJUNC ONS I N I NTLL ECTU L PROPERTY CASES
171
n . 11 2 (1 9 9 8 ) .
49
Ad
d.
29 .
- 2
3-
FR DOM OF S PEECH AND
48 Duke L
J
. 147 ,
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
24/78
Pr io r r e s t
ra
i n t s a
re
r
ar
e be c a u s e p ub l i c a t i on
must
th
r ea t
e n a n
in
t e r e s t mor e f undamen ta l t h a n the
Fir s t Amendmen t i t s e l f . Pro
c t
e r
Gambl e Co . , 78
F .3d
a t
227 . Here , t here was no compell ing
reaso
n
gi v e n by the Cou r t ,
no attemp t
to
fashion a
rea s o n a
ble
, l e ss r e s tric t i ve a l t e r nat ive ,
a
nd
a n
e
xpr e s s
dism
i s
sa l
o f c
ounsel
s
a t t
emp t s
to
g
e t
a
ru l
in
g on t he Fi
rs
t m ndmen t i ssu e .
50
Meanwh i l e , t he
defendan
t con t inues
to
be
r e s t
ra ined from
pa r ti c ip
a t
i n g i n an
ongoing
debate
onl ine
a bou t h i s
own
l i f e
.
51
2 THE 209A ORDER W S ISSUED IN
VIOLATION
OF THE
DEFEND NT CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
TO CROSS EXAMINATION TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND
TO RGUE IN HIS W DEFENSE
Once th e
p l a i n t i f f
had
g iven he r s
ide
o f
th e
s to ry
,
co
un
se
l f or def endan t r e qu e
s ted
c
ro
ss -
50
The
o r de r a l s o uncons t itu
t iona
l ly puni sh e d Mr .
Gjon
i
fo
r ma
ki
ng p ro tec te d
speech
i n
v io l a t ion
of t h e Fi
rs
t
m
endme nt . See O Br ien , 461 Mass .
a t
425
f i nd ing t ha t
th
e
l eg i s la tu
re
in
t ended the c i v i l h
arassment s t a tu t e
not to crim
ina l i ze p r o t e c
te
d speech ; Commonwealth v .
Welch , 444 Mass . 80 , 98 2005 same fo r the c r imina l
ha r
ass
men t s t a t u t e ) ; Jo
hnso
n , 470 Ma s s .
a t
307
(a na
ly
z i ng whethe r
complained
of on l i ne s
pe
e c h wa s
cons
tit
u t iona l ly pro tec
t e d
fo r
p
ur
p o s e s o f the
c r i mina l
har
a s sment s t a tu t e ) .
51
Whe r
. a
d ir
e c t
p r i
or res t r
a i n t
i s i mposed
upon
the
repor t ing
of news by the m
edia
,
eac
h pass
ing
day may
cons t i tu t e
a
separa te
and cognizable
i n f r ingeme nt of the Fi r s t Amendment .
Nebras
ka Pr e s s
As
sn
. v . St u a r t ,
423
U. S . 1319 , 1329 1975
(
Bl
ackmun , J . ,
in
c
hambe
r s .
- 24-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
25/78
examinat ion o f
t he p l a i n t i f f . The Court r efused ,
s ta
t i ng
: T h e r e s
go in
g t o be no c ross
-examinat ion
o f
the p l
a in t
f . 52 Th i s
was
a c l ea r v i
ola t ion
o f
the
def e ndan t s d ue
p r
oc e s s r
i gh t
s a t a 209A hear in g . C .O .
v . M.M . , 4 42
Mass
.
648
, 65 6 20 04 ) (e xp r e s s l y prov
id ing
defend
an ts a r i gh t t o c r oss examina t ion in 2 09A
he
a r in
g s ) ; Fr iza do v .
Fr
i z a do ,
420 Mass
.
592
,
a t
598
n . 5 (1995 ) . Se e U
.S
.
Cons
t . Amend . VI ; Mass . Decl . o f
Rts . Ar t . 12 . The Cou r t s i mi l a r
ly e rred in
r e f u s i ng
to a ll ow th e def e
ndant
t o pre s en t e vidence on
h is
F ir
s t
Amendmen t a rg ument o r to e v
en
m k
t
l g l
rgum nt ts
l
Se e G. L . c .
209A
, 4 ; C . O. , 44 2
Ma ss .
a t
656
r e
qui r ing a meaningfu l
oppo
r tu n i t y [ f o r
the defendant
] t o be he a r
d .
) .
3 THE 209A
OR ER
W S ISSUED UN ER THE WRONG
ST N R FOR BUSE
The s t a ndard fo r a bu se under c . 209A s . l
i s
e i t h e r (a ) a t t empt ing to caus e o r ca u s i n g phys i ca l
har
m; (
b)
p l a c i ng a no
the
r
in
fea
r
o f
i
mm
i n e n t
se r ious
phy s ica l h a r m; o r
c) cau
s ing a no t he r to e n ga ge
i nvo l u
n t a r l
y i n s e xua l re l a t i ons by f orce , t h r ea t o r
Add
.
21
.
- 2 5 -
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
26/78
dur e s s G.L . c . 209A s . 1 Dur i ng t he 20 9A
hea
r i
ng
on
Se
p
te
mbe r 30 , 2
014
,
coun
s
e l
fo r t he de f endant
a rt c u l ated the re l eva
nt
se c t i on , pa r t (b ) , o f t h i s
s
tan
da rd a s whethe r th e re i s
i
i ne
nt
t h r e a t of
s e v e r e , s e r i ous , ph y s i c a l harm f
rom
t he de f e n d
an t
,
upon t he p la i n t i f f . s3 The Co
ur
t
disp
ut e d t h i s ,
sugge s t ing t hat
fe
a r of
harm is
no t t he
on
ly ba s
i s
fo r i s su i ng an abus e o
rder
, [ t ]he r e s a l s o t he
i n t i mi da t ing or
con
t
r o l l i
ng
conduc
t o f t he defendan t .
Tha t s b
een
we l l es tabl ished by case l aw s.
At
a l l 209A h
ea
r i
ng
s
the pr
oper i
nquir
y un
der
pr
ong b) (
the
f ea
r
pr
ong ) i s whe
the r p l a i n t i f f
had
been p
lac
ed
in
a re a s on ab le fea r o f i mminent
se r
iou s
physi
c a l ha rm
G.L .
c .
209A, 1 ; Vi t t one v .
Cla
i rmont ,
64 Mass . App . Ct .
479 , 485 (Lenk ,
J ( Abu s e has t he s ame s t a t ut or y def in
i t ion
in th e
con tex t o f i n i t
i a l
,
ex t e n de d ,
a nd permane
nt
ord e r s . ) ;
Cal lahan
v . Callahan , 85 M
ass
. App . Ct .
369
, 37 3 (20 1 4) .
Despi t e th i s l a w,
the
Cou r t
appea
rs to
hav
e
53 A
dd
. 27 .
54
Ad
27 28
- 2 6-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
27/78
dev i s e d
i t s
own s
ta
nd a rd b a s ed on in
t
mi
da t in
g o r
cont r ol l ing behavi o r . Such behavior may
be
con
s id
e r ed in t
he
c on t ex t of
an
abuse o r d e r lre dy
i s sued based
on p st
phys i l harm ( i . e . , unde r prong
. See Ca l l a han , 85 Mass . App . Ct . a t 37 4
cons ider ing s uch behavior where pla in t i f f
had
a l r e a dy obta i ned a n
ord
e r ba s e d on phys i c a l harm) ;
Vi t to ne , 64 Mas s . App . Ct .
a t 489
(c o n s i d e r i ng such
b
eha
v i
or
where hu
sband
was abou t to be
re l
ea sed f rom
pr i s on
for pa s t violen ce t owa r d s wife and ch i ld r en ) .
But t
he
r e wa s no
such
p r i o r r e s
t ra in ing
o r de r ba
sed
on pas t ph ys i c a l a bu s e pr e sent
he
r e .
ST T M NT
OF RE SONS
WHY
DIRE T
PPELL TE REVIEW
PPROPRI TE
Di r e c t Appe a te Rev iew i s
ap
p ro
pr i a t
e here f o r
a t l e a s t t h ree r e a sons . ir s t , t h e 209A o r der i s
an
ongo i ng con s
t
tu t iona l
i n f r
ingement o f
the
de fendant s
r ig h t to f r ee
spee
ch . The ongoing i n junc t iv e na t ure
o f t h e r e
s t r a i n t
r
equi re
s
an
a p
pe l
l
a te cour t
t o
re v i ew
su
c h
a
ca s e
expe
d i t i ous l y .
55
S
econ
d ,
55 I
n
(i n
vo
l v ing
such
re mm F . , 1 7 A. 3d 947 (Conn . 20 15 )
e xped i t ed rev i ew) ; Pa t uxen t
Publ i
sh ing
- 27-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
28/78
repre s en t s a co
ns t i t u t
i onal
que
s t i on of f i r s t
i mp r e s s i o n fo r th i s Cou
r t
a
bo
ut how t o
re
conc i l e
the
s t a t e
s
i nt e r e s t i n
pr
e vent i ng s peech - based a bu s e
under G. L . c . 209A with t he Fi r s t mendment.
Thi
r d ,
t he
ca se
i nvolve s
cons
t
i tu
t io na l ques
t ons
whi c h ha ve
been r a is e d i n a cour t of the Commonweal t h . F i na y ,
t h i s i s a qu e s t i on
of
ftg
r ea t pu
b l ic in t ere
s t
,
be cau s e , i t d e a l s wi th a ki nd o f con t rove r sy
t h a t
ha s
bee
n a r i s i ng repeat e d l y in r e c e nt y
ea rs
,
and i s su
re
to a r i se
aga
in . Se e E
xh
. A; M
ass
.
R. of
App . Pr o 11.
N LUS ON
[T ] he
prope r adm
in i s
t ra t io n of r e s t ra
in
i ng
or d e rs i s an
imp
o r tan [t ]
fun
c t ion o f th i s Cour t .
S
in
gh V . Cap
uano
, 468 Ma ss . 328 , 32 9 20 14)
c
i t a t
on
s
an
d
quot
a
t ions
omit ted .
In the
a ge
of
s oc i
a l
me d i a
t he r e i s mo r e publ i c on l i ne
sp
eech t ha n eve r and
l ik e
wise
ma
ny
more unw i l l i n g s
ubj
e c ts
of
t
h is spe
e
ch
.
Th i s case i s about whethe r unw i l l ing s u b j ec ts o f
Cor p . V . St a t e , 429 A
.2
d 554 Md.
Ct
.
Sp
ec . App .
198 1 ) , ava i lab le a t h t tp : / / s
ch
o l a r go
ogl
e com/
sc ho la r _c a s e
?cas
e=773257047 4390557 17 1 sam
e
; Keene
Co rp . V . Aba t e , 608 A.2 d 811 d . Ct . Spec . App .
19 92 ) , av a i lab le a t h t tp : / / s cho la r .go
ogle
.com /
sc ho l a r c a s e ?ca s
e=799832066555
488615
sa
me) .
- 28-
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
29/78
c r i t i c l s peech can
res or
t to
speech
p r ov i s i ons
i n
20 9A o r d e r s
t o s i len
ce
t h e i
r on l i
ne
c r i t
ic s
e ve n
where
the
r e ha s b e
en
no t h
r e t
s o l
i c
i
t
t
io
n o f
violence
o r a s s a
u l t
. As i s a
pparen
t f r om t he l owe r
Cou r t s dec i s io n i n t h i s case Ma s sachuset t s Cou
r t
s
r e
wi
t h out d i r
ec t i on f r om
t h
i s Cou r t whe n
comes to
r e gu
l t
ing on l i
ne
s peech . As
s uch
re v i
ew
i s
a p
p r
o p r i t e t o address
the s ign
i
f i c
n t and wide -
rang i ng
f r e e s
pe
ech
i ss ue s p r e sented . F
or
t h e
f o r e
goi
ng rea s
on
s Mr .
Gjoni
s p
e t i t
i
on fo r
d i r e c t
a ppe l l t e re v i e w sho
uld
be
l l
ow
ed
t h e Atto rney
r Er on
Gjoni
Submi t ted
Harr i s
679
118
GOOD SCHNEIDER
ORM
I ER
83 At l
n t i c
Ave .
B
o s t o
n 02 110
617 523 5933
jh@g s cbo s t o n . com
- 2 9
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
30/78
ERTIFI TE OF SERVI E
I h
e r
eb
y
ce
r t i f y
t ha t I
have se
r v e d
th e
fo r e g o i ng do
cum
e nt u
po
n
co
unse l
fo
r th e Common
wea
l t h
b y ema and 1
s t
c l s s mi l
to
Ryan P . u ll iv
an
Law
Of f
i c
e o f
Ryan u l l iv
n
11 Kea
rney
Squ
a
re
2 1 Howe
bldg . L
owel l
MA 0
185
2 .
G. Ha r r i s
Jun
e 12 2 0 1
5
30
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
31/78
xhi it
Let te r of
U
A Law Pro
fe ssor
Euge n e Vo l okh in Suppo r t o f
irec t
pp el la te
Rev
iew
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
32/78
UNlVERSITY
OF
CALIFORN
IA, LOS ANGE
LES
BERKELEY D.-\\15 . I R\ IN E . Lo s M ERCE RI VERSIDE SAN D IEGO .
FR A CISCO
UCLA
S ,\ STA BAR B.-\RA S .-\NTA
CRUZ
EUGENEVOLOKH
GARY
T.
SHW RTZPROf ESSOROFLAW
Ju
ne 12
2
015
Chief
Ju
s
ti
ce Ra lph D. Gants
Su
pr
eme
Judi
cia l Court
Jo
hn Adams Cou
rt
house
On
e Pemb erton
Sq
uare,
Suite
2500
Boston, MA 02 108
. s ( ~ . _
;; ;f \
l f\
SC
HOOL
OF LAW
BOX951476
LOS
AN
GELES , CA
9009
5-1476
(3 10) 206 -3926
volokh@law_uc1a.
ed
u
Re:
Van Valk enburg v. Gjoni
Appe
al
s Co
ur
t No. 2015-P-0540
Application f
or
Direct Appellate Review
Deal Chief
Ju
stice
Gant
s and Associ
at
e J ustices of
th
e Court:
We are writing in support of the Application for Direct Appellate Review
in
th is
case. We a re the authors of Eugene Volokh, One-to-One
p
eech vs. One-to-Many
peech Crimin l Harassment Laws nd Cy berstalking
107 Nw, U. L. Rev . 731
(2013),
and
A
aron
H. Caplan,
Free peech nd Civil Harassment Orders
64 Has
ti ngs L.J . 781 (2013), rec
en
t articl es t hat deal, among other things, wi
th
ord
er
s
re
stri
cting
speech
abou
t people.
This ca se involves a question
j]
of fir st imp ression before t
his
Court; it involves
a question conce
rn
ing
th
e Fi
rst
Amendment to the Con
st
it
ut
ion of the United
Stat
es ; and we believe
it
involves a quest ion of
great publi
c i
nter
est, because it
deals with a kind of controversy
th
at
ha
s be
en
arising rep
eat
edly in rec
ent
years,
a nd is s
ur
e to arise aga in . App . P . R. 11. This Courts a tte
nt
ion is the refore needed
to cla rify th i
s are a of the law .
In rec
en
t yea
rs
, some cour
ts
t hrougho
ut
the country- including in Massachu
setts-
have
entered strikin gly broad injunction s that bar a wide range of speech
about par ticul ar peop le . These
inju
nctions, like the one in t h is case, are not limited
to unprotected speech, such as proven libel, fighting words, threats,
0 1
speech
in t
en
ded to a
nd
likely to
in
cite im
min
en
t illeg
al
conduct. Nor are they
limi
ted to
unwante
d speech
to
a p
er
son. Ra
th
el , they re
strict
a wide
ra
nge of speech to the
public
about
t he per
son
.
Thu
s, for instance, in
C
h n
v. Ellis
770 S.E.2d 851 (20 15), the Georgia
Supr
eme
Co
ur
t rev
er
sed an inj unc
ti
on that ordered a web site ope rator, Mat
th
ew Chan, to
dele te a ll posts relati ng to [Linda] Ellis from hi s web site , a nd likely forbade the
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
33/78
Page 2
pos ti ng of f
ut
ur e po
st
s as well. The Georgia Supr
em
e Court concluded that the
inj unct ion
wa
s not
au
thorized by Georgia law,
la
rge ly beca use it covered speech
abo ut a person and
no t
ju
st
speech to her . The cour t therefore did
no t
need to reac h
the ser ious Fi rst Amendment objections to the injunction.
Likewise , in
Kleeni v. Hamrick
a local gadfly and past local candida te , blogged
offen sive t
hi
ngs abo
ut
t he sis ter of a town's mayor ,
wh
o wa s a lso a local civic figu re .
An Ohio Court of Common Pleas
ju d
ge respon ded by or de
ri n
g tha t the blogger is
p rohibited from post in g any information/comments/threa ts/or any other da ta on any
inte rn e t sit e, reg a
rd
in g the p
et i
ti on
er
and any memb
er
of her immedia te or
exte nded family . . . on any s ite , including both h
er
own blog an d t he
Cleveland.com news si
te.
In
Kim berlin v. Halher
a Maryla nd cou rt similarly enjoined a blogge r from
blogging about a political act ivis t who wa s also a conv icted crimina l
That order,
too, wa s la t
er
vaca te d- though not for a month a hal f, t ime during wh ich the
blogger's Fir st Amendment
ri
ghts we
re
sup
pr
essed. A
nd
in
Ni lan v. Valenti
a
Massach usett s court order ed a blogger (and for mer professional journalist) to
remove
hi
s blog post s abo
ut
a woman who had been accused of cri
min
al neglig
en
ce
and lea
ving the scene of an acciden t after hit t ing a pedestrian with her car, and
who happened to be the dau
gh
ter of a local judge. Again , that order was la ter
vacated.s
' Order of Prote
ct i
on at 3, Kleem v. Ham r ick, No. CV 11 761954 (Ohio Ct. Com. PI. Aug.
15, 2011),
available at
ht tp ://www.volokh.com/wp-cont entlup loads/2012/07/
KleemvHamrickOrder .pdf. The orde r was reve rsed a week la ter. J ourna l En try,
Kleem
No.
CV 11 761954,
available at
http://www.volok h.com/wp-con tent /upload s/2012/07/
Kleemvl-lam r ick frrder .pdf at 5.
2
Final Peace Ord
er
,
Kim berlin
WaLker
No. 060 1SP0197920 12 (Md. Di
st
. Ct . May 19,
2012
ava ilabLe at http://www.law.ucla .edu/volokh/
crimh
arass/AaronWorthing-ord
er
.jpg:
Hea ring at 59- 60, Ki m berlin No. 0601SP019792012 (Md. Dist. Ct . May 2
9 2
012).
3
Ord
er
of D
en
ial of Pet it ion for Peace Ord
er
,
Kim berlin v. W
ll
er
No. 8526D (Md. Cir.
Ct. J uly 5, 2012),
a vai lable at
http://www.law.ucla. edu/volokh /cr imha ra ss /99246349-Peace
Or
der-Va
ca t
ed-?-5-12.pdf.
, H
ar
assment Prevention Ord
er
,
Ni
l n
v. VaLe
nti
No. 12 27RO 235 (Mass . Dist . Ct .
J une 27, 2012),
available at
htt p ://www .volokh.com/wp-content /upload s/20 12/07/
nilan orde r.png: Andrew Amelinckx, Judge Gives N ila n Harassment Protection from
Valenti Orders Him to Redact Blog
BER
KS
HIRE EAGLE , June 27, 2012.
5
Modificat ion , Ex tension or Ter m inat ion of Ha rassmen t Preven tion Order, i l n
No.
12 27RO 235 (M
as s
. Dist . Ct .
Jul
y 9, 2012).
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
34/78
Pa ge 3
Co
urts
in
ot he
r
st
ates
h ave likewise enjoi
ne
d people f
ro
m
say
i
ng
a
nyt
h i
ng
a t a ll
onli
ne
about
ex-love
rs
?
or
ex
-spo
us
es
lawye
rs
. Cou
rts
hav
e
en
joined
pe o
ple fro m
crit
i
cizi
ng th o
se w
it
h wh
om
t
he
p
eo p
le
have had bu
siness de
aling
s .e
On
e co
u rt
ha s
issued
a res t r a
in i
ng
ord
er
bas
ed
on a
de f
endant s re p
e
at
edly
(a nd ac
curat
el y
)
p
ubl
iciz ing
th
e fact th a t t
he
pl
ain
tiff ha d be
en
su s
pended from pra
ctici
ng
law for
d
efraud i
ng
a clien t .
Ye t , as t h is Co ur t h a s not ed,
ev e
n c
ri
mi
na
l
punishm
ent of suppos edly
ha
rass
[i
ng
] speech about a p
er
son is p
er
missibl e on ly if the speech fi ts w
ithin
a
F ir
st Am endm ent
exce
pti
on
.
Com
monwea
lth v J ohnson
470
l
ass .
30
0 , 310 (20 14);
O rien v Borowski 46
1
l
a ss . 4 15,
42 3
(20 12) ,
abrogated in unrela ted
pa
rt and
applied in rel
evant
part S eney V Mortliy 46 7 Ma ss
. 58, 63 (20 14).
fortiori
t he
injunctio n
in this c
as e
,
ba
rr
i
ng
t he pos
ti
ng
of
al l informa t ion abo
ut
Ms . Va n
6 Morelli V Morelli
No. A06-04-60750-C, at 9 (Pa. Ct. Com. PI. J un e 6, 20 11),
available
at
http ://www.law.ucla .edu/volokh /crimh
ara
ss/MorelliTr
an
script .pdf (
Fat
he r [sic] shall
take down th
at
website and shall neve r on any public media make any r
ef
erence to mother
at all, nor an y reference to t he relationship between mother and chil
dr
en, nor s
ha
ll he
make
any r
ef
erence to his children other t
ha
n ha ppy bi
rt
hda y or ot
he r
significant school
event s. ); Injunct ion at 2,
Schmidt v Ferguson
No.
JO
V
I6
11 (Wis. Cir . Ct. Apr . 9, 20JO),
available at
http:
//www.volokh.com/wp/wp-c
on t
en t/up loads/20 JO/09/fe
rg u
son-schmid t
order.pdf ( Respondent may NOT use int ernet in
an y manner
to communicat e about
Petitioner ever again. );
Johnson v Arlotta
No. AII
6
30, 2011 WL 614165 1, at *3 (Minn.
Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2011) (upholding order direc
ti n
g defe
nd a
nt
to remove
hi s
blog [about
th
e
ex-girl friend] from the Intern et) ;
see also Flash V Holtsclaw
789 N.E.2d 955, 957-58 (Ind.
Ct . App, 2003) (discussing co
ur
t order b
ann
ing an ex-boyfriend from sending le
tt
ers about
his ex-girlfr iend to local bars, as king tha t t hey not serve alcohol to her).
7
Injunct ion
at
3,
Martin u Ferguson
No. JOCV2326 (Wis . Cir . Ct .
Jun
e 22, 20
JO
,
availab le at
http://www .volokh .com/wp/wp-conten t/up loads/20
JO
/09/ferguson-martin
order.
pd f
( Respondent may not use the i
nt e
rn
et
in
an y
manner to
commun
i
cate
ab
ou t
p
etiti
on
er
[respondent s ex-husband s lawye r] or h
er
law firm while the
injun
ction is in
place.);
id
( Responde
nt
sha ll imm
ed iat
ely remove web
si t
e www.li
samartin
-
att
orney.com
from the i
nter net an d
sha ll ma ke no fut ure websites or pos
ti n
gs to oth
er
websi tes , or on
Y
ah
oo, reg
ar
ding p
et i
tioner or h
er
law firm while the
injun
ction is in place. ).
8 See e g RD v PM
135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 791, 800
n.1I
(Ct. App. 2011) (upholding an
injunction tha t b
arre
d d
ef
end a
nt
from, among o
ther
t hings, di
st ributi
ng leaflets c
riti
cal of
plaint iff near plai ntiff clinic social work
er
s workplace);
Lamont V Gilday
No. 07-2-37030
7SEA, 2008 WL 4448652,
at
*3-4 (Wash.
Su p
er . Ct. M
ar
. 5, 2008) (enjoining d
ef
endant
from
making
any
stat
eme
nt
s
about
d
ef
en
dant
s ex-employer and/or [this] lawsuit or
a nyone who testified in
th
e
tr
ia l, eith
er di r
ectly by name, or ind irectly by r
efer
ence, via . . .
any . form of communication) .
9 Welyto v Ziolkousshi
752 N.W.2d 359 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008 ).
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
35/78
Page 4
Va lk
enbur
g,
therefor
e app
ea
rs to be an uncons
ti tu t
ional ly overb
roa
d
pri
or
re
str
a
int.
An
in
junction t
ha
t forb ids speech act ivit
ies
is a classic examp le of a
pr
ior
restra int . Care Protection Edith 421 Mass . 703, 705 (1996); see also
Organization for
a
Better Austin v. Keefe
402 U.S. 415 (1971) (
st
r ik ing down an
inju
nct ion b
arri
ng leaflet t
in
g critica l of a p
er
son);
NAACP
v.
Claiborne Hardware
458 U.S. 886, 924 n.67 (1982) (likewise) ; People v. Bethea No. 2003BX036814, 2004
WL 190054 , a t *1 2 (N.Y. Crim. Ct . J an. 13, 2004) (rejecting crimina l ha rassment
prosecut ion of wom
an
who h
ad
post ed leafl ets sharply criticizing t he a llegedly
deadbeat fa ther of her child, and rely ing on the pr inciple that Americans are,
afte
r
a ll, free to criticize one another ).
An
d even the
na
rrow
er
portions of the injunctio n,
if
seve
re
d from the rest of the
injunction, would still ra ise serious First Am
endm
ent problem s. An
in
j
un
ction
banning only speech that e ncourage [s] ha te mobs would be
un
cons
ti tu
tion
al
,
since
it
is not limited to punis
ha
ble speech t
hat
is inte nde d to and l
ik
ely to
pr
omote
imminent law les s conduct , under Bran denburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969), and
Hess v. Indiana 414 U.S . 105, 108-09 (1973). (Note t hat the U.S. Sup reme Cour t s
decision ov
ert
ur
ning
th
e
injun
ction
in Claiborne Hardware
involved speech th
at
,
according to pla intiffs, h ad the potential to le
ad
others to r
eta
liate aga in
st
the
target
of t he speech ; so did the decision s rev
er
sing the injunct ions
in
Kim berlin and
Nilan supra.i
Likewise, even an injunct ion bann
in
g only
inf
orma ti on about Van Valkenburg s
pe rsona l life would likely be unconst
it
utio
na
l. Speech res
tr i
ctions
aim
ed at pro
tect
ing privacy,
lik
e
othe
r rest r ictions,
mu
st comp ly wi th
the
First Amendment. See
e.g. Care
Protection Edith
421 Mass. at 706. Mer e in t rusion on a persons
alleged privacy interest is not by its
el f
an adequate base on which to
pr
edicate a
broad prior rest raint on another s free speech. Nyer v. Munoz Mendoza 385 Mass.
184, 189 (1982); Keefe 402 U.S. at 419-20; see also Collins v. Bazan 568 S.E. 2d 72,
73-74 (2002) (concluding that , [i]n const
ru
ing the s
ta
lking s
tat
u
tes
so
as
to find
them cons titu tional, the Georgia Supreme Court rea d them as limi ted to speech
th a t is not protected exp
ress
ion und
er
t he F ir
st
Amendment, a nd th
at
the sta t utes
therefore do not authorize an inj unct ion eve n aga inst extremely inse nsitive speech
publishing or discussing [
an
ex-girl fr iend s] med ica l condition ). Thus, eve n if some
narrow injunctions aga in s t speech may be j
us t
ified on pr ivacy grounds , a ban on all
speech about a persons perso
na
l life ca nnot.
This case thus
in
volves a re
curr
in g a nd impo
rta
nt constitutio
na
l issue, wh ich is
of sub
stantia
l importance to Massa
chu
setts cit izens
as
well
as
to the bench
an
d the
bar, and therefore meri ts di rect appe
llate
review by this Court.
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
36/78
Pa ge 5
Sincerely
ugene Vol
okh
For mys
elf
and for rof Aaron H Caplan
Loyola Law School Los Angeles
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
37/78
T LE OF CONTENTS OF THE DDENDUM
1 .
Complain
t a nd ffidavit in
Support
o f 2 9A
Or de r Add . 1
2 . Tr a n s c r i p t
of
Septe
mber
16 2 4 e x pa r t e
he
a r ing Add . 3
3 . Trans
c r i
p t
of
Sep tember 30
2 4
209A
Hearing Add . 15
4 . 20 9A Or de
r
Add . 38
5 . N
o t i
ce o f AppeaL Add . 40
32
-
7/23/2019 Valkerburg v Gjoni
38/78
F
- -
- I
J
- - -
- - -
--
- ----
l: :
.
0
Iv
lJ
F_
I
C O l \ l ~
r
N F 6 R
P o
T C O W t o n i 2 i j C USE < D f\l0-:-- _,_., ~ .; ~
(
Ci
. l .
~ _ Moo
\ j
- Ul ,
hi
/L CO 1I-
.. k
.
w -.
-...
.\.,- ' . , i
I e;
D ; Mu r,IIC1P
Al
COURT 1D DISTRICT COURT lD PROBATE & FMlill YCOW1T I 0 SUPERlon COUH'I 1 .- _=_=__-= OIVISI,) N
l-
j
'13mc of
Plaintiff
(person seeking protection)
. Name
of
Defendant s o l 1
accused of f
~ Defenda nt's
L (, Alias , if any
1:.- (1) '1 ....... \ 1
i To my knowledqe, ti le Defendant possesses til e following
guns, ammunition. firearms identificatio n card, and/or license
fa carry: O
\.{
[ 6
.
I am 18 or older.
o
I am under the age 01 18, ancl
- - - - _ - - - - - ,
rny
- (re/ations/llp
10P/ainfiiJ)
has filed this
complaint
for me.
o T ile Defendant is 18 or o lder.
G
The Defendan t and Plaintitt:
[ ] cuecur rently married to each other
I] were formerly married
1
each othe r
o are not married but we are related 0 each other by
blood or marrinqe: specifically, the Delendant is illy
U
are the parent s of