Can’t Enjoin Future Internet Postings Prior to Trial

A trial court erred when, prior to trial, it restrained a former wife from posting on the internet allegedly defamatory statements about her former husband.

The California appeals court found that to obtain an injunction before trial, “a proponent has a heavy burden to show the countervailing interest is compelling, the prior restraint is necessary and would be effective in promoting this interest, and less extreme measures are unavailable.”

The case arose after a divorce. The husband, a deputy sheriff, sought an injunction to prevent his former wife from posting alleged defamatory comments about him as a law enforcement officer and accusing him of physically abusing his former wife and harassing her. He further alleged that she was publishing confidential and personal information about him. He also alleged that she filed false complaints against him with the sheriff’s department.The trial court granted a preliminary injunction barring his ex-spouse from posting further comments on the internet and preventing her from contacting the sheriff’s department, unless in the case of an emergency.

The appellate court found that the injunction against posting was overbroad, vague and an unconstitutional prior restraint before trial. The appellate court found that “the court’s preliminary injunction prohibiting Linda from publishing any ‘false and defamatory’ statements on the Internet is constitutionally invalid. Because there has been no trial and no determination on the merits that any statement made by Linda was defamatory, the court cannot prohibit her from making statements characterized only as ‘false and defamatory.'”

As to the confidential and personal information, the court found the injunction also was overly broad and vague. However, because it concerns the right of privacy, an injunction might be proper under compelling circumstances. The appellate court found the husband had not presented evidence on any compelling circumstances but said because he was a law enforcement officer, there may be a legitimate public concern “of protecting the safety of a law enforcement officer” if his home address, telephone number, and social security number were posted on the internet. “If a compelling reason exists, the court should immediately enjoin Linda from publishing the information,” the appellate court wrote.

Thomas C. Evans v. Linda A. Evans, California Court of Appeals, 4th District, No. D051144, filed May 12, 2008.