Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Domestic Violence
In a tale of former friends who became litigious enemies, Craft v. Fuller, 2D19-2891 (Fla. 2d DCA May 27, 2020) goes through the factors a court must analyze in determining whether or not cyberstalking has occurred.
After the parties’ friendship dissolved, they each filed petitions for injunction against domestic violence directed at each other at various times. Finally, they both agreed to leave each other alone and dismissed their respective petitions in 2018. Shortly thereafter, one of them (referred to here as “Friend A”) began tweeting on his personal Twitter feed messages accompanied by the hashtag “spoofingschmuck”. Although the other party (referred to here as “Friend B”) did not follow Friend A on Twitter and the tweets did not mention Friend B by name, Friend B’s family and friends saw the tweets and informed him about them. Friend B believed the tweets were about him because he had been arrested in the past for spoofing.
As a result, Friend B filed a petition for injunction against cyberstalking, alleging Friend A’s tweets with the hashtag were directed at him, which caused him emotional distress. Friend B testified at the hearing on the petition that he believed the tweets to be in reference to him based on the animosity between the parties and his previous arrest. He further testified he was losing sleep and was unable to eat because of the tweets. Friend A testified that the tweets had nothing to do with Friend B and instead were posted to express his general disdain for anyone who would make spoof calls. The trial court found the tweets were directed at Friend B, that he suffered emotional distress and that the tweets served no legitimate purpose. Friend A appealed.
The appellate court explored each of the three factors necessary to sustain an injunction against cyberstalking: 1) that it be directed at a specific person; 2) that there is a showing of substantial emotional distress and 3) that it serves no legitimate purpose. Applying each of these factors to the case, the appellate court found there was insufficient evidence to support a cyberstalking injunction. The appellate court held “As tweets posted on [Friend A’s] own Twitter feed, they were not "directed at" any specific person but were instead directed at his entire collection of followers, which notably did not include [Friend B] And even if one or more of the tweets may have been an indirect reference to [Friend B], such indirect references posted on a private Twitter feed are insufficient as a matter of law to support a conclusion that the tweets were ‘directed at’ [Friend B].”
Next, the appellate court held “Here, the record shows that [Friend A’s] tweets were neither threatening nor menacing nor hostile nor, frankly, even embarrassing. They did not mention [Friend B] by name, they did not tag [Friend B] so as to single him out, and they did not occur in response to some otherwise threatening event that might have changed their character. No objectively reasonable person—not even one with a prior arrest for spoofing—would have suffered ‘substantial emotional distress’ as a result of these tweets. Finally, the court held “First, the trial court misapplied the applicable burdens of proof. Regardless of how misguided [Friend A’s] tweets may have been, [Friend B] had the burden to prove that they served no purpose other than to harass [. . .] [Friend A] did not have the burden to prove that his tweets had a legitimate purpose; [Friend B] had the burden to prove that they did not. This he failed to do. Second, the mere fact that tweets or other communications are ‘directed at’ an individual does not establish, as a matter of law, that they have no legitimate purpose. As long as there is a reason for the communications other than harassment, the communications will have a legitimate purpose even if they are directed at someone who does not welcome them.”
The court concluded its opinion by reminding the parties that these injunctions were not to be used to “cure all social ills.” If you need help with a Florida domestic violence injunction, schedule a meeting with a Florida domestic violence lawyer to go over how the law may apply to your case.