The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Court Ordered Critic of Ex-Mayoral Candidate to Stop "Publicly Writing, Printing, or Speaking [Ex-Candidate's] Name"
Fortunately, an appellate court just reversed the decision.
From today's Coble v. Ballentine, by N.C. Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, joined by Judges John Arrowood and April Wood:
Although Defendant and Plaintiff were originally friendly with each other, their relationship deteriorated upon the death of Defendant's father. Defendant has not directly contacted Plaintiff since 2022.
Defendant and Plaintiff are active in local politics and use their social media accounts to express their political views. While both associate with the Randolph County Republican Party, Defendant and Plaintiff have supported opposing candidates in the past.
In March 2024, Plaintiff announced on Facebook that she would run for mayor of Randleman in the 2025 election. Later that year, in response to Plaintiff's candidacy announcement, Defendant made a Facebook page titled "Anybody But Coble." Additionally, Defendant later created a website, www.AnybodyButCoble.org. On these platforms, Defendant wrote articles opposing Plaintiff's mayoral candidacy. Facially, Defendant created "Anybody But Coble" to assist voters in their mayoral candidate selection for Randleman….
[Around the start of 2025], Plaintiff stated online that she would no longer run for mayor. Nevertheless, the mayoral candidate filing period remained open until July 2025. Despite Plaintiff's online statement that she would not run for mayor, Defendant did not remove the content on his platforms concerning his opposition to Plaintiff's mayoral candidacy.
Plaintiff sought a "no-contact order against Defendant," and the trial court "ordered Defendant to refrain from publicly writing, printing, or speaking Plaintiff's name in any manner as well as going within fifty yards of Plaintiff." The appellate court reversed:
A person may commence an action for a civil no-contact order when he or she is a victim of unlawful conduct [including stalking, defined as] … the following or harassing of another person on more than one occasion without legal purpose with the intent to either (1) instill reasonable fear in another person for their safety or the safety of those close to them, or (2) cause another "to suffer substantial emotional distress by placing that person in fear of death, bodily injury, or continued harassment and that in fact causes that person substantial emotional distress." Furthermore, such harassment includes knowing conduct such as "written or printed communication or transmission … or other computerized or electronic transmissions directed at a specific person that torments, terrorizes, or terrifies that person and that serves no legitimate purpose." Simply, civil harassment constitutes "(1) knowing conduct (2) directed at (3) a specific person (4) that torments, terrorizes, or terrifies, and (5) serves no legitimate purpose."
This Court has acknowledged a distinction between online posts written "about" an individual and those sent "directly to" an individual. Weller v. Jackson (N.C. App. 2021) (unpublished) (citing State v. Shackleford (2019)). In Weller, the defendant posted online articles that discussed the plaintiff, but these posts were not directed at the plaintiff; therefore, the no-contact order was reversed. Unlike the criminal stalking statute in Shackleford, Chapter 50C concerning civil no-contact orders does not expressly include definitional language of communicating "to or about a person."
Here, Defendant posted online articles and opinions about Plaintiff and her eligibility as mayor; they were not directed to her. Even assuming Defendant was aware Plaintiff used social media, such awareness does not necessarily mean Defendant directed his online posts to Plaintiff. Furthermore, the purported purpose of "Anybody But Coble" to aid voters buttresses the notion that Defendant's publications were directed at undecided voters in Randleman, not Plaintiff.
Moreover, writing in the second person suggests the writer is writing directly to someone; we do not see the use of the second person in Defendant's posts. Defendant refers to Plaintiff in the third person throughout his publications in "Anybody But Coble." While writing in the third person is not dispositive, it tends to support Defendant's claim that his online communications were about Plaintiff…. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence to support a finding that Defendant stalked or harassed Plaintiff. Thus, we reverse the trial court's no-contact order. Accordingly, this Court need not address Defendant's First Amendment argument….
David W. Rubin and James C. Grant (FIRE) and Greg Gaught (Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P.) represent defendant.
