"[Anti-Harassment] Injunctions Are Not a Remedy for Interpersonal Conflict"
!["[Anti-Harassment] Injunctions Are Not a Remedy for Interpersonal Conflict"](https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/q60/uploads/2021/11/reason-logo-featured-placeholder.jpg.webp){kind=logo}
A Florida appellate court overturned an anti-harassment injunction, ruling that the alleged conduct, while contentious, did not meet the legal definition of stalking under state law. The court emphasized that injunctions are not intended to resolve personal conflicts or regulate offensive speech without a clear pattern of unlawful behavior. It reaffirmed that harassment must involve repeated, purposeful acts causing substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person and serving no legitimate purpose.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Free Speech "[Anti-Harassment] Injunctions Are Not a Remedy for Interpersonal Conflict" So reasons a Florida appellate court, though other courts in other states seem to take a different view. Eugene Volokh | 4.30.2026 8:01 AM From Carvajal v. Ferretti, decided yesterday by the Florida Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Justice Mark Klingensmith, joined by Justices Shannon Shaw and Johnathan Lott: Wife and her husband separated in 2021 and initiated divorce proceedings in 2022. Girlfriend began a relationship with the husband in 2019, prior to the dissolution proceedings.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Reason.com.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Reason.com
