Florida Second DCA: ShesAHomewrecker.com Case

Defamation

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal recently ruled in Melissa Leach v. Tara Michelle Kersey that, under case-specific facts, sending messages, Facebook friending, and posting about another person on She’s A HomeWrecker.com were not “cyberstalking” under Florida Statute 784.0485.

Under the cyberstalking statute, there must be at least two incidents of willful, malicious cyberstalking before a trial court may enter an injunction.  Cyberstalking involves email or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.  The “substantial emotion distress” is measured under a reasonable-person standard and, overall, there must be competent, substantial evidence of cyberstalking.

According to the Second District, “[t]his case arose from the eighteen-month affair Kersey had with Leach’s husband, Dr. Leach.  After Leach learned of the affair, she contacted Kersey by phone and by messages and ‘friend’ requests on Facebook.”  The Court concluded that “Leach made the contacts for the legitimate purpose of telling Kersey to stay away from Dr. Leach.”  Moreover, the Court noted that, “[a] reasonable woman who had an eighteen-month affair with another woman’s husband might well expect to hear the scorn of an angry wife.”

As for whether posting on ShesAHomewrecker.com is cyberstalking, the Second District noted that “the post disclosed Kersey’s involvement in the affair” and that Kersey “bec[a]me concerned [after] Leach posted on the public blog.  Kersey stated that her primary concern was that her children would find out about the situation.”  Whether this would fit under the cyberstalking statute was left unaddressed since this would only be one incident — and at least two are required.

The ShesAHomewrecker.com site (and its Facebook counterpart) has been described as a “site for bullies” by CNN and, according to HuffPo, as a site which “relentless shames the other woman.”

From the context, it appears this may be the “Homewrecker” post which is the subject of this opinion.

 

 

Internet
When You See People Trying to Sue a Social Media Platform Because Their Account Was Suspended, It’s a Stunt (lessons of the CDA & Brittain v. Twitter)

A number of politicians, activists, and others who feel aggrieved after their Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and/or YouTube content has been removed or their accounts suspended have taken to the courts to sue the social media platforms with claims that they are being singled out, muzzled, or their free speech is …

Injunction
Casual Sexual Relationships and Florida’s Injunction Against Dating Violence (versus other injunctions)

When seeking an injunction in Florida to prevent someone from contacting you, pay careful attention to which statute best applies. This is the (unfortunate) lesson of Tyler Sumners v. Lindsey Thompson. After meeting on Craigslist, the parties had a four year consensual sexual relationship punctuated by periods of time when …

1st Amendment
“Valid Grounds for Employment Action” Deemed Not Enough for Stalking Injunction under F.S. 784.048 (Klenk v. Ransom)

Florida’s First District Court of Appeal held today that a respondent’s behavior may be enough for an “employment action” (presumably, for termination due to sexual harassment) but, in this case, was not enough for the “exacting standard” for an injunction against stalking under Florida Statute 748.048. The case is Joseph …