From J.V. v. C.H., a ruling issued on June 18 by New Jersey appellate judges Lisa Rose and Patrick DeAlmeida, with the parties identified in the case by pseudonyms—Carl and Jane—whom I will also reference here for clarity:
The defendant C.H. (Carl) appeals the entry of a final protective order (FPO) against him in favor of the plaintiff J.V. (Jane) under the Victim’s Assistance and Survivor Protection Act (VASPA)….
Their paths first crossed in February 2023, when Jane, an assistant prosecutor, was assigned to a criminal matter charging F.E., Carl’s former girlfriend, with third‑degree burglary and third‑degree theft alleged to have involved Carl….
The charges against F.E. for theft were later reduced and the charges for violating a final restraining order were dismissed, leaving Carl agitated:
Carl reached out to Jane and her supervisors to convey that he was deeply offended by the meeting, dissatisfied with how the proceedings were handled, and unhappy with the prosecution’s approach… Jane testified that Carl sent emails “multiple times a day” and that their tone escalated to be increasingly angry and accusatory. In particular, Jane testified she received “seventy-six emails in seventy-eight days, some of which were sent on multiple occasions on the same day.”
In his communications, Carl asserted that he had no confidence in Jane’s prosecution of the case, charged that she was dishonest with him, and warned that he believed she would soon face consequences. He also visited her office without an appointment on three occasions and made calls “two to three times a day.”
Carl then uploaded videos to his YouTube channel, Rescuing Our Communities, in which he broadly charged that these prosecutorial and law enforcement systems are racist and directed pointed, negative remarks toward Jane. For instance, in the first video Carl described Jane using demeaning terms and depicted her as an obstacle in his view, presenting her in a mocking and hostile light.
In the videos, Carl proclaimed ideas such as punishing those who defend him and suggested that anyone who aided him did not deserve political legitimacy. He warned that if he could, he would examine Jane personally and that there would come a day when he would confront her directly…
He asserted that the prosecutor lied, arguing that this amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. He claimed he could prove that he had sent her text messages that a defense attorney hinted at incompleteness, and he contended that she had withheld them—an accusation he treated as evidence of wrongdoing. He proclaimed that he would file further litigation and grievances, and that the woman involved would be exposed as deceitful.
In these communications, Carl stated that, over the preceding days, he had labeled the prosecutor’s conduct as misconduct in the case involving F.E., and he insisted that, based on the material he had posted, it was clear that the prosecutor had lied.
The appellate court added that Carl had in fact “filed grievances with state and federal authorities” and had fourteen times requested that Jane’s office replace her as prosecutor, without success.
The trial court issued a protective order under VASPA, which authorizes protective measures when a person alleges cyber-harassment—defined as online conduct aimed at harassing another person or threatening harm to them or their property through communications on the internet.
The order, among other provisions, required Carl to delete all posts on his YouTube channel that mentioned the Plaintiff and barred him from posting, in any form or online platform, false, derogatory, or harassing statements about the Plaintiff by name. (The court did not make a finding that the Plaintiff’s allegations were false or libelous.)
The appellate court upheld the order:
[The trial] court initially addressed Carl’s argument that his YouTube videos were protected speech under the First Amendment…. Notably, the court … found that Carl’s videos were designed to attack Jane’s property right—her employment.
The court thus concluded that Carl’s videos “served no legitimate purpose,” but rather attempted to undermine Jane’s character, integrity, and professionalism not merely out of anger, but with the objective of ending her employment. Consequently, it held that, because the videotapes about Jane lacked any legitimate purpose, were created and distributed with the intent to harass Jane and were meant to threaten her job, Carl could not cloak his conduct in First Amendment protections. …
[T]he court observed, for more than a century, that a calling, business, or profession is recognized as property. Based on this comprehensive analysis, the court concluded that Jane had proven the predicate act of cyber-harassment under VASPA….
The trial court cited Jane’s testimony about feeling harassed and noted that Jane had safety concerns. In its credibility determinations, the court described Jane as conveying a sense of anxiety. The record supports Jane’s ongoing fear of Carl at the time she testified….
The central argument advanced by Carl—that the trial court’s decision infringes his First Amendment rights by restricting speech on a matter of public concern—was deemed to have insufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion.
That assessment may be debatable to some readers, and I discuss similar tensions in Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech (Especially in Libel and Harassment Cases). Regardless, the ruling is worth noting. For insight into Carl’s unsuccessful lawsuits against Jane and others, see the decision discussed here (which the defendant has appealed to the Third Circuit).
