Start with Tuesday’s decision Calhoun v. Harrell Written by the Georgia Court of Appeals, written by Judge Anne Elizabeth Barnes, with the participation of Judge Elizabeth Gobert:
Marion D. Calhoun appealed in favor of Carlotta Harrell of a three-year stalking protection order against her. Calhoun claimed that her conduct in question — posting comments on Facebook related to Henry County Commission Chairman Harrell — amounted to engaging in constitutionally protected political speech and, in any event, was not sufficient to authorize the order… .
By way of background, it is undisputed that Harrell obtained a one-year stalking protection order against Calhoun in 2021. The following year, in May 2022, Harrell returned to court and filed a petition that resulted in the now-controversial three-year protective order, records show. In support of the petition, Harrell vowed: “Calhoun continues to post[s] On violent social media… I continue to fear for my life and safety due to the constant stalking of Ms. Calhoun through social media.
[At the hearing,] Harrell first called Calhoun to testify. Under such cross-examination, Calhoun described herself as a black community activist; she admitted that she posted a series of comments on Facebook about Harrell, who is also black. In response to various questions, Calhoun admitted that in a February 2022 post, she called Harrell and another person “snakes”; in another February 2022 post, she called Harley Hall and another person from “Rebellious Ancestors” as “MFERS”; In another post in February 2022, she talked about Harrell’s “bloodline”; In other posts in February 2022, she commented Black politician in Henry County; In a March 2022 post, she called Harrell’s father “another dam pimp from the pulpit”; In a March 2022 post, she said the The county’s black politicians can come get her because they know where she is; In one April 2022 post, she called Harrell a “skunk”; In another post, she referred to Harrell as described as “a piece of shit”; in other posts between August 2021 and April 2022, she described Harrell’s pattern as “grab and stomp,” “skin and smile,” and “family black.” When asked if her diatribe was meant as a compliment, a fight or something else, Calhoun’s responses included: “[Harrell] You know why I wrote this. She is black. [For more details on the posts, see pp. 3-6, nn. 5-14 of the opinion. -EV]
When Harrell took the stand, she testified that she was chairperson of the Henry County Commission but sued in her personal capacity, explaining that “[i]This is about my safety”; she was afraid of Calhoun; she considered some of Calhoun’s insults to be militant rhetoric and “inciting rhetoric” intended to “provoke the black community to attack.” [her]” Harrell further confirmed that Calhoun “is pursuing [her] “Family” is what Calhoun has added since his last protective order.
I feel threatened. I feel like my life is being threatened… now… She was talking about my father who was the pastor of a church for 40 years. She doesn’t even know my father…she doesn’t know anything about me. She seemed to be a very angry person and I thought she was a threat to my life.
When Calhoun returned to the witness stand for direct examination, she testified, “I’m a community activist and I speak out what the community needs to hear about corrupt politicians.” She noted that she had posted on Facebook posted her thoughts on several others. Calhoun further testified, “This is what community activists do. I exercised my First Amendment rights in a tough way, but that doesn’t mean I want to harm [Harrell]As she describes herself, “I am a good person who has chosen to make it my life’s work to be a voice for the people, a steward of government, and a good person in my community who is willing to help those in need.”[.]”
Calhoun cited examples of projects she has started, including creating a softball league for girls, launching programs to address some people’s drug addiction, helping launch county drug courts, and helping probationers make incarceration “the last incarceration.” “. take. “I’m very outspoken because I care a lot about what’s going on with people, and it’s not about me wanting to hurt Carlotta Harrell, it’s about making people understand that they have rights,” she explained.[.]”I have to let people know that I’m not always going to be a pretty lady because of a word,” she testified, but “I mean [Harrell] No harm done.
At the end of the hearing, the trial court announced that it had found that Calhoun violated tracking regulations by using certain language in his Facebook posts. Citing the statute, the court explained:
It says – and this is the part of the code about stalking – to harass and intimidate another person, and then it says that means deliberately and deliberately targeting a particular person to behave in a manner that causes emotional distress by placing that person in reasonable fear …. The problem here is your language. I will extend the restraining order. That doesn’t mean you can’t say, vote against [Harrell]. Confront her. It doesn’t matter. But when you start using those vulgar language, you have a problem. That’s the problem, not what you want to do… You call them snakes. You call them the most vicious names I can think of, but you can’t do that.
The court acknowledged to Calhoun that “[y]You do a lot of good things,” but advises, “You need to start being pretty nice with your words. Some of that comes from the recipient as a threat.[W]When you start talking shady, manipulative, lying, evil, selfish garbage, you have gone beyond what you are supposed to do. That’s a threat. This is a violation of the Code.
The appeals court ruled in Calhoun’s favor, primarily on the basis that Tell Ellis (Ga. 2015) (A case I had the pleasure of representing Amici):
exist Listthe Georgia Supreme Court explained,
for the following purposes [stalking] The regulations provide that when a person “contacts another person,” [or she] “Communicate with others” through any medium, including electronic media. Although a person may communicate with another person through any medium to “contact” another person for regulatory purposes, the specific direction of the communication is critical arrive communication to another person, rather than to the general public. Common and customary usage suggests this, as does another provision of stalking law, which defines “harassment and intimidation” as “a knowing and intentional manner of conduct.” Target specific people.“
as List Explaining further, “Communication is about A specific person doesn’t necessarily mean it’s directed arrive that person.[t]Making comments directed only to the public does not generally equate to “contact,” as that term is used [the relevant statute],” List Concluded”[appellee] failed to prove [appellant] “Contact” her without her consent, and [that] The trial court erred in its conclusion: [appellant] Followed [appellee]”…
Given our position…, there is no need to reach Calhoun’s remaining (constitutional) challenge to the three-year trail protective order.
Judge Gobert joined the majority opinion but added:
I write separately to point out that our decision should not be interpreted as implying that social media posts must not be used in violation of anti-stalking or other relevant laws (such as inciting unlawful conduct). In this case, Calhoun’s words and actions—while offensive and disturbing—simply do not rise to the level of “contact” stalking… List …
Judge Trea Pipkin dissented, holding:
exist Tell EllisMatthew Chan’s website has become a repository of criticism of a poet and his efforts to maintain the copyright of his work; the site contains “2,000 posts” about the poet, “some of which [were] Offensive and vulgar. social mediaThat is, Facebook is targeting Harrell.
Consistent with the design of social media, some of Calhoun’s posts “tagged” dozens of other Facebook users and used numerous “hashtags,” both of which were designed to expand the audience of her posts; it is reasonable to infer that these The strategy is also The intention was to reach out to Harrell, especially given that many of the posts were directed at Harrell and some were written in the second person. So, as we must, interpreting the evidence as a finding in favor of the trier of fact, I disagree with the majority that “the record does not show that Calhoun did anything to cause her post to be passed on to Ha Leer or otherwise passed to Harrell”. her attention. ” In fact, records show that Harrell’s sister was aware of the posts and responded; Calhoun later referenced that response in a subsequent post and used it to continue his blistering attack on Harrell.
While I realize we must be careful to limit speech, many of Calhoun’s posts were filled with outlandish racial attacks and unsubstantiated accusations of criminal conduct directed at Harrell and his family. Furthermore, there is undisputed evidence that Harrell feared for his safety and felt threatened by Calhoun. In light of the following evidence presented to the trial court, we are required to adhere to our established standards of review and uphold the trial court’s reasonable exercise of discretion.
In my opinion, most people are right. Please see this article for more information. Ivan Andrew Gustafson represents Calhoun.
