Criminal contempt conviction for violating a personal protection order (PPO); Right to free speech; Protected speech; Purely private matters; Buchanan v Crisler; Harassment & stalking of petitioner on social media; MCL 750.411h(1)(d) & (e); Distinguishing Organization for a Better Austin v Keefe & TM v MZ

Holding that the trial court did not err in ruling respondent’s social media posts were not protected speech, the court affirmed his conviction of criminal contempt for violating a PPO. Petitioner obtained a “PPO prohibiting respondent from stalking her under MCL 750.411h. The parties” had previously been in a relationship. After issuing a second show cause order and conducting a hearing, the trial court “found respondent’s post referencing how ‘Diddy did Meek[]’ and how petitioner was ‘screaming for help’ was a threat of violence. In [its] view, respondent’s posts were ‘intentional acts designed to harass, threaten, intimidate, and make threats of harm,’ which were ‘true threats’ based on respondent’s history of abusing petitioner.” The trial court determined that he “violated the PPO, because his Facebook posts constituted stalking and harassment of petitioner.” Respondent argued on appeal that his conviction violated his free speech rights. The court disagreed, holding that “his harassment of petitioner on social media was not protected speech.” It found the cases on which he relied, Organization for a Better Austin and TM, did not apply here. While the former “involved advocacy on a matter of public concern, respondent’s posts concerned a purely private dispute. Speech on purely private matters is entitled to less First Amendment protection than speech on public issues.” In addition, unlike those cases, his “posts went further than just mentioning or harassing petitioner. The trial court correctly ruled respondent, when reading his posts in context, threatened physical and sexual assault against petitioner.” Among other things, he claimed he strangled her “cousin, then said he ‘tried to warn yall [sic] to stop playing!’ Respondent also stated: ‘I’m coming at everybody like a freight train[.] Innocent bystanders get hit[.]’” He noted that “he did not name or tag petitioner, but the PPO prohibited ‘[p]osting anything about the Petitioner on social media[,]’ not referencing [her] by name.” The court found no clear error in the trial court’s findings. “To the contrary, they were correct and well supported by the evidence of record and the law.”