AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Petitioner, a philosophy professor, and Respondent, residing in Florida, were once friends through their work in the animal rights movement. Their friendship deteriorated, leading Petitioner to file for an Order of Protection against Respondent, alleging threatening communications and slanderous online posts. The district court issued an Order of Protection, which Respondent violated through her online activity, causing Petitioner severe emotional distress. This led to Respondent's conviction for indirect criminal contempt and a restriction on her internet access, aside from contacting her attorney or accountant (paras 6-7, 9, 13).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued the Order of Protection was invalid as it was based on unproven allegations of stalking, claimed the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, contended that the restrictions on her online activity violated her First Amendment rights, and argued the internet restriction was overbroad (paras 2, 3, 5).
• Petitioner-Appellee: Contended that Respondent's appeal was an impermissible collateral attack on the Order of Protection and maintained that the restrictions imposed were valid and necessary for protection against abuse (paras 2, 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Order of Protection was invalid due to unproven allegations of stalking.
• Whether the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action.
• Whether the restrictions on Respondent's online activity violated her First Amendment rights.
• Whether the district court's restriction on Respondent's internet access was overbroad and violated the First Amendment.

Disposition

• The court affirmed Respondent's term of incarceration but reversed the restriction on her ability to access the Internet (para 5).

Reasons

• The court found that the Order of Protection was not subject to challenge at this stage due to the collateral bar rule, dismissing Respondent's argument about its validity (paras 15-18). It also rejected the claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming the district court's authority (paras 19-21). On the First Amendment issue, the court concluded that the Order of Protection's restrictions on Respondent's online activity did not violate her rights, as they were justified to prevent severe emotional distress to the Petitioner (paras 22-34). However, the court agreed that the almost complete restriction on internet access was overbroad and violated the First Amendment, thus reversing that part of the district court's decision (paras 53-57).