Political commentary not directed at candidate cannot support no-contact order

The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed a civil no-contact order entered against the defendant after concluding that online criticism of a local political candidate did not amount to stalking or harassment under Chapter 50C.

The plaintiff sought the order after the defendant created a Facebook page and website criticizing her mayoral candidacy. The trial court found the posts constituted unlawful harassment and barred the defendant from publicly mentioning the plaintiff or coming within 50 yards of her.

The court held that the evidence did not satisfy the statutory requirement that the conduct be directed at the plaintiff. Although the posts were about the plaintiff and may have been offensive, they were published to the general public as political commentary aimed at voters. The defendant referred to the plaintiff in the third person and used the platforms to advocate against her candidacy, which showed the speech was directed to the electorate rather than to the plaintiff herself.

The court also found that the defendant’s purpose of influencing voters in a local election was legitimate. The plaintiff’s awareness of the posts, or the defendant’s knowledge that she might see them, did not convert public commentary into targeted harassment. Because the record lacked evidence of conduct directed at the plaintiff or intended to cause fear or substantial emotional distress within the meaning of the statute, the no-contact order could not stand.

Having resolved the appeal on statutory grounds, the court declined to address the defendant’s First Amendment arguments.

The 6 page opinion is Coble v. Ballentine, Lawyers Weekly No. 011-096-26.