at PS vs RS, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Wednesday with Justices Terry A. Crone and Rudolph R. Pyle III, following an opinion by Justice L. Mark Bailey. For clarity, I will describe “RS” as the student (the student at the time the critique began) and “PS” as the critic.
At the beginning of my second year of high school, [Student] He made a video of himself “spelling out racist slurs.” This video was released on social media at the time. [Student]When he was in his third year of high school, the video continues to be circulated through social media.
[Critic]Concerned citizens watched the video and began leaving comments. [Student] On publicly accessible social media pages. [Critic] “that much[pt] Posting and reposting negative content [Student,] … and … called his name.” And [Critic] And other citizens have come to local school board meetings to say, “Try it.[ ] It's about taking some kind of disciplinary action. [Student]'s father (“Father”) contacted me. [Critic] He then asked that the video be removed from his social media feed so his father could “manage it.” [disciplining his son] In-house.” [Critic] I complied with my father's request, but said, “Then [the video] I came back many times [and] “Other people started sharing it too.”
May 3, 2023, [Student] A protection order was filed against him. [Critic]I claim this [Critic] Used social media for stalking [Student]Slandering him and spreading false information… [Student] He testified that he made a 'stupid and foolish mistake' three years ago while making the video, which was distributed on social media for the past seven years. [ ] month[,] and [Critic] “They are slandering my name,” he said. “It was the only thing that happened,” his father said at the trial. [Father and [Student]'s mother]has been requesting from day one [is to] Let's take care of our son… But again… [Critic] “I feel like I just keep posting and reposting negative things about that person.”
[Critic] He testified that he had never contacted [Student] Or his family, and she “[d]“I didn’t know where those people lived, I didn’t know anything.” [Critic] She also testified that she “had no interest in targeting.” [Student on social media],” but she believed it was important to continue to comment on the issue. She told the court she “probably” would “comment” in future social media posts. [Student] and other individuals involved in the video incident.
After hearing the testimony, the court dismissed the case. [Student]Regarding the application for a protection order, it was ruled that “there are no grounds for granting it.” The court then immediately imposed a “mutual restraining order” prohibiting both parties from communicating, harassing or threatening directly or indirectly, including through social media. Specifically, the court directed the parties to:
Judge: Okay. Here's what I'm going to do: I'll order you both not to do that. [sic] In any case, communicate without harassing or threatening each other. [sic] In any shape or form, individually, directly, or through a third party or any form of social media. And I won't issue a protective order, because it's denied. [sic] There are no grounds for a protective order. However, a mutual restraining order is issued to force the two to leave each other alone. And if you have a problem that needs to be addressed, it's okay to contact your school corporation, law enforcement, or even a friend. But apparently there's been months of negative talk on social media from both sides, with both saying they just need to be adults and there's no reason for that. Then do you understand, ma'am? …
The appeals court concluded that the trial court lacked authority under Indiana law to issue its own order without a request from the parties. The appeals court also concluded that the trial court's order did not comply with “certain requirements applicable to all injunctions granted without notice,” including “defining the injury, explaining why it is irreparable, and explaining why the order was granted without notice.” I built it. ,” and allowing the order to last only a short period of time before a full hearing. Because the appellate court overturned the order on these procedural grounds, there was no need to determine whether the order violated the First Amendment. There wasn't.
Critics represented by Stevie J. Pactor and Kenneth J. Falk of the ACLU of Indiana.