Fox v. Hamptons at Metrowest Condominium Ass'n
223 So. 3d 453
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Howard Fox, a resident of the Hamptons at MetroWest condominium, was sued by the Association for violating condo rules and for harassing residents; a preliminary injunction was entered and the parties settled.
- The final judgment enforced the settlement, dismissed claims with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.
- The Association moved for contempt, alleging Fox willfully violated the settlement; the trial court found him in civil contempt.
- As part of the contempt order, the court (beyond enforcing settlement terms) permanently barred Fox from posting any pictures or personal information about current or future residents, board members, management, vendors, or related personnel on any websites, blogs, or social media, and ordered removal of existing content; it also barred him from creating new Hamptons-related online accounts.
- Fox argued the online speech prohibitions constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint under the U.S. and Florida Constitutions.
- The appellate court affirmed enforcement of the settlement terms but reversed the portions of the contempt order that broadly prohibited Fox’s online speech and remanded for further proceedings (holding the blanket online ban was a prior restraint requiring constitutional inquiry).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt order’s blanket ban on Hamptons-related online postings is a permissible restraint | The Association argued the ban was necessary to prevent harassment and enforce the settlement and to protect residents’ safety and privacy | Fox argued the sweeping prohibition on any Hamptons-related online speech is a prior restraint violating First Amendment and Florida free-speech protections | Reversed: the blanket prohibition on online speech was an unconstitutional prior restraint and required a proper constitutional inquiry; remanded |
| Whether court properly enforced settlement terms via contempt | Association argued contempt was proper for Fox’s willful breaches of agreed terms | Fox did not dispute that agreed-upon settlement provisions could be enforced | Affirmed in part: the trial court correctly enforced the settlement agreement provisions as to which the parties had agreed |
| Whether online speech enjoys full First Amendment protection | N/A (background for arguments) | N/A | Court reiterated that online speech is protected and content-based restraints trigger strict scrutiny; limitations must be narrowly tailored |
| Whether privacy or harassment interests justify prior restraint | Association relied on preventing emotional distress and harassment as important governmental interests | Fox argued privacy/harassment concerns do not justify pre-publication prior restraint absent narrow tailoring and compelling interest | Court noted preventing online infliction of emotional distress is an important interest but emphasized that prior restraints are disfavored and that subsequent remedies (damages/criminal prosecution) are typically appropriate; thus content-based prior restraints require strict scrutiny |
Key Cases Cited
- Neb. Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (prior restraints on publication are presumptively unconstitutional)
- Palm Beach Newspapers, LLC v. State, 183 So. 3d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (prior restraint and published matter protections; press includes nontraditional media)
- Vrasic v. Leibel, 106 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (prior restraints are the most serious First Amendment infringements)
- Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) (privacy interests yield when balanced against publishing lawfully obtained information of public concern)
- The Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989) (newsworthy information about criminal prosecutions is protected)
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (online speech entitled to full First Amendment protection)
- Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 2014) (blog statements can be protected opinion/speech)
- Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975) (society prefers subsequent punishment over prior restraints)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Tr. Co., 78 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 1996) (private commercial interest in reputation does not justify prior restraint)
- Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 129 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (discussion of privacy and newsworthiness balancing)