TM v. MZ
326 Mich. App. 227
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Petitioner (TM) obtained a personal protection order (PPO) against neighbor/respondent (MZ) after MZ posted repeated derogatory, sometimes inflammatory statements about TM and her family on Facebook and via private messages.
- The trial court originally issued a PPO prohibiting MZ from posting messages about TM via any medium under MCL 750.411s; the amended PPO limited relief to prohibiting posting pursuant to MCL 750.411s and remained in effect until it expired.
- MZ moved to terminate the PPO, arguing the conduct was speech protected by the First Amendment and that petitioner’s remedy for false statements was defamation litigation, not a PPO.
- The trial court refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on falsity, concluding truth was not dispositive given petitioner’s status, and denied termination.
- On appeal, the court of appeals (on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court) held the trial court abused its discretion because it never determined whether MZ’s statements were unprotected (e.g., defamation, true threat, incitement, or fighting words).
- The court vacated the PPO as an unconstitutional prior restraint because (1) the speech did not fall into the narrow unprotected categories, and (2) the court had not first adjudicated the statements as false before enjoining them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (TM) | Defendant's Argument (MZ) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PPO could be based solely on online speech | MZ’s posts caused fear/harassment and could be enjoined under MCL 750.411s | Posts are speech protected by the First Amendment; PPO improperly restrains speech | Trial court abused discretion; speech presumptively protected and PPO vacated |
| Whether statements were unprotected (fighting words/true threats/incitement) | Speech was harassing and escalatory, justifying restriction | Statements were not fighting words, threats, or incitement — only offensive speech | Court: statements did not meet those narrow unprotected categories |
| Whether alleged defamatory statements justified pre-enforcement injunction | Allegations of criminal conduct and other accusations justified injunction | If statements are false they may be defamatory, but truth is a defense; court must adjudicate falsity first | Court: trial court erred by refusing to determine falsity; absent adjudicated falsity, injunction unconstitutional |
| Whether injunction was an unconstitutional prior restraint | PPO necessary to protect petitioner and family from ongoing harassment | PPO is a prior restraint requiring heightened scrutiny and a prior judicial finding of falsity for defamation injunctions | Court: PPO was a prior restraint and invalid because court never found statements false; vacated PPO |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (defines true threats and limits to protected speech)
- Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (Internet speech receives full First Amendment protection)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (defamation requires provably false factual assertions; opinion vs. fact analysis)
- NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) (speech that produces unconsented contact can remain protected)
- Org. for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971) (distribution of accusatory leaflets protected absent specific unprotected category)
- Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963) (prior restraints carry a heavy presumption against validity)
- Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., 512 U.S. 753 (1994) (injunctions restraining speech require heightened First Amendment scrutiny)
- McFadden v. Detroit Bar Ass’n, 4 Mich. App. 554 (1966) (equity generally will not enjoin defamation absent special showing)