Vrasic v. Leibel
106 So. 3d 485
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Romantic partners later; Leibel sues Vrasic for harassment, hacking email, defaming him, and running a website to pre-sell her book.
- Plaintiff sought temporary injunction prohibiting further defamatory statements, including via website and book.
- Lower court granted temporary injunctive relief; issue on appeal is whether restrictions beyond no-contact are permissible.
- Court holds no-contact provision permissible but other restrictions constitute prior restraint on speech and must be vacated.
- Court discusses Florida law: temporary injunction cannot restrain defamation; such relief requires irreparable harm or ongoing speech concerns; defamation offers remedies at law.
- Result: reversed in part (non-speech restrictions), affirmed in part (no-contact provision remains).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injunction may prohibit defamatory speech | Leibel seeks broad restraint of speech by banning defamation | Vrasic argues temporary injunction cannot bar defamation | Denied as to defamation speech restrictions (no prior restraint) |
| Whether non-contact speech restrictions were proper | Leibel relies on narrow exceptions | Vrasic contends restrictions are speech restraints | No, non-contact restrictions upheld; others reversed as prior restraints |
| Whether Zimmerman and Murtagh exceptions apply | Exceptions support limited speech restrictions | No applicable tort-like harms shown | Exceptions do not apply to this case; no evidence of special harm |
| Whether the injunction constitutes a prior restraint on speech | Speech restraints necessary to protect plaintiff | Prior restraint concerns apply | Yes, the non-contact and speech restrictions fail as prior restraints; reversed except no-contact clause preserved |
| Whether the remedy for defamation should be damages rather than injunction | Injunctive relief prevents ongoing harm | Damages suffice for defamation; injunction excessive | Temporary injunction disallowed for defamation; damages available |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Daytona Beach Humane Society, Inc., 176 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965) (temporary relief not available to prohibit defaming statements)
- Zimmerman v. D.C.A. at Welleby, Inc., 505 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (limited exception where defamatory words accompany another tort)
- Murtagh v. Hurley, 40 So.3d 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (exception not applicable here; no specialized harm shown)
- Post-Newsweek Stations Orlando, Inc. v. Guetzloe, 968 So.2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (temporary injunction forbidding speech is a prior restraint)
- Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1965) (prior restraints on speech are highly burdensome)
- Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976) (speech protected even when carried for profit)
- ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ’g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003) (protects speech under First Amendment; applies to false statements)
- Town of Lantana v. Pelczynski, 290 So.2d 566 (Fla. 4th DCA) (extension of free speech protections to false statements)
- Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907) (freedom of speech; historical precedent for limits)
- Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975) (free speech vs. prior restraints in commercial context)