The use of social media is often considered a benign act and just a normal part of the day for the modern American. The latest data from the Pew Research Center indicates that the vast majority of Americans use many forms of social media and social platforms. However, according to a recent Illinois appellate court decision, social media activity can cross legal boundaries, especially in situations where a court order prohibits communication with another person.
When a court order stops one person’s ability to communicate with another person, this should be taken seriously. All forms of intentional communication with a restricted party should not take place. Recently, an Illinois appellate court ruled that social media posts can violate no-contact orders.
If you are facing a criminal or civil order of protection, you must act immediately. The steps you take early in your case can minimize the negative effects that you and your family may experience. For more information and guidance on how to respond to an order of protection, you may contact our Schaumburg orders of protection attorneys at Glasgow & Olsson. Our law firm has handled thousands of orders of protection cases, so we know what it takes to secure the best possible results for our clients.
State of Illinois v. Daniel T. Webster Jr.
In the case of the State of Illinois v. Daniel T. Webster Jr., a deteriorating friendship between Daniel Webster and a woman identified by court records as H.B. led to a no-contact order entered against Webster. The order prohibited Webster from contacting H.B. “in any way, directly, indirectly, or through third parties,” including through written and electronic communications.
Webster defied the order by continually posting on his public Twitter account, with several of the posts referencing the no-contact order, court proceedings, law enforcement activity, and H.B.’s personal life. One particular post even featured a photograph of H.B.’s vehicle that was taken while she was driving to court.
Although H.B. testified that she did not follow Webster’s social media account, other individuals who knew about their history did monitor it. These individuals alerted her about the concerning posts, which she subsequently viewed.
Webster acknowledged that he posted about the case, but that he was not attempting to communicate with H.B. Instead, he claimed he was speaking generally to the public and that he never expected H.B. to read his content.
The jury did not find Webster’s testimony compelling and found him guilty of violating the stalking no-contact order. Webster appealed and contended that his public posts did not amount to “contact” under Illinois law and that if his speech was limited, this would infringe upon his First Amendment rights.
The appellate court disagreed, and the judges relayed that a social media post may become prohibited contact when it is effectively directed at the protected individual and intended to convey a message to that person. The court determined that Webster’s posts fit this description, and a reasonable jury could conclude that Webster was not merely speaking to the public but was attempting to communicate with H.B. indirectly through a public platform.
Additionally, the court rejected Webster’s First Amendment argument, declaring that the no-contact order regulated communication with H.B., not the content of Webster’s speech. The order prohibited all forms of contact regardless of the message being conveyed; the restriction was deemed content-neutral and constitutionally permissible.
Get Qualified Legal Help Today
If you have an order of protection issued against you, please speak with our Chicago orders of protection attorneys at Glasgow & Olsson today and learn how decades of trusted experience can protect what matters most to you.
Our law firm is widely recognized as a leading authority in criminal law. For this reason, Attorney Thomas T. Glasgow is a trusted legal voice who is regularly invited to appear on major networks, including ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and Fox News.
When your rights and freedoms are on the line, having an attorney on your side with an excellent reputation and unimpeachable experience matters.