Chan v. Ellis

The appellant's posts on his website about the appellee did not constitute "contact" under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-90 subsection a 1 and the trial court therefore erred in finding that the appellant stalked the appellee.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Matthew Chan has a website on which he and others publish commentary critical of copyright enforcement practices that they consider predatory. Linda Ellis is a poet, and her efforts to enforce the copyright in her poetry have drawn the ire of Chan and his fellow commentators. On his website, they have published nearly 2,000 posts about Ellis, many of which are mean-spirited, some of which are distasteful and crude, and some of which publicize information about Ellis that she would prefer not to be so public. At least one post is written in the style of an open letter to Ellis, referring to her in the second person, and threatening to publicize additional information about Ellis and her family if she continues to employ the practices of which Chan and the other commentators disapprove. It is undisputed that Chan never caused any of these posts to be delivered to Ellis or otherwise brought to her attention. But it also is undisputed that Chan anticipated that Ellis might see the commentary on his website, and he may have even intended that she see certain of the posts, including the open letter to her.

Ellis eventually did learn of the posts, and she sued Chan for injunctive relief under the Georgia stalking law, OCGA § 16-5-90 et seq.,1 alleging that the electronic publication of the posts was a violation of OCGA § 16-5-90 a 1, which forbids one to “contact” another for certain purposes without the consent of the other. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court agreed that the electronic publication of posts about Ellis amounted to stalking, and it entered a permanent injunction against Chan, directing him to, among other things, delete “all posts relating to Ms. Ellis” from his website. Chan appeals, contending that the evidence simply does not show that the publication of posts about Ellis on his website amounts to the sort of “contact” that is forbidden by OCGA § 16-5-90 a 1. With that contention, we agree, and we reverse the judgment of the trial court.2

Chan v. Ellis

The appellant's posts on his website about the appellee did not constitute "contact" under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-90 subsection a 1 and the trial court therefore erred in finding that the appellant stalked the appellee.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report