Superior Court: Woman's 'Lewd' Facebook Posts Were Harassment
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that a woman's derogatory Facebook posts about her ex-husband's new wife were not constitutionally protected speech and thus qualified as harassment.
June 27, 2019 at 11:19 AM
5 minute read
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that a woman's derogatory Facebook posts about her ex-husband's new wife were not constitutionally protected speech and thus still qualified as harassment.
A three-judge panel of the court voted 2-1 to affirm the decision of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, which sentenced Kelly D'Adderio to 12 months of probation, 100 hours of community service, plus fines and costs, after a jury found her guilty of harassment against Maria Memmi.
D'Adderio was charged and convicted of one count of harassment, under Section 2709 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, after she posted a series of what prosecutors called “vulgar and inflammatory” Facebook posts about Memmi.
“'Dear Miss Maria Memmi, you were a life-long friend of mine, my son's Godmother even,'” one post read, according to the Superior Court's June 21 opinion. “'The day you crossed the friendship line and married my ex was the day you exposed your true colors. Ironically, that was the least of my concerns. Sadly, I find some pleasure that he cheated on you. I kind of feel you had it coming anyway. You seem obsessed with playing mommy to my kids. Let's see how that works out for you.'”
In other posts, D'Adderio questioned the paternity of Memmi's 9-year-old daughter and suggested Memmi was in an inappropriate relationship with the detective who was investigating D'Adderio's comments at the time.
On April 16, 2018, the trial court handed down D'Adderio's sentence and ordered her to have no contact with the child referenced in the Facebook posts, until the child reaches age 18.
D'Adderio appealed, citing two issues with the jury's conclusion.
In her first issue, she argued that the Facebook posts were protected speech under the U.S. and state constitutions. D'Adderio also argued that her Facebook posts would have to be understood as being “about” Memmi and not “to” her since Memmi did not have a Facebook account at the time, though D'Adderio did concede that it was not the jury's responsibility to make such a distinction.
But Judge Carolyn H. Nichols, writing for the Superior Court panel, rejected D'Adderio's constitutional argument, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 1942 ruling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which held that “'resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.'”
“Instantly, appellant's Facebook posts did not express social or political beliefs or constitute legitimate conduct,” Nichols said, joined by Judge Paula Francisco Ott. “Rather, appellant made lewd comments, including sexualized language and references to the complainant's sexual activity, which could only serve to harass, annoy or alarm the complainant.”
Nichols added that it made no difference whether the posts were “to” or “about” Memmi.
D'Adderio also argued that the definition of “harassment” in the Pennsylvania Crimes Code is overbroad because it criminalizes “lewd and/or lascivious speech about another person [which] is constitutionally protected.”
D'Adderio contended that “a law may be invalidated as overbroad if a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.” She cited the state Supreme Court's 2009 ruling in Commonwealth v. Omar for the proposition that “a litigant asserting an overbreadth challenge is not required to demonstrate that the statute violated his own protected speech, but instead may prove a statute's unconstitutionality by demonstrating that the statute's very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.”
But Nichols pointed to the Superior Court's 1976 ruling in Commonwealth v. Duncan, which said, “'In enacting 18 Pa.C.S. Section 2709(3), our legislature did not intend to proscribe isolated acts which would be of only minor annoyance to the average person, or which are constitutionally protected. The statute requires … acts which would seriously offend, we find, the average person; it requires the fact finder to infer a specific intent on the part of the accused, and it specifies that the conduct must be of a non-legitimate nature—conduct which is not constitutionally protected.'”
“Instantly, Section 2709(a)(4) requires an intent to harass, and it seeks to preclude communications lacking some legitimate purpose,” Nichols said. “As such, the statute does not punish constitutionally protected speech, and the statute is not facially overbroad.”
Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini noted his dissent but did not issue a dissenting opinion.
Counsel for D'Adderio, James Karl of the Dauphin County Public Defender's Office, could not be reached for comment. Ryan Lysaght of the Dauphin County District Attorney's Office also could not be reached.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
3 minute readPhila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
4 minute readPa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250