NH Supreme Court upholds restraining order in online stalking case
Jun. 29—The New Hampshire Supreme Court on Thursday said a judge was correct to issue a restraining order against an online stalker, a move that at first glance appeared to contradict a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this week.
The New Hampshire court ruled against Belmont resident Nathan Bishop, 23, who began stalking a high school acquaintance with whom he never had a personal relationship, according to the ruling. He posted graphic comments and memes of her on social media sites including Twitter and Instagram.
In the posts, he said he becomes sexually aroused as he watches her and that he wants her to be "raped or shot." He also created animations which showed her being stabbed in the breast by another woman and choked by a police officer, according to court documents.
The ruling was hailed as "terrific" by Mary Krueger, a staff attorney with New Hampshire Legal Assistance, which helps victims of stalking, domestic violence and sexual violence file retraining orders.
"This really demonstrates the court understands that the protection of stalking victims is an important public policy," Krueger said.
The woman is identified in the ruling by her initials. Bishop's name is available in other documents filed in connection with the case.
A judge in Laconia ruled that some of Bishop's comments fit the state definition of stalking (placing a reasonable person in fear) and issued a year-long restraining order.
Bishop had claimed that the restraining order, which prohibited him from any mention of the woman on social media or posting any image related to her, amounted to a violation of his First Amendment rights.
Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald said the restraining order survived because it was narrow in scope and served a legitimate government interest.
"The compelling state interest at issue in this case is the protection of the plaintiff from abuse," he wrote in a unanimous opinion.
The case had drawn briefs from New Hampshire Legal Assistance, the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU had said the protection order was sweeping and would prevent the stalker from some legitimate speech, such as commenting if the woman ran for elective office or responding to any defamation by her on social media.
In a statement, Lyn Schollett, executive director of the Coalition, said images of a person being violently attacked do not deserve legal protection.
"The New Hampshire Supreme Court made a strong statement today by holding that protecting victims from abuse is a compelling state interest. We couldn't agree more," Schollett said.
The federal ruling
The ruling follows one issued Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court, which threw out a criminal conviction in Colorado stemming from online threats that a stalker made to a stranger.
While both the U.S. and the New Hampshire cases involved online stalking, social media posts and free speech arguments, the U.S. case dealt with a criminal conviction. The New Hampshire case involved a restraining order, which is a civil matter.
The U.S. court said that true threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment, and for a criminal case to prevail, the stalker has to have acted recklessly and disregarded any risk that his posts would be viewed as a physical threat.
Krueger said the Colorado case hinged on criminal intent and punishment after speech, where the New Hampshire case dealt with prior restraint.
"I can see why it's confusing, but I don't think they contradict each other," she said.
In the Colorado case, the defendant, Billy Raymond Counterman, had never met the woman, singer songwriter Coles Whalen. He served four years in prison after being convicted.
