Ron's Rants

Did the judge’s ruling violate Ron’s right to free speech?

The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that not all speech is of equal First Amendment importance. Speech on matters of public concern is “at the heart of the First Amendment‘s protection,” while “speech on matters of purely private concern is of less First Amendment concern.” Areas of speech such as defamation “are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” The trial court found that that Ron‘s attacks on Bill were false, defamatory, and served no legitimate purpose. While First Amendment protection is required for free and uninhibited discussion of public issues, important social values underlie the law of defamation, and “society has a pervasive and strong interest in preventing and redressing attacks upon reputation.”

Although prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights, here Ron crossed the line over which he is no longer entitled to First Amendment protection. “An injunctive order prohibiting the repetition of expression that has been judicially determined to be unlawful does not constitute a prohibited prior restraint of speech.” The judge was correct in prohibiting Ron from continuing to spew his false invective about Bill and his family.

Ron was declared a vexatious litigant, meaning that he has to have permission from the president judge of a county before he can file any kind of lawsuit. If he requests permission from the court to make any communication naming Bill or any member of his family, he will have to post a bond with the request to cover Bill’s attorney fees if the request is denied. And you thought you had in-law problems!

Parisi v. Mazzaferro, decided November 23, 2016.