|
4701 During the pendency of a defamation action, an injunction prohibiting defendant from publishing false and defamatory statements about plaintiff is constitutionally invalid, because there has been no judicial determination that would make it possible for defendant to know what future comments might violate the injunction; a prohibition against disclosing confidential personal information requires balancing invasion of the right of free speech against protection of the countervailing right of privacy, which is impossible without a specification of what is "confidential personal information," so it is constitutionally invalid; a prohibition against contacting plaintiff's employer, the county sheriff, about plaintiff except to call 911 to report criminal conduct was unconstitutional because it would effectively prevent a citizen from exercising the fundamental right to present concerns to government agencies, particularly an agency that has law enforcement jurisdiction over the area in which the citizen resides.CitationEVANS v EVANS (Publication Injunction) 162 CA4 1157 [See: US Const Amend 1; CA Const I, 2; DVD v Bunner 31 C4 864, P/AT 9/03; Near v Minnesota 283 US 697; Maggi v Superior Court 119 CA4 1218, P/AT 9/04]
|
|
