Social media disputes between former partners can turn ugly fast. Fake accounts, nasty reviews, and cruel messages can feel overwhelming, and Florida allows people to ask a court for an injunction for protection against stalking, including cyberstalking.
But getting that kind of court order requires more than showing that someone was hurtful online. The law sets specific requirements, and a person seeking protection generally must prove who was actually behind the conduct and that the conduct meets a demanding legal standard.
These rules matter to anyone caught up in an online conflict — both to people who feel harassed and to people accused of harassment. A recent decision from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, Benhalima v. Iakovenko, walks through how courts evaluate these petitions.
Key Takeaway
To support a stalking injunction, the evidence must connect the accused person to the conduct and show repeated acts that would cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person. Offensive or embarrassing messages, by themselves, may not be enough.
The question is more specific:
- Was there proof linking the accused to the online accounts and messages?
- Would a reasonable person have suffered substantial emotional distress?
- Were there repeated acts, not just a single incident?
What happened in this case?
According to the opinion, the two people involved had worked together and dated on and off before the relationship ended. Afterward, the woman filed a petition claiming the man and his new girlfriend were creating fake online accounts, posting false reviews about her business, and spreading damaging claims to her contacts and family.
At the hearing, she described disparaging messages, fake profiles, and false accusations that reached her daughter and a friend. The man admitted sending a handful of mean messages himself over two days, but denied creating the fake accounts or contacting her clients. He testified that his girlfriend had pressured him and had carried out the broader online harassment.
The trial court entered a five-year injunction without making detailed factual findings, relying on the man’s admission that he had sent the personal derogatory messages. He appealed.
What does Florida law require for a stalking injunction?
Florida’s stalking statute defines the offense as willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following, harassing, or cyberstalking another person. “Harassment” means a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose.
A “course of conduct” is a pattern made up of a series of acts over a period of time showing a continuity of purpose. Cyberstalking involves communicating words, images, or language through electronic means directed at or pertaining to a specific person.
The appeals court explained that whether evidence is legally sufficient to justify an injunction is a legal question reviewed without deference to the trial court, while factual findings are reviewed for supporting evidence.
Who has to be identified?
The court noted that testimony a person received a message from someone is not, by itself, enough to prove who actually sent it. There must be evidence tying the accused to the accounts and communications.
Why did the court reverse the injunction?
The appeals court gave several reasons. First, it found the evidence insufficient to connect the man to the fake accounts, the false reviews, and the messages sent to the woman’s daughter and friend. Although one negative review appeared under a profile bearing his name, nothing established that the profile actually belonged to him, and there was no technical evidence linking him to the accounts.
Second, the court concluded that the messages the man admittedly sent did not amount to stalking. It reasoned that a reasonable person would not have suffered substantial emotional distress from four offensive messages sent by an ex-partner over two days.
Third, even assuming those messages formed a course of conduct, the court held they amounted to only one incident of harassment. Florida law requires a minimum of two incidents to establish stalking, so a single episode was legally insufficient.
How do courts view offensive online speech?
The opinion emphasized that the bar for substantial emotional distress is set high and is judged by a reasonable-person standard, narrowly construed. Ordinary feelings of distress, embarrassment, or annoyance do not meet it.
Drawing on earlier decisions, the court explained that false or embarrassing online posts, damage to business or personal reputation, and angry or distasteful social media messages are generally not enough on their own to support a cyberstalking injunction. Speech that is insulting or upsetting is treated differently from conduct that inflicts stress of great proportion, in the nature of fear and concern.
Why does this matter to people involved in online disputes?
This decision illustrates that Florida’s stalking-injunction standard focuses on both proof of who did what and the legal threshold for harm. Courts look for evidence connecting a specific person to the conduct, repeated acts over time, and distress that a reasonable person would find substantial — not merely offensive or embarrassing communications.
The opinion also included a note reminding trial courts to hold a full hearing, consistent with section 784.0485(5)(c), Florida Statutes, before entering this kind of injunction.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only, is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not predict or guarantee any result. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before deciding, ask for free written information about the lawyer’s qualifications and experience.