New Jersey Court Rules Posting Videos Aimed at Firing Prosecutor Constitutes Cyber-Harassment

New Jersey appellate judges Lisa Rose and Patrick DeAlmeida have upheld a protective order against Carl H., who had been posting videos on his YouTube channel criticizing Jane V., an assistant prosecutor. The case began in February 2023 when Jane was assigned to prosecute F.E., Carl's former girlfriend, for burglary and theft charges. After the prosecution faced setbacks, including reduced charges and dropped restraining orders, Carl became dissatisfied with how the case was handled. He sent numerous emails daily to Jane and her supervisors, expressing his anger and dissatisfaction.

In addition to the email harassment, Carl took to social media, posting videos on YouTube that contained derogatory remarks about Jane and accusations of prosecutorial misconduct. In these videos, he threatened retaliation against those involved in the case and claimed to have evidence that could cost Jane her job. He also filed grievances with state and federal authorities fourteen times, demanding that Jane be replaced.

The trial court issued a protective order under New Jersey's Victim's Assistance and Survivor Protection Act (VASPA), which defines cyber-harassment as conduct intended to harass another person through online communications. The order required Carl to delete all posts on his YouTube channel referring to Jane and prohibited him from posting any false, derogatory, or harassing statements about her in the future.

The appellate court upheld this decision, ruling that Carl's videos were not protected under the First Amendment because they served no legitimate purpose other than to harass Jane and threaten her employment. The judges noted that a professional position is considered property, and thus, Carl's actions amounted to cyber-harassment as defined by VASPA. This ruling sets an important precedent regarding the protection of professionals from online harassment aimed at their careers.