In Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen (2007), the California Supreme Court held that after a trial establishes that specific statements are defamatory, a court may issue a narrowly tailored injunction forbidding the defendant from repeating those statements, and such an order does not amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.1Justia. Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen (2007)
The Dispute Behind the Case
Anne Lemen lived across from the Balboa Island Village Inn and carried on a sustained campaign of complaints to neighbors about the restaurant. She claimed the establishment was a site for prostitution and the distribution of illegal drugs, along with other illegal activity she said threatened the community. The Inn sued for defamation. It did not ask for money. It asked only for a permanent injunction stopping Lemen from continuing to repeat the statements.2Justia. Balboa Island Village Inn v. Lemen (2004)
Why a Post-Trial Injunction Is Not a Prior Restraint
Courts generally refuse to stop speech before it happens. The California Supreme Court distinguished that rule from what the Inn was asking for. Once a trial has evaluated particular statements and determined that they are false and defamatory, the speech at issue is no longer presumptively protected. An order barring the defendant from repeating those specific, adjudicated statements is therefore different in kind from censorship imposed in advance of a judicial finding.1Justia. Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen (2007)
The Narrow Tailoring Requirement
The permission to issue an injunction came with a firm limit. Any such order must be confined to the exact statements the trial court found defamatory, and it cannot sweep in speech or conduct that was never adjudicated.
Applying that standard, the court found the injunction entered against Lemen was overly broad. A provision barring her from initiating contact with the restaurant’s employees at any time or place was unconstitutionally broad. A restriction on filming activity within 25 feet of the premises was upheld. The broader lesson of the decision is that a defamation ruling cannot be used as a basis for sweeping restrictions untethered from the specific statements proven false at trial.1Justia. Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen (2007)
What Happens If Someone Violates the Order
A defendant who repeats the barred statements after an injunction issues can be held in contempt of court. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1218, a person found guilty of contempt may be fined up to $1,000, jailed for up to five days, or both, for each instance. The court may also order the contemnor to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the contempt proceeding.3Justia. California Code of Civil Procedure § 1218