Derek Logue soundly defeats the evil Lauren Book AGAIN in Florida 4th Court of Appeals

FloriDUH Judge Mel-UGH-nie May,
who wrote the dissenting opinion

Bimbo Book defeated by an overwhelming 8-3 majority (the dissenting opinion was writeen by  by a Jeb Bush appointee who volunteers for children's charities so her opinion is worthless). She apparently Can't Understand Normal Thinking, much like the Bimbo she's defending.

A lawsuit against Bimbo Book seems to me like a reasonable next step.

At any rate, the media never gets Derek Logue's opinion on the matter, and this article by the Sun SLANTinel is trying to spin the story, but that's par for the course. A win is a win is a win.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-nsf-lauren-book-injunction-overturned-20200624-rbb7tuxjizboleebxboepnz3by-story.html

Cyberstalking injunction obtained by Sen. Lauren Book overturned by appeals court
By JIM SAUNDERS
NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA |
JUN 24, 2020 AT 6:10 PM

The 4th District Court of Appeal, in an 8-3 ruling, said a Broward County circuit judge improperly granted an injunction that, in part, was designed to prevent Derek Warren Logue from having contact with Florida Sen. Lauren Book and from publishing any statement threatening her.
The 4th District Court of Appeal, in an 8-3 ruling, said a Broward County circuit judge improperly granted an injunction that, in part, was designed to prevent Derek Warren Logue from having contact with Florida Sen. Lauren Book and from publishing any statement threatening her. (Phil Sears/AP)
TALLAHASSEE — Citing First Amendment rights, an appeals court Wednesday overturned an injunction that state Sen. Lauren Book obtained because of alleged cyberstalking and harassment by an activist who opposes laws dealing with sex-offender registries.

The full 4th District Court of Appeal, in an 8-3 ruling, said a Broward County circuit judge improperly granted an injunction that, in part, was designed to prevent Derek Warren Logue from having contact with Book and from publishing any statement threatening her.

Book, who was sexually abused as a child by a nanny and is a prominent advocate for victims’ rights, pointed to actions by Logue at events in Tallahassee and New York and online posts in seeking the injunction. But the appeals-court majority, while describing Logue’s posts as “vulgar and insulting,” said Logue did not violate a state stalking law and that his actions were protected by the First Amendment.

“As tempting as it might be to force some civility into the matter by stanching respondent’s (Logue’s) speech against petitioner (Book) with a court order, to do so would ignore the protections of the First Amendment and the wording of the stalking statute,” said the 19-page majority opinion, written by Judge Mark Klingensmith. “There was no evidence presented to the trial court that respondent incited action by urging people to threaten harm to petitioner or her family. Claims of threatening speech or harassing action are actionable if the speaker threatens, harasses or intimidates, and intended targets would reasonably perceive that intent. Merely posting public information, or potentially embarrassing and annoying content, without more, is not conduct within the stalking statute and does not entitle petitioner to an injunction.”

The opinion also cited Book’s status as a public figure.

“Respondent’s offensive vulgar and insulting posts are part of that friction and grist of public discourse intended by our Founders when forming this nation,” wrote Klingensmith, who was joined in the opinion by Chief Judge Spencer Levine and judges Robert Gross, Dorian Damoorgian, Jonathan Gerber, Burton Conner, Alan Forst and Jeffrey Kuntz. “Petitioner may feel discomfort by respondent’s anger as expressed in his postings, but discomfort is not tantamount to being threatened or harassed. His speech advocates for citizen-led political change and seeks to influence the legislative process. Though his words may be base and insulting at times, it is also pure, political, and protected protest deserving of the broadest possible First Amendment protections.”

But in a dissent, Judge Melanie May wrote that she agreed with the circuit judge that Logue “willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harassed the petitioner through a course of conduct which caused her substantial emotional distress and served no legitimate purpose.”

“Must we wait until someone commits some violent act before our system can protect its citizens? Haven’t we witnessed enough tragedies to know that our failure to address precursors of violence often leads to a more egregious tragedy?” wrote May, who was joined in the dissent by judges Martha Warner and Cory Ciklin. “Today we live in a culture where social media postings, like those involved here, have led people to lash out and wreak havoc on our children, families, friends, and communities. Social media posts, which direct attention and can motivate others to act, are threatening and dangerous. In fact, perhaps more so as the subject of the postings has no way of knowing who reads or may act upon them.”

A three-judge panel of the South Florida appeals court also ruled against the injunction in August, but the full court agreed to take up the case.

Book, D-Plantation, heads the nonprofit group Lauren’s Kids, which works on issues related to preventing sexual abuse of children. Wednesday’s majority opinion said Logue is a co-founder of what is described as the Anti-Registry Movement, which opposes sex-offender laws.

Part of the lawsuit involved Logue’s actions protesting a children’s march in Tallahassee and at a film festival in New York. The film festival included the screening of a documentary about sex offenders. Book answered audience questions after the documentary, and Logue took the microphone and asked a question that a law-enforcement officer testified was in a loud, aggressive manner, according to court documents.

All of the judges on the appeals court agreed that Logue’s conduct at the Tallahassee and New York events was protected by the First Amendment. But the judges focused on online posts by Logue that included Book’s address and a picture of her home, a video of a song with vulgar lyrics and a cartoon depicting a headstone, May wrote.

“The majority suggests the respondent’s ‘rants’ were simply vulgar expressions that he is entitled to make under the First Amendment,” May wrote in the dissent. “We disagree. When such rants are posted on social media, they take on a more global reach. In short, the petitioner proved the respondent willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harassed her.”

But member of the majority focused on free-speech rights.

“While the drafters of the First Amendment did not conceive of the internet, they know the paramount importance of freedom of speech,” Gross wrote in a concurring opinion with the majority. “Since the dawn of the Republic, it has been the responsibility of voters to exercise political judgment, to examine political speech and to separate truth from fiction in casting a vote. If the First Amendment stands for anything, it is that courts should rarely, if ever, interfere with the political process by punishing or penalizing political speech.”

Jim Saunders writes for the News Service of Florida.