News + Insights from the Legal Team at Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein

Naomi Shatz Argues Before Massachusetts Appeals Court Regarding What Types of Speech Can Be Prohibited Through a Harassment Prevention Order

ShatzAttorney Naomi Shatz argued today before the Massachusetts Appeals Court in a case that again addresses a question the Massachusetts courts have grappled with for years: what types of speech can form the basis of a harassment prevention order? In the firm’s case, the plaintiff sought a harassment prevention order on the basis of anonymous letters sent to her clients that contained unfavorable information about her. Shatz argued on behalf of her client that the extraordinary remedy of a harassment prevention order is meant only to reach two narrow types of constitutionally unprotected speech: fighting words and true threats, and is not meant to be used to address purely economic harms that can be remedied through normal civil legal processes.

Justia Lawyer Rating
Super Lawyers
Best Lawyers
Best Law Firms
Contact Information