FOLLOW US

Essential Insights from Bassi v. Bassi

1. The Gray Area of Free Speech in Domestic Disputes: Not all communication in contentious relationships qualifies as protected speech under the First Amendment, especially when it crosses into harassment and disrupts peace.
2. Anti-SLAPP Motion Denial Clarifies Boundaries: Susan Bassi's emails to ex-husband Robert were not fully protected as "public participation," allowing Robert's domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) case to proceed.
3. Legal Costs to Follow the Decision: The court ruled that Robert could seek reimbursement for his legal expenses in court—a costly consequence that underscores the stakes in DV-related legal disputes.

By Samuel A. Lopez - USA Herald

[CALIFORNIA, Santa Clara] - In a recent decision out of California's Sixth District Court of Appeal, Bassi v. Bassi (H049873), the line between free speech rights and harassment in domestic violence cases took center stage. The case emphasizes that freedom of speech isn’t limitless, particularly where relationships have deteriorated and communication escalates to harassment. It also highlights the legal landscape around “anti-SLAPP” protections, a frequently invoked defense in cases involving claims of protected speech.

What is an Anti-SLAPP Motion?

An anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion is a legal tool designed to prevent people from using courts to intimidate others from exercising their rights to free speech and public participation. The motion can quickly halt lawsuits that aim to stifle protected speech. But not every statement qualifies, and in this case, Susan Bassi’s attempt to use an anti-SLAPP motion to shield her emails was unsuccessful.

Free Speech and Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs)

In Bassi v. Bassi, Susan Bassi argued that her emails to Robert were protected free speech and part of her right to discuss impending legal action. She intended to file a federal RICO action against Robert, accusing him and others of misconduct. However, Robert contended that her emails were harassing, disturbed his peace, impacted his business, and hurt his community standing.

When does free speech cross the line? Courts generally protect adults' rights to communicate—even passionately. But in cases involving DVROs, communication that consistently targets, pressures, or intimidates an individual may be deemed harassment rather than free speech. Here, the court ruled that Susan’s emails disrupted Robert’s peace enough to justify a DVRO, deeming some of her communications to fall outside the protections of the First Amendment.