Case Name: BALBOA ISLAND VILLAGE INN, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANNE LEMEN, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 2007-04-26
Citations: 40 Cal. 4th 1141
Docket Number: No. S127904
Parties: BALBOA ISLAND VILLAGE INN, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANNE LEMEN, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 1141–1178

Head Matter:
[No. S127904.
Apr. 26, 2007.]
BALBOA ISLAND VILLAGE INN, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANNE LEMEN, Defendant and Appellant.
Counsel
D. Michael Bush; Erwin Chemerinsky; Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Gary L. Bostwick and Jean-Paul Jassy for Defendant and Appellant.
Dubia, Erickson, Tenerelli & Russo, Law Offices of J. Scott Russo and J. Scott Russo for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion
MORENO, J.
Following a court trial in which defendant Anne Lemen was found to have repeatedly defamed plaintiff Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc., the superior court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant from, among other things, repeating certain defamatory statements about plaintiff. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the injunction is overly broad, but that defendant's right to free speech would not be infringed by a properly limited injunction prohibiting defendant from repeating statements about plaintiff that were determined at trial to be defamatory.
Facts
Aric Toll owns and manages the Balboa Island Village Inn (hereafter Village Inn or Inn), a restaurant and bar located on Balboa Island in Newport Beach. He bought it on November 30, 2000, but the Village Inn has been operating at that location for more than half a century.
In 1989, defendant Anne Lemen purchased the "Island Cottage," which lies across an alley from the Village Inn. She lives there part of the time and rents the cottage as a vacation home part of the time. Lemen is a vocal critic of the Village Inn and has contacted the authorities numerous times to complain of excessive noise and the behavior of inebriated customers leaving the bar. In an effort to document these abuses, Lemen videotaped the Inn approximately 50 times. According to Lemen, she made these videotapes while on her own property, although she acknowledged that, on one occasion, she parked her Volkswagen bus across from the Inn and videotaped from there.
The Village Inn introduced evidence that Lemen's actions were far more intrusive. For more than two years, Lemen parked across from the Inn at least one day each weekend and made videotapes for hours at a time. Customers often asked Lemen not to videotape them as they entered or left the building. Numerous times, she followed customers to or from their cars while videotaping them. She took many flash photographs through the windows of the Inn a couple of days each week for a year, upsetting the customers. She called customers "drunks" and "whores." She told customers entering the Inn, "I don't know why you would be going in there. The food is shitty." She approached potential customers outside the Inn more than 100 times, causing many to turn away. One time, she stopped her vehicle in front of the Village Inn and sounded her horn for five seconds.
Lemen had several encounters with employees of the Village Inn. She told bartender Ewa Cook that Cook "worked for Satan," was "Satan's wife," and was "going to have Satan's children." She asked musician Arturo Perez if he had a "green card" and asked whether he knew there were illegal aliens working at the Inn. Lemen referred to Theresa Toll, the owner's wife, as "Madam Whore" and said, in the presence of her tenant, Larry Wilson: "Everyone on the island knows you're a whore." Three times, Lemen took photographs of cook Felipe Anaya and other employees while they were changing clothes in the kitchen.
Lemen collected 100 signatures on a petition opposing the Village Inn. As she did so, she told neighbors that there was child pornography and prostitution going on in the Inn, and that the Village Inn was selling drugs and was selling alcohol to minors. She said that sex videos were being filmed inside the Village Inn, that it was involved with the Mafia, that it encouraged lesbian activity, and that the Inn stayed open until 6:00 a.m. When defendant began collecting signatures door to door and making these statements, the Village Inn's sales dropped more than 20 percent.
On October 16, 2001, the Village Inn filed a civil complaint that, as amended, alleged causes of action for nuisance, defamation, and interference with business and sought injunctive relief against defendant. Following a court trial, the superior court entered judgment for plaintiff on October 11, 2002, granting a permanent injunction. Paragraph 4 of the injunction states:
"[T]he court orders that Lemen, her agents, all persons acting on her behalf or purporting to act on her behalf and all other persons in active concert and participation with her, be and hereby are, permanently enjoined from engaging in or performing directly or indirectly, any of the following acts:
"A. Defendant is prohibited from initiating contact with individuals known to Defendant to be employees of Plaintiff. Any complaints Defendant has regarding Plaintiff or Plaintiff's business must be communicated to a member or members of Plaintiff's management, who will be identified by Plaintiff for Defendant and for which Plaintiff will provide Defendant a phone number by which Defendant can timely and easily communicate any problems related to Plaintiff's operation.
"B. Defendant is prohibited from making the following defamatory statements about Plaintiff to third persons: Plaintiff sells alcohol to minors; Plaintiff stays open until 6:00 a.m.; Plaintiff makes sex videos; Plaintiff is involved in child pornography; Plaintiff distributes illegal drugs; Plaintiff has Mafia connections; Plaintiff encourages lesbian activities; Plaintiff participates in prostitution and acts as a whorehouse; Plaintiff serves tainted food.
"C. Defendant is prohibited from filming (whether by video camera or still photography) within 25 feet of the premises of the Balboa Island Village Inn unless Defendant engages in such filming while on Defendant's own property. An exception to this prohibition occurs when Defendant is documenting the circumstances surrounding an immediate disturbance or damage to her property. An example of this exception might involve Defendant's attempt to gather evidence regarding the mechanism and identity of any person who breaks the window of Defendant's house."
The Court of Appeal upheld paragraph 4C of the judgment, which granted an injunction prohibiting defendant from filming within 25 feet of the Village Inn, but invalidated paragraphs 4A and 4B of the judgment enjoining defendant from initiating contact with employees of the Village Inn and repeating the identified defamatory statements about the Village Inn, ruling that those portions of the judgment violated defendant's right to free speech under the federal and California Constitutions. We granted review.
We agree with the result reached by the Court of Appeal, but disagree in part with its reasoning. Paragraph 4A, which prohibits defendant from initiating contact with employees of the Village Inn at any time or place, is impermissibly broad. Paragraph 4B, which prohibits defendant from repeating certain defamatory statements, also is overly broad, but a properly limited injunction prohibiting defendant from repeating to third persons statements about the Village Inn that were determined at trial to be defamatory would not violate defendant's right to free speech.
Discussion
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ." This fundamental right to free speech is "among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action." (Lovell v. Griffin (1938) 303 U.S. 444, 450 [82 L.Ed. 949, 58 S.Ct. 666]; see Gitlow v. New York (1925) 268 U.S. 652, 666 [69 L.Ed. 1138, 45 S.Ct. 625].) Numerous decisions have recognized our "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 270 [11 L.Ed.2d 686, 84 S.Ct. 710].)
But the right to free speech, "[although stated in broad terms, . is not absolute." (Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 134 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 980 P.2d 846] (plur. opn. of George, C. J.).) "Liberty of speech . . . is . . not an absolute right, and the State may punish its abuse." (Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 708 [75 L.Ed. 1357, 51 S.Ct. 625].) "The First Amendment presupposes that the freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty—and thus a good unto itself—but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. Under our Constitution, 'there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas.' [Citation.] Nevertheless, there are categories of communication and certain special utterances to which the majestic protection of the First Amendment does not extend because they 'are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.' [Citation.] [][] Libelous speech has been held to constitute one such category, [citation] . . . ." (Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. (1984) 466 U.S. 485, 503-504 [80 L.Ed.2d 502, 104 S.Ct. 1949]; see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) 535 U.S. 234, 245-246 [152 L.Ed.2d 403, 122 S.Ct. 1389] ["The freedom of speech has its limits; it does not embrace certain categories of speech, including defamation . . . ."]; R. A. V. v. St. Paul (1992) 505 U.S. 377, 382-383 [120 L.Ed.2d 305, 112 S.Ct. 2538]; Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) 343 U.S. 250, 255-257, 266 [96 L.Ed. 919, 72 S.Ct. 725] ["Libelous utterances not being within the area of constitutionally protected speech . ."]; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) 315 U.S. 568, 571-572 [86 L.Ed. 1031, 62 S.Ct. 766].)
Defendant in the present case objects to the imposition of an injunction prohibiting her from repeating statements the trial court determined were slanderous, asserting the injunction constitutes an impermissible prior restraint. We disagree. As explained below, an injunction issued following a trial that determined that the defendant defamed the plaintiff that does no more than prohibit the defendant from repeating the defamation, is not a prior restraint and does not offend the First Amendment.
The prohibition against prior restraints on freedom of expression is rooted in the English common law, but originally applied only to freedom of the press. In 1769, Blackstone explained in his Commentaries on the Laws of England that when printing first was invented in 1476, the press was entirely controlled by the government, at first through the granting of licenses and later by the decrees of the Star Chamber; "The art of printing, soon after its introduction, was looked upon (as well in England as in other countries) as merely a matter of state, and subject to the coercion of the crown. It was therefore regulated with us by the king's proclamations, prohibitions, charters of privilege and of licence, and finally by the decrees of the court of star-chamber; which limited the number of printers, and of presses which each should employ, and prohibited new publications unless previously approved by proper licensers." (4 Blackstone's Commentaries 152, fn. a.) Blackstone observed that subjecting "the press to the restrictive power of a licenser" restricted freedom of expression. (Id. at p. 152.) It was only in 1694, Blackstone explained, after the end of the Star Chamber, that "the press became properly free . . . and has ever since so continued." (Id. at p. 152, fn. a.)
But the freedom granted to the press to print what it pleased without first having to obtain permission did not mean that government could not punish the press if it abused that privilege. Blackstone observed that in imposing criminal penalties for libel, "the liberty of the press, properly understood, is by no means infringed or violated. The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state: but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity." (4 Blackstone's Commentaries 151-152.)
It was this former practice of the English government of licensing the press that inspired the First Amendment's prohibition against prior restraints: "When the first amendment was approved by the First Congress, it was undoubtedly intended to prevent government's imposition of any system of prior restraints similar to the English licensing system under which nothing could be printed without the approval of the state or church authorities." (Tribe, American Constitutional Law (2d ed. 1988) § 12-34, p. 1039.) As another noted commentator has explained: "The First Amendment undoubtedly was a reaction against the suppression of speech and of the press that existed in English society. Until 1694, there was an elaborate system of licensing in England, and no publication was allowed without a government granted license. . It is widely accepted that the First Amendment was meant, at the very least, to abolish such prior restraints on publication." (Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (2d ed. 2002) § 11.1.1, p. 892, fn. omitted.)
This prohibition against prior restraints of the press led to the rule that the publication of a writing could not be prevented on the grounds that it allegedly would be libelous. In 1839, the New York Court of Chancery refused to prevent the publication of a pamphlet that allegedly would have defamed the plaintiff, holding that the publication of a libel could not be enjoined "without infringing upon the liberty of the press, and attempting to exercise a power of preventative justice which . . . cannot safely be entrusted to any tribunal consistently with the principles of a free government." (Brandreth v. Lance (1839) 8 Paige 24, 26, italics added.) The court noted that the "Court of star chamber in England[ ] . . . was undoubtedly in the habit of restraining the publications of such libels by injunction. Since that court was abolished, however, I believe there is but one case upon record in which any court, either in this country or in England, has attempted, by an injunction or order of the court, to prohibit or restrain the publication of a libel, as such, in anticipation." (Brandreth v. Lance, supra, at pp. 26-27.) The court refused, therefore, to prevent the defendants from publishing the pamphlet, but left them with fifis warning: "And if the defendants persist in their intention of giving this libelous production to the public, [the plaintiff] must seek his remedy by a civil suit in a court of law or by instituting a criminal prosecution, to the end that the libelers, upon conviction, may receive their appropriate punishment, in the penitentiary or otherwise." (Id. at pp. 28-29.)
But preventing a person from speaking or publishing something that, allegedly, would constitute a libel if spoken or published is far different from issuing a posttrial injunction after a statement that already has been uttered has been found to constitute defamation. Prohibiting a person from making a statement or publishing a writing before that statement is spoken or the writing is published is far different from prohibiting a defendant from repeating a statement or republishing a writing that has been determined at trial to be defamatory and, thus, unlawful. This distinction is hardly novel.
In 1878, the English Court of Common Pleas upheld a posttrial injunction prohibiting the repetition of a libel. The plaintiffs in Saxby v. Easterbrook (1878) 3 C.P.D. 339 were a firm of engineers that had applied for a patent for a railway device. The defendants printed a statement claiming they had invented the device and the plaintiffs had stolen it from them. The plaintiffs sued and were awarded damages and an injunction restraining the defendants from "repetitions of acts of the like nature." (Id. at p. 341.) The English Court of Common Pleas affirmed the judgment. Lord Coleridge wrote: "I can well understand a court of Equity declining to interfere to restrain the publication of that which has not been found by a jury to be libelous. Here, however, the jury have found the matter complained of to be libelous . . . ." (Id. at p. 342.) Judge Lindley agreed, stating that "when a jury have found the matter complained of to be libelous . . . , I see no principle by which the court ought to be precluded from saying that the repetition of the libel shall be restrained." (Id. at p. 343.)
An early case in Missouri reached the same conclusion, stating: "After verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, they can have an injunction to restrain any further publication of that which the jury has found to be an actionable libel or slander." (Flint v. The Hutchinson Smoke Burner Co. (1892) 110 Mo. 492 [19 S.W. 804, 806].) And in 1916, Roscoe Pound noted in an article in the Harvard Law Review that English courts would allow "an injunction in case the libel was repeated or publication was continued after a jury had found the matter libelous." (Pound, Equitable Relief Against Defamation and Injuries to Personality (1916) 29 Harv. L.Rev. 640, 665, fn. omitted.)
The Court of Appeal in the present case based its contrary conclusion that the injunction was an invalid prior restraint of speech on language in Near v. Minnesota, supra, 283 U.S. 697. Only when taken out of context, however, does the language in Near support the Court of Appeal's conclusion.
In Near v. Minnesota, supra, 283 U.S. 697, 702, the high court considered a statute that permitted a court to enjoin as a nuisance the publication of a " 'malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper' " or other periodical. The district court had found that several editions of a newspaper, The Saturday Press, "were 'chiefly devoted to malicious, scandalous and defamatory articles' " concerning the Mayor and the Chief of Police of Minneapolis, as well as the county attorney and other officials. (Id. at p. 706.) The court " 'abated' " The Saturday Press as a public nuisance and the defendant was "perpetually enjoined" from publishing " 'any publication whatsoever which is a malicious, scandalous or defamatory newspaper.' " (Ibid.)
The high court in Near recognized that prohibiting the future publication of a newspaper or other periodical "is of the essence of censorship." (Near v. Minnesota, supra, 283 U.S. 697, 713.) The court stated that the "chief purpose" of the guarantee of liberty of the press is "to prevent previous restraints upon publication." (Id. at p. 713.) The high court was careful to point out, however, that the statute being considered was "not aimed at the redress of individual or private wrongs. Remedies for libel remain available and unaffected." (Id. at p. 709.) The court also observed that "the common law rules that subject the libeler to responsibility . are not abolished by the protection extended in our constitutions." (Id. at p. 715.) But most significant is that the court, after noting that "the protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited," clarified that it was not addressing "questions as to the extent of authority to prevent publications in order to protect private rights according to the principles governing the exercise of the jurisdiction of courts of equity." (Id. at p. 716, fn. omitted.) In a footnote, the court cited the above quoted article by Roscoe Pound that observed that English courts permit "an injunction in case the libel was repeated or publication was continued after a jury had found the matter libelous." (Pound, Equitable Relief Against Defamation and Injuries to Personality, supra, 29 Harv. L.Rev. at p. 665.) Therefore, Near expressly did not address the issue posed in the present case.
The United States Supreme Court has never addressed the precise question before us—whether an injunction prohibiting the repetition of statements found at trial to be defamatory violates the First Amendment. But several high court decisions have addressed related questions, and each is consistent with our holding that a court may enjoin the repetition of a statement that was determined at trial to be defamatory.
The decision in Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown (1957) 354 U.S. 436, 437 [1 L.Ed.2d 1469, 77 S.Ct. 1325], upheld a state law authorizing a " 'limited injunctive remedy' " prohibiting "the sale and distribution of written and printed matter found after due trial to be obscene." The high court rejected the defendant's argument that issuance of an injunction "amounts to a prior censorship" in violation of the First Amendment (Kingsley Books, Inc., at p. 440), quoting Near v. Minnesota, supra, 283 U.S. 697, 716, for the proposition that " 'the protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited.' " (Kingsley Books, supra, 354 U.S. at p. 441.) The high court recognized that the term "prior restraint" cannot be applied unthinkingly: "The phrase 'prior restraint' is not a self-wielding sword. Nor can it serve as a talismanic test." (Ibid.) The court pointed out that the defendants in Kingsley Books "were enjoined from displaying for sale or distributing only the particular booklets theretofore published and adjudged to be obscene." (Id. at p. 444.) This fact distinguished Kingsley Books from the decision in Near v. Minnesota, supra, 283 U.S. 697, which had ruled that the abatement as a public nuisance of a newspaper was an invalid prior restraint, noting that the abatement in Near "enjoin[ed] the dissemination of future issues of a publication because its past issues had been found offensive," which is " 'the essence of censorship.' " (Kingsley Books, supra, 354 U.S. at p. 445.) The high court in Kingsley Books observed that the injunction was "glaringly different" from the prior restraint in Near, because it "studiously withholds restraint upon matters not already published and not yet found to be offensive." (354 U.S. at p. 445.)
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) 413 U.S. 49, 55 [37 L.Ed.2d 446, 93 S.Ct. 2628] upheld a Georgia statute authorizing an injunction prohibiting the exhibition of obscene materials because the statute "imposed no restraint on the exhibition of the films involved in this case until after a full adversary proceeding and a final judicial determination by the Georgia Supreme Court that the materials were constitutionally unprotected."
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Rel. Comm'n (1973) 413 U.S. 376 [37 L.Ed.2d 669, 93 S.Ct. 2553] held that an order forbidding a newspaper from publishing "help wanted" advertisements in gender-designated columns was not a prohibited prior restraint on expression. A city ordinance had been interpreted to forbid such segregation of advertisements as unlawful sexual discrimination in employment. The high court held that the First Amendment did not protect such illegal conduct, stating: "We have no doubt that a newspaper constitutionally could be forbidden to publish a want ad proposing a sale of narcotics or soliciting prostitutes." (413 U.S. at p. 388.) The court held that the order was not a prohibited prior restraint on expression, noting that it never had held that all injunctions against newspapers were impermissible: "The special vice of a prior restraint is that communication will be suppressed . . . before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment. [][] The present order does not endanger arguably protected speech. Because the order is based on a continuing course of repetitive conduct, this is not a case in which the Court is asked to speculate as to the effect of publication. [Citation.]" (413 U.S. at p. 390; see also Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc. (1994) 512 U.S. 753, 764, fn. 2 [129 L.Ed.2d 593, 114 S.Ct. 2516] ["Not all injunctions that may incidentally affect expression, however, are 'prior restraints' in the sense that the term was used in New York Times Co. [v. United States (1971) 403 U.S. 713 [29 L.Ed.2d 822, 91 S.Ct. 2140]] or Vance [v. Universal Amusement Co. (1980) 445 U.S. 308 [63 L.Ed.2d 413, 100 S.Ct. 1156]]"].)
In each of these cases, the high court held an injunctive order prohibiting the repetition of expression that had been judicially determined to be unlawful did not constitute a prohibited prior restraint of speech. (See Kramer v. Thompson (3d Cir. 1991) 947 F.2d 666, 675 ["The United States Supreme Court has held repeatedly that an injunction against speech generally will not be considered an unconstitutional prior restraint if it is issued after a jury has determined that the speech is not constitutionally protected."]; see DVD Copy Control Assn., Inc. v. Burner (2003) 31 Cal.4th 864, 891-892 [4 Cal.Rptr.3d 69, 75 P.3d 1] (conc. opn. of Moreno, J.) ["a preliminary injunction poses a danger that permanent injunctive relief does not: that potentially protected speech will be enjoined prior to an adjudication on the merits of the speaker's or publisher's First Amendment claims"].)
Decisions of two federal courts echo this conclusion. Auburn Police Union v. Carpenter (1st Cir. 1993) 8 F3d 886, upheld an injunction under a Maine statute that prohibited solicitations for the benefit of a law enforcement officer, agency, or association, rejecting the argument that an injunction against such solicitation necessarily would constitute an invalid prior restraint on expression: "The Supreme Court . . . 'has never held that all injunctions are impermissible.' [Citation.] 'The special vice of a prior restraint is that communication will be suppressed, either directly or by inducing excessive caution in the speaker, before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment.' [Citation.] An injunction that is narrowly tailored, based upon a continuing course of repetitive speech, and granted only after a final adjudication on the merits that the speech is unprotected does not constitute an unlawful prior restraint." (Id. at p. 903; see Haseotes v. Cumberland Farms, Inc. (Bankr. D.Mass. 1997) 216 B.R. 690, 695.)
In Lothschuetz v. Carpenter (6th Cir. 1990) 898 F.2d 1200, the district court awarded nominal damages after finding that the defendant had repeatedly libeled the plaintiffs but denied the plaintiffs' request for an injunction, ruling that it would constitute "an unwarranted prior restraint on freedom of speech." (Id. at p. 1206.) The court of appeals reversed, stating that "in view of [the defendant]'s frequent and continuing defamatory statements, an injunction is necessary to prevent future injury to [the plaintiff]'s personal reputation and business relations. [Citations.]" (Id. at pp. 1208-1209 (conc. & dis. opn. of Wellford, J.).) The court of appeals majority made clear that it "would limit the application of such injunction to the statements which have been found in this and prior proceedings to be false and libelous." (Ibid.)
The highest courts of several of our sister states have reached the same conclusion. The Ohio Supreme Court upheld a complaint that sought injunctive relief to prohibit the defendant from repeating statements after those statements were proven at trial to be defamatory. The court held: "Once speech has judicially been found libelous, if all the requirements for injunctive relief are met, an injunction for restraint of continued publication of that same speech may be proper. The judicial determination that specific speech is defamatory must be made prior to any restraint. [Citation.]" (O'Brien v. Tenants (1975) 42 Ohio St. 2d 242, 245 [327 N.E.2d 753, 755].)
The Georgia Supreme Court upheld an injunction issued following a jury trial in a libel case that prohibited the repetition of the statements found to be defamatory. The plaintiff in Retail Credit v. Russell (1975) 234 Ga. 765 [218 S.E.2d 54] discovered that the defendant credit reporting company had published a report erroneously stating the plaintiff had been fired from a previous job for stealing from his former employer. The plaintiff provided to the defendant a letter from his former employer completely refuting this libel. The jury found that the defendant promised to retract the statement, but failed to do so and, in fact, distributed further reports that repeated the libel. The jury awarded $15,000 in damages to the plaintiff, and the trial court "entered a narrowly-drawn order enjoining Retail Credit from the further publication of the adjudicated libel." (Id., 218 S.E.2d at p. 56.) The Georgia Supreme Court rejected Retail Credit's claim that the injunction constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on expression, stating: "The jury verdict necessarily found the statements of Retail Credit to have been false and defamatory, and the evidence authorized a conclusion that the libel had been repetitive. . . . Thus, prior to the issuance of the injunction 'an adequate determination [was made] that it is unprotected by the First Amendment'; the 'order is based on a continuing course of repetitive conduct'; and 'the order is clear and sweeps no more broadly than necessary.' [Citation.] The protections recognized in Pittsburgh Press have been accorded Retail Credit and this injunction is not subject to the complaints made of it." (Id. at pp. 62-63, italics added.) The court added: " 'The present order does not endanger arguably protected speech. Because the order is based on a continuing course of repetitive conduct, this is not a case in which the court is asked to speculate as to the effect of publication.' " (Id. at p. 62.)
The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld an injunction issued following a jury trial that prohibited further publication of a book and a document that had been determined at trial to contain defamatory statements. "[Cjourts have . . . upheld the suppression of libel, so long as the suppression is limited to the precise statements found libelous after a full and fair adversary proceeding. [Citations.] We therefore hold that the injunction below, limited as it is to material found either libelous or disparaging after a full jury trial, is not unconstitutional and may stand." (Advanced Training Sys. v. Caswell Equip. Co. (Minn. 1984) 352 N.W.2d 1, 11.)
In Sid Dillon Chevrolet v. Sullivan (1997) 251 Neb. 722 [559 N.W.2d 740], the Nebraska Supreme Court overturned an injunction issued prior to trial that prohibited speech, quoting the "general rule" that "equity will not enjoin a libel or slander." (Id., 559 N.W.2d at p. 746.) Among the reasons for this general rule is that "the defendant would be deprived of the right to a jury trial concerning the truth of his or her allegedly defamatory publication . . . ." (Ibid.) The court recognized, however, that this general rule does not necessarily apply to an injunction prohibiting speech that is issued following a trial at which the statements have been found to be unlawful: "Some jurisdictions have concluded that an order enjoining further publication of libelous or slanderous material does not constitute a prior restraint on speech where there has been a full and fair adversarial proceeding in which the complained of publications were found to be false or misleading representations of fact prior to the issuance of injunctive relief. [Citations.]" (Ibid.) Accordingly, the court carefully limited its holding to injunctions issued prior to trial: "We adopt the view of those jurisdictions that have considered the issue and hold that absent a prior adversarial determination that the complained of publication is false or a misleading representation of fact, equity will not issue to enjoin a libel or slander . ." (Id. at p. 747, italics added; see Nolan v. Campbell (2004) 13 Neb.App. 212, 226 [690 N.W.2d 638, 652] ["Here, the restraint via the injunction is permissible because the speech had been adjudicated to be libelous and therefore not to be protected under the First Amendment. Therefore, the trial court did not err in issuing an injunction."]; see also Annot., Injunction as Remedy Against Defamation of Person (1956) 47 A.L.R.2d 715, 728 ["It may be argued that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech and trial by jury are not infringed by equitable interference with the right of publication where the defamatory nature of the publications complained of has once been established by a trial at law, and the plaintiff seeks to restrain further similar statements."]; 42 Am.Jur.2d (2000) Injunctions, § 96, p. 691 ["Once speech has judicially been found libelous, if all the requirements for injunctive relief are met, an injunction for restraint of continued publication of that same speech may be proper."].)
Accordingly, we hold that, following a trial at which it is determined that the defendant defamed the plaintiff, the court may issue an injunction prohibiting the defendant from repeating the statements determined to be defamatory. (Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., supra, 21 Cal.4th 121, 140 (plur. opn. of George, C. J.) ["[0]nce a court has found that a specific pattern of speech is unlawful, an injunctive order prohibiting the repetition, perpetuation, or continuation of that practice is not a prohibited 'prior restraint' of speech. [Citation.]"].) Such an injunction, issued only following a determination at trial that the enjoined statements are defamatory, does not constitute a prohibited prior restraint of expression. "Once specific expressional acts are properly determined to be unprotected by the first amendment, there can be no objection to their subsequent suppression or prosecution." (Tribe, American Constitutional Law, supra, § 12-37, pp. 1054-1055; see Redish, The Proper Role of the Prior Restraint Doctrine in First Amendment Theory (1984) 70 Va. L.Rev. 53, 55 ["in certain instances prior restraints are appropriately disfavored . . . because of the coincidental harm to fully protected expression that results from the preliminary restraint imposed prior to a decision on the merits of a final restraint. . . . Such interim restraints present a threat to first amendment rights . . . that expression will be abridged . . . prior to a full and fair hearing before an independent judicial forum to determine the scope of the speaker's constitutional right."].)
Lemen argues that damages are the sole remedy available for defamation, stating: "The traditional rule of Anglo-American law is that equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin defamation." But, as Lemen acknowledges, this general rule "was established in eighteenth-century England." At that time, the courts of law and the courts of equity were separate. This long-since-abandoned separation of the courts of law and equity accounts for the general rule that equity will not enjoin defamation. As one commentator has explained: "By the end of the Fifteenth Century, complaints against defamation were heard in two different courts, the Star Chamber and the common-law courts. . . . [][]... [f] When the Star Chamber was abolished in 1641, the common-law courts assumed its former jurisdiction over defamation . [][]... [][] The courts of equity, accordingly, were denied authority to hear claims for defamation. As early as 1742, it was ruled in the St. James's Evening Post Case, that the courts of equity had no jurisdiction over claims of libel and slander: 'For whether it is a libel against the publick or private persons, the only method is to proceed at law.' Since the common-law courts then had no power at all to grant injunctions, the resultant ruling meant that, in England, defamation could not be enjoined; the only permissible remedy was money damages at law. . . . [f] . . . [f] Thus, an extraordinarily important rule was created more as an offshoot of a jurisdictional dispute than as a calculated understanding of the needs of a free press. In fact, the creation of the rule that equity will not enjoin a libel parallels the almost anti-climatic ending of licensing of the press. These were both 'historical accidents'. . ." (Meyerson, The Neglected History of the Prior Restraint Doctrine: Rediscovering the Link Between the First Amendment and Separation of Powers, supra, 34 Ind. L.Rev. 295, 309-311, fns. omitted.)
Further, as some of the authorities cited by Lemen acknowledge, the general rule that a defamation may not be enjoined does not apply in a circumstance such as that in the present case in which an injunction is issued to prevent a defendant from repeating statements that have been judicially determined to be defamatory. For example, after stating that "[a]s a general rule, an injunction will not lie to restrain a libel or slander" (43A C.J.S. (2004) Injunctions, § 255, p. 283), Corpus Juris Secundum clarifies that this general rule does not apply in circumstances like those in the present case: "After an action at law in which there is a verdict finding the statements published to be false, the plaintiff on a proper showing may have an injunction restraining any further publication of the matter which the jury has found to be acts of libel or slander . . . ." (Id. at § 255, p. 284.) To the same effect, the annotation written by W. E. Shipley and cited by Lemen states as a general rule "that equity will not grant an injunction against the publication of a personal libel or slander" (Annot., Injunction as Remedy Against Defamation of Person, supra, 47 A.L.R.2d at p. 716) but also acknowledges: "It may be argued that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech and trial by jury are not infringed by equitable interference with the right of publication where the defamatory nature of the publications complained of has once been established by a trial at law, and the plaintiff seeks to restrain further similar statements." (Id. at p. 728.)
In determining whether an injunction restraining defamation may be issued, therefore, it is crucial to distinguish requests for preventive relief prior to trial and posttrial remedies to prevent repetition of statements judicially determined to be defamatory. As one commentator aptly recognized; "There are two stages at which it would be in the plaintiff's interest to enjoin publication of a defamation—firstly to preclude the initial public distribution, and secondly to bar continued distributions after a matter has been adjudged defamatory, [f] The attempt to enjoin the initial distribution of a defamatory matter meets several barriers, the most impervious being the constitutional prohibitions against prior restraints on free speech and press. . . . [][] In addition, such an injunction may be denied on the ground that equitable jurisdiction extends only to property rights and not personalty . [jt] In a few states the requirement that criminal libels be tried by a jury has been applied to civil cases as well, thus providing a third objection to the granting of an injunction against the initial distribution of defamatory matter. [j[] In contrast, an injunction against continued distribution of a publication which a jury has determined to be defamatory may be more readily granted. The simplest procedure is to add a prayer for injunctive relief to the action for damages. . . . Since the constitutional problems of a prior restraint are not present in this situation, and the defendant has not been deprived of a jury determination, injunctions should be available as ancillary relief for . . . personal and political defamations." (1 Hanson, Libel and Related Torts (1969) § 170, pp. 139-140, italics added.)
Accepting Lemen's argument that the only remedy for defamation is an action for damages would mean that a defendant harmed by a continuing pattern of defamation would be required to bring a succession of lawsuits if an award of damages was insufficient to deter the defendant from continuing the tortious behavior. This could occur if the defendant either was so impecunious as to be "judgment proof," or so wealthy as to be willing to pay any resulting judgments. Thus, a judgment for money damages will not always give the plaintiff effective relief from a continuing pattern of defamation. The present case provides an apt example. The Village Inn did not seek money damages in its amended complaint. The Inn did not want money from Lemen; it just wanted her to stop.
We recognize, of course, that a court must tread lightly and carefully when issuing an order that prohibits speech. In Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175 [21 L.Ed.2d 325, 89 S.Ct. 347], the high court invalidated a restraining order prohibiting the continuation of a public rally conducted by a "white supremacist" organization that had been issued ex parte without notice to the enjoined parties. In explaining the importance of giving the enjoined parties an opportunity to be heard, the high court in Princess Anne stressed the importance of limiting any order restraining speech: "An order issued in the area of First Amendment rights must be couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of the public order. In this sensitive field, the State may not employ 'means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.' [Citation.] In other words, the order must be tailored as precisely as possible to the exact needs of the case." (Carroll v. Princess Anne, supra, 393 U.S. at pp. 183-184; see Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Rel. Comm'n, supra, 413 U.S. 376, 390 [upholding an order that is "clear and sweeps no more broadly than necessary"]; Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., supra, 21 Cal.4th 121, 140-141 (plur. opn. of George, C. J.).)
The court in Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., supra, 512 U.S. at page 765, held that review of an injunction, as opposed to an ordinance, that restricted the time, place, and manner of protected expression "require[s] a somewhat more stringent application of general First Amendment principles." The high court explained: "In past cases evaluating injunctions restricting speech, [citations], we have relied upon such general principles while also seeking to ensure that the injunction was no broader than necessary to achieve its desired goals. [Citations.] Our close attention to the fit between the objectives of an injunction and the restrictions it imposes on speech is consistent with the general rule, quite apart from First Amendment considerations, 'that injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.' [Citations.]" (Ibid.)
The same result obtains under the California Constitution. Article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution states: "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right." In Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94 [44 P. 458], this court overturned an order issued prior to a play's opening performance that prohibited the performance or advertising of the play because it was based upon the facts of a pending criminal trial. Concluding that the order constituted a prohibited prior restraint of expression, this court observed that the wording of the above quoted constitutional provision "is terse and vigorous, and its meaning so plain that construction is not needed. . It is patent that this right to speak, write, and publish, cannot be abused until it is exercised, and before it is exercised there can be no responsibility." (Id. at p. 97.) In Wilson v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 652, 658 [119 Cal.Rptr. 468, 532 P.2d 116], we held that a preliminary injunction issued prior to trial that prohibited the distribution of a political campaign leaflet was unconstitutional because it "constituted a prior restraint on publication."
Despite the broad language in the California Constitution protecting speech, we have recognized that a court may enjoin further distribution of a publication that was found at trial to be unlawful, stating: "[I]f the trial court finds the subject matter obscene under prevailing law an injunctive order may be fashioned . It is entirely permissible from a constitutional standpoint to enjoin further exhibition of specific magazines or films which have been finally adjudged to be obscene following a full adversary hearing. [Citations.]" (People ex rel. Busch v. Projection Room Theater (1976) 17 Cal.3d 42, 57 [130 Cal.Rptr. 328, 550 P.2d 600]; see Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., supra, 21 Cal.4th 121, 144—145 (plur. opn. of George, C. J.) ["Under the California Constitution, as under its federal counterpart, the injunction in the present case thus does not constitute a prohibited prior restraint of speech, because defendants simply were enjoined from continuing a course of repetitive speech that had been judicially determined to constitute unlawful harassment in violation of the FEHA."].)
The injunction in the present case is broader than necessary to provide relief to plaintiff while minimizing the restriction of expression. (Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., supra, 512 U.S. 753, 765.) The injunction applies not just to Lemen but to "her agents, all persons acting on her behalf or purporting to act on her behalf and all other persons in active concert and participation with her." There is no evidence in the record, however, to support a finding that anyone other than Lemen herself defamed plaintiff, or that it is likely that Lemen will induce others to do so in the future. Therefore, the injunction, to be valid, must be limited to prohibiting Lemen personally from repeating her defamatory statements.
Further, the injunction must not prevent Lemen from presenting her grievances to government officials. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is "among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights." (Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn. (1967) 389 U.S. 217, 222 [19 L.Ed.2d 426, 88 S.Ct. 353].) Accordingly, paragraph 4B, which prohibits Lemen "from making the following defamatory statements about Plaintiff to third persons" must be modified to prohibit Lemen "from making the following defamatory statements about Plaintiff to third persons other than governmental officials with relevant enforcement responsibilities."
The injunction prohibits Lemen from "initiating contact with individuals known to Defendant to be employees of Plaintiff." We agree with the Court of Appeal that this restriction "sweeps more broadly than necessary" because it "includes no time, place, and manner restrictions but prohibits Lemen from initiating any type of contact with a known Village Inn employee anywhere, at any time, regarding any subject."
Lemen argues that she cannot be enjoined from repeating the same statements found to be defamatory, because a change in circumstances might render permissible a statement that was defamatory, stating: "A statement that was once false may become true later in time." If such a change in circumstances occurs, defendant may move the court to modify or dissolve the injunction. Civil Code section 3424, subdivision (a) states: "Upon notice and motion, the court may modify or dissolve a final injunction upon a showing that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the injunction was granted . . . ." "This statute codifies a long-settled judicial recognition of the inherent power of the court to amend an injunction in the interest of justice when '. . . there has been a change in the controlling facts upon which the injunction rested . . . .' [Citations.]" (Swan Magnetics, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1509 [66 Cal.Rptr.2d 541].) By the same token, the Village Inn could move to modify the injunction if Lemen repeated her defamatory statements in a manner not expressly covered by the injunction.
If it chose to, the trial court could retain jurisdiction to monitor the enforcement of the injunction. "The jurisdiction of a court of equity to enforce its decrees is coextensive with its jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties, and it has power to enforce its decrees as a necessary incident to its jurisdiction. Except where the decree is self-executing, jurisdiction of the cause continues for this purpose, or leave may be expressly reserved to reinstate the cause for the purpose of enforcing the decree, or to make such further orders as may be necessary. [Citations.]" (Klinker v. Klinker (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 687, 694 [283 P.2d 83].)
Accordingly, we agree with the Court of Appeal that the injunction issued by the trial court must be reversed in part, but we reach that conclusion based on different reasoning than that relied upon by the Court of Appeal. As explained above, the injunction must be reversed in part because it is overly broad, but a properly limited injunction prohibiting defendant from repeating statements about plaintiff that were determined at trial to be defamatory would not violate defendant's right to free speech.
Disposition
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed, and the matter remanded for proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
George, C. J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., and Corrigan, J., concurred.
The limitations upon actions for defamation brought by public figures do not apply here. (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 344-346 [41 L.Ed.2d 789, 94 S.Ct. 2997].)
Meyerson, The Neglected History of the Prior Restraint Doctrine: Rediscovering the Link Between the First Amendment and the Separation of Powers (2001) 34 Ind. L.Rev. 295, 298-305 (providing a history of prior restraints on the press in England).
Which, the court noted in colorful language, "once exercised the power of cutting off the ears, branding the foreheads, and slitting the noses of the libelers of important personages." (Brandreth v. Lance, supra, 8 Paige 24, 26.)
A law review article from half a century ago recognized that the injunction in Near "was directed against the total silencing of the newspaper. An entirely different problem is presented when, for example, a plaintiff asks merely that a defendant be enjoined from distributing particular defamatory statements already in print. An injunction of the latter type would be no more objectionable as a restriction of free speech than punishment of defamation by punitive damage awards and criminal libel prosecutions. In neither case is the inhibition one upon speech in general, but only upon a specific group of words which have been adjudged to be beyond the range of constitutional protection." (Note, Developments in the Law of Defamation (1956) 69 Harv. L.Rev. 874, 944, fits, omitted.)
Judge Wellford's concurring and dissenting opinion was joined by Judge Hull and, thus, is "the opinion of the court on this issue." (Lothschuetz v. Carpenter, supra, 898 F.2d 1200, 1206.)
The general rule upon which Lemen relies is not universally accepted. As one commentator has observed: "Upon the question of relief by injunction against the publication of defamatory statements affecting the character or business of persons, the authorities both in England and America present a noticeable want of uniformity, and are indeed wholly irreconcilable." (Newell, Libel and Slander (2d ed. 1898) p. 246a.)
"English equity as a system administered by a tribunal apart from the established courts made its first appearance in the reign of Edward I . . . ." (30A C.J.S. (1992) Equity, § 3, p. 162.) "For centuries law and equity were administered in England by two separate and distinct sets of courts, each applying exclusively its own system of jurisprudence, and following its own system of procedure, but, by statute and constitutional provision, this dual system of administration was abolished and provision was made for the administration of equity in a consolidated court." (Id., § 4, p. 163.) Separate courts of equity were abolished in England in 1873. (27A Am.Jur.2d (1996) Equity, § 3, p. 521.)
" 'Prior to the Common-Law Procedure Act 1854, no court could grant any injunction in a case of libel. The Court of Chancery could grant no injunction in such a case, because it could not try a libel. Neither could courts of common law until the Common-Law Procedure Act of 1854, because they had no power to grant injunctions.' " (American Malting Co. v. Keitel (2d Cir. 1913) 209 F. 351, 354.)
Consistently, American Jurisprudence Second observes that "while it is true that equity will not normally restrain a libel, the rule is not without exception . . . and an injunction properly issued to prohibit a defendant from reiterating statements which had been found in current and prior proceedings to be false and libelous . . . ." (42 Am.Jur.2d, supra, Injunctions, § 98, p. 693.)
Justice Kennard's concurring and dissenting opinion states that the majority holds that "future speech may be enjoined irrespective of whether monetary damages would have been an adequate remedy." (Conc. & dis. opn. of Kennard, J., post, at p. 1164.) We do not so hold. We hold that an injunction prohibiting the defendant from repeating a statement determined to be defamatory does not constitute a prohibited prior restraint of speech. We also hold that an award of damages is not the sole remedy available for defamation. We express no view on whether, in an individual case, an injunction prohibiting the defendant from repeating defamatory statements could, or should, be denied because an award of damages would be an adequate remedy.
We express no view regarding whether the scope of the injunction properly could be broader if people other than Lemen purported to act on her behalf.
The Court of Appeal upheld the final paragraph of the injunction, which prohibits Lemen "from filming . . . within 25 feet of the premises" of the Village Inn, except on Lemen's own property. Lemen did not seek review of this portion of the Court of Appeal's decision and does not challenge it in this court.
Justice Kennard's concurring and dissenting opinion states that the majority holds that "a defendant's truthful future speech may be subjected to judicial censorship." (Conc. & dis. opn. of Kennard, J, post, at p. 1164.) We do not so hold. We hold only that the possibility that a change in circumstances could alter the nature of a statement found to be defamatory does not prohibit a court from issuing an injunction prohibiting the defendant from repeating that statement.