From Gonda v. Duering, decided Friday by the Hawaii intermediate appellate court (Justices Katherine G. Leonard, Keith K. Hiraoka, and Daniel M. Gluck):
[O]n December 11, 2024, Petitioner-Appellee Anaya Gonda filed a Petition for an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and for Injunction Against Harassment (Petition). Gonda alleged that Duering, her former landlord, had harassed her both before and after she vacated the apartment on September 11, 2023. She alleged that Duering sent her “over 25 disturbing text messages with no legitimate purpose and a concerning focus on [her] health,” reflecting Duering’s belief that COVID vaccines had caused Gonda’s health problems. She alleged that Duering continued to send her text messages in October 2023, January 2024, April 2024, July 2024, and November 2024….
Gonda’s boyfriend, Gustavo D’Amico, was the first witness [at trial]. He testified that he and Gonda arrived at the apartment on September 11, 2023 to find Duering there with a painter—even though Gonda had paid rent through the end of September—and that Duering began “screaming at” D’Amico. D’Amico called the police, and the police “helped handle the situation.”
Gonda then testified that, on September 11, 2023, she told Duering not to contact her …. She similarly testified that “after my tenancy ended on September 11th and I, uh—told Mr. Duering to never contact me again, except via my lawyer ….” Gonda testified that this exchange took place in person …. Duering, for his part, denied that Gonda told him not to communicate with her….
Gonda testified that Duering’s text messages were “always about [her] health” and contained “COVID vaccine … conspiracy theories.” She testified that there was no reason for Duering to communicate with her. In cross-examination by Duering, Gonda further testified that she was “concerned and disturbed by the obsessive nature of [his] continued messages towards [her] when there’s absolutely no reason for [him] to contact [her].”
Hawai’i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 604-10.5(a) defines “Harassment” as including:
An intentional or knowing course of conduct directed at an individual that seriously alarms or disturbs consistently or continually bothers the individual and serves no legitimate purpose; provided that the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress….
Duering … argues that the District Court violated his right to free speech, freedom of religion, and/or to petition the government for redress of grievances—as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution—by prohibiting Duering from communicating with Gonda….
As the United States Supreme Court has made clear, “no one has a right to press even ‘good’ ideas on an unwilling recipient.” Rowan v. U.S. Post Off. Dep’t (1970). Duering has a constitutional right to hold, and publicly express, whatever views he likes regarding the COVID vaccine; here, however, Duering is not being restrained because of his viewpoints on COVID, nor is he being restricted in communicating with any other member of the public regarding his views. Instead, he is restrained from very specific conduct—contacting Gonda—for a limited time….
[T]he Injunction imposes no restrictions on Duering’s ability to express his views to any other member of the public (or the government), and its prohibitions with respect to Gonda expire after three years. The District Court found that Duering harassed Gonda, and did not err in restraining him from harassing her further….
[Duering also argues] that the District Court was improperly biased against Duering because of Duering’s views on COVID vaccines. He points to the District Court’s statement that Duering “was not—is not [Gonda’s] doctor” as evidence of the District Court’s bias against him. He explains:
Duering’s personal and religious views that the Covid vaccines were (and are) dangerous to human health; which if contrary to Judge’s belief, is an issue that has divided families and friends to disassociate with one another, which was caused since the massive Covid vaccination rollout in 2021, which was in addition to the big divide, which media propagated mind control, to influence otherwise sound-minded intelligent people, to ridicule and berate people like Duering, who merely seeks to educate those who are uneducated on the subject and dangers of inviting foreign unidentified substances, to be voluntarily injected into their sacred body.
The District Court made its statement that Duering was not Gonda’s doctor while explaining its finding that Duering had no legitimate purpose for contacting Gonda; indeed, the District Court made clear that Duering’s views on COVID vaccines were not relevant to its determination:
The point is not that your views are legitimate or substantiated or worthy of—or worthy of Ms. Gonda to consider them. That’s really not relevant.
What is relevant is somebody who did not want to have communication from you, and that being the case, it—it almost doesn’t matter what you were saying to her in that regard, and it’s—and so that’s why the court is ruling that the injunction order will be issued.
Duering and Gonda no longer had a landlord-tenant relationship, and Gonda made clear that she did not want his unsolicited medical advice. The District Court did not err in concluding that Duering had no legitimate purpose in contacting Gonda. Nothing in the record suggests any improper bias by the District Court….
For more on anti-harassment orders generally, see Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech (Especially in Libel and Harassment Cases); that article argues that broad injunctions banning speech about the plaintiff are generally unconstitutional, but that injunctions banning continued unwanted speech to the plaintiff are generally valid.
