What makes social media posts 'directed at' someone under Utah's stalking statute? Harris v. Hunt Explained

In Harris v. Hunt, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified when social media posts constitute conduct “directed at” an individual under Utah’s stalking statute, resolving a key question about the objective nature of this legal standard.

Background and Facts

Dale Harris obtained a civil stalking injunction against Justin Hunt, who was dating Harris’s ex-wife. Hunt had made numerous Facebook posts about Harris, including posts containing Harris’s full name and address, allegations of criminal behavior, booking photos, and claims about Harris’s conduct as a town employee. Hunt also posted that he was “doin bad boy shit” in Harris’s town and was seen at an inn across from Harris’s workplace. Harris testified that these incidents caused him emotional distress and led him to leave his job.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Hunt’s Facebook posts constituted a course of conduct directed at Harris under Utah Code § 76-5-106.5. Hunt argued his posts were not “directed at” Harris because they were made on his personal Facebook page intended for a limited audience, not for Harris to see.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied an objective standard for determining whether conduct is “directed at” someone. The court emphasized that the perpetrator’s subjective intent regarding the intended audience is “largely irrelevant.” Instead, courts must determine whether the respondent “objectively engaged in statutorily proscribed conduct.” The court found Hunt’s Facebook posts constituted communications “about” Harris and fell within multiple categories of prohibited conduct under the stalking statute, including electronic communications and dissemination of information to Harris’s associates through the town’s community Facebook page.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that practitioners cannot rely on arguments about a defendant’s claimed limited intent when defending against stalking allegations. The objective nature of the conduct matters more than the perpetrator’s subjective goals. For petitioners seeking injunctions, focus on demonstrating that the conduct objectively falls within the statute’s broad categories. For respondents, challenge the factual basis of alleged incidents rather than arguing about intended audiences, as the court will assess whether the conduct objectively constitutes prohibited acts under the stalking statute.