Harassment Restraining Order Based Largely on Speech Critical of Zoo Veterinarian,

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Volokh, E. (2026, October 26). Harassment Restraining Order Based Largely on Speech Critical of Zoo Veterinarian,. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/10/26/harassment-restraining-order-based-largely-on-speech-critical-of-zoo-veterinarian/

Dated from the outlet's own feed. Check the original for its byline.

Reason · collected 2026-10-26 · by Eugene Volokh

Quick Summary

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled on a case where a veterinarian at a city zoo obtained a harassment restraining order against an activist based largely on incidents involving critical speech. The court considered whether the activist's actions met the legal criteria for harassment, focusing specifically on whether her statements were unprotected "true threats" or "fighting words." Four incidents were cited, including verbal confrontations and accusations that made the veterinarian feel intimidated and afraid.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-10-26, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

AI analysis runs on qwen2.5:14b, locally

Story summary

Summary unavailable.

Written for “Restraining Order For Criticizing Veterinarian” on 2026-10-26, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The model judged this article politically coded and scored it +0.35, but none of the 2 quote(s) it offered could be found in the article text, so the score is not published.
Written under an earlier scoring contract, which gave a paragraph rather than checkable quotes. Re-analysing this article replaces it.
Leaning score withheld for article 107712: no verified evidence · logged 2026-10-26

Story

📰 Restraining Order For Criticizing Veterinarian
Crime & Law · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

Nothing to compare against. No article is close enough to this one for the pipeline to have linked or judged the pair.
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
59
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
5%
3 of 59 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
withheld
no quote in the article backed the model's score
Publisher signals
67/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Crime & Law
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-10-26 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 930 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
163 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 The Indictment alleges that Holmes posted on that account several statements against the Jewish community and Israel, including: "The jew will be destroyed and discarded," "From the river to the sea every Jew will die," "You inbred people will all die," and "Die Jew."
🔮 When reviewing whether the evidence was sufficient to support the issuance [or extension] of a 258E order, we consider [consistently with the statutory requirements] whether, "by a preponderance of the evidence, together with all permissible inferences," the judge could have found "that the defendant had committed '[three] or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that [did] in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property.'"
🔮 The Volokh Conspiracy Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent New from Reason: a look into what Javier Milei has accomplished and what it will take to make the most of Argentina’s window for real change.
2026-10-25 · assertive framing · Open Thread
🔮 The Volokh Conspiracy Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent New from Reason: a look into what Javier Milei has accomplished and what it will take to make the most of Argentina’s window for real change.
2026-10-24 · assertive framing · Open Thread
🔮 The original TRO—the one actually issued on July 20, 2025—named as plaintiffs eleven individuals and organizations who had never been party to the case; named as defendants two officials who were not actually sued; claimed, without evidence, that three post-secondary institutions had already cancelled DEI initiatives or programming because of the act; further declared, again without evidence, that staff at another school had been told not to discuss certain topics, including "historical interpretations involving systemic racism"; misquoted H.B. 1193 as applying to "race or sex stereotyping," "race or sex scapegoating," "critical race theory," and "institutional bias," despite none of these terms' appearing in the act's text; and referenced purported declarations of four individuals who do not appear in the record at all and may not even exist….
🔮 Critics fear that the Department of Justice's antitrust division will overlook mergers when it is convenient for the administration.
🔮 Body armor may be used more today than Defendants' understanding of its use in 1791.
2026-10-21 · assertive framing · Body Armor Ban Struck Down by N.Y. Federal Court
🔮 Readers might want to know: How often do civilians use guns to help stop shooters who pose ongoing threats to multiple people?
🔮 The reality is that our en banc court is often unable or unwilling to fix things at odds with Supreme Court precedent.
🔮 Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent From a press release last month, just posted on Westlaw: N.C. Detective Agency, a Durham-based security company, will pay $65,231 in compensatory damages and back pay, and take other corrective actions to voluntarily resolve a religious discrimination investigation by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
Also by Eugene Volokh
"AI Deepfakes in Court"
2026-10-25 · Reason
Open Thread
2026-10-25 · Reason
Open Thread
2026-10-24 · Reason
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 163 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Topics

258E G. L. c. 258E Massachusetts Appeals Court the District Court the First Amendment

Subjects

911 ORG · 1× Chauncey Wood PERSON · 1× E.B. PERSON · 1× J.R. PERSON · 1× Massachusetts GPE · 1× Massachusetts Appeals Court ORG · 1× Rachel Hershfang PERSON · 1× Sabita Singh PERSON · 1× the District Court ORG · 1× the [veterinary licensing] Board ORG · 1×

Narrative

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent From E.B. v. J.R., decided Aug. 20 by Massachusetts Appeals Court Justices Sabita Singh, Rachel Hershfang, and Chauncey Wood: The defendant appeals from harassment prevention orders issued pursuant to G. L. c. 258E (258E orders), by a judge of the District Court, requiring the defendant, among other things, to stay away from a city zoo where she had regularly protested the treatment of animals in its care.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-10-26
🔮 When reviewing whether the evidence was sufficient to support the issuance [or extension] of a 258E order, we consider [consistently with the statutory requirements] whether, "by a preponderance of the evidence, together with all permissible inferences," the judge could have found "that the defendant had committed '[three] or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that [did] in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property.'"

Claims (59 extracted, 3 hedged)

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent From E.B. v. J.R., decided Aug. 20 by Massachusetts Appeals Court Justices Sabita Singh, Rachel Hershfang, and Chauncey Wood: The defendant appeals from harassment prevention orders issued pursuant to G. L. c. 258E (258E orders), by a judge of the District Court, requiring the defendant, among other things, to stay away from a city zoo where she had regularly protested the treatment of animals in its care. asserted
she → decide → care
The plaintiff, a veterinarian who worked at the zoo, sought and obtained an ex parte 258E order against the defendant, which was later extended following a hearing after notice… asserted
which → work → notice
When reviewing whether the evidence was sufficient to support the issuance [or extension] of a 258E order, we consider [consistently with the statutory requirements] whether, "by a preponderance of the evidence, together with all permissible inferences," the judge could have found "that the defendant had committed '[three] or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that [did] in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property.'" uncertain
defendant → review → property
… Where the harassing acts consist of speech, each act must be the type of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, i.e., generally either "true threats" or "fighting words." asserted
that → harass → Constitution
True threats include "direct threats of imminent physical harm" and "words or actions that—taking into account the context in which they arise—cause the victim to fear such [imminent physical] harm now or in the future and evince intent on the part of the speaker or actor to cause such fear." asserted
victim → include → fear
Fighting words are limited to personal insults that are inherently likely to incite a violent reaction…. asserted
that → fight → reaction
The plaintiff's affidavit described the following four alleged incidents of harassment. asserted
affidavit → describe → harassment
First, in July 2024, while the plaintiff was working at the zoo, the defendant began "yelling and screaming" at the plaintiff that she "should lose [her] job and right to be a veterinarian[,] … that [she] was abusing [her] power[,] and that [she was] abusing and killing the animals." asserted
she → work → animals
Second, in September 2024, while the plaintiff was working at the zoo, the defendant began "telling other [zoo] visitors falsehoods about the elephants being beaten." asserted
elephants → work → falsehoods
The plaintiff told the visitors that the allegations were not true, but the defendant "immediately yelled at [her] over [her] explanation to the visitors and got within inches of [her] face to continue yelling" at her. asserted
defendant → tell → her
About forty-five minutes later, the defendant reapproached the plaintiff and got "in [her] face yelling at [her] about how [she was] a bad veterinarian and [her] cruelty towards animals." asserted
she → reapproache → animals
The plaintiff alleged that she "felt like [the defendant] was trying to intimidate [her] to quit [her] job." asserted
defendant → allege → job
The defendant was "in [her] face videotaping" the plaintiff, so the plaintiff called 911. asserted
plaintiff → videotape → 911
While the plaintiff was on the phone, the defendant "chased after [the plaintiff]." asserted
defendant → chase → plaintiff
Third, also in September 2024, the defendant "formally fil[ed] a written complaint to the [veterinary licensing] Board" that "was all lies and falsehoods." asserted
that → fil[e → Board
Fourth, in November 2024, a television news crew was at the zoo reporting on the elephants when the defendant disrupted an interview and began to "yell and scream at [the plaintiff] that [she was] not a licensed veterinarian and that she [did] not have a license to practice in [Massachusetts], and that [she was] abusing and murdering elephants." asserted
she → report → elephants
The defendant also "threaten[ed] [the plaintiff's] career." asserted
defendant → threaten[e → career
Of the four incidents alleged, only the second arguably constituted harassing conduct—getting within inches of the plaintiff's face while yelling and chasing after the plaintiff. asserted
second → allege → plaintiff
The remaining alleged conduct constituted protected speech, not rising to the level of fighting words or true threats…. asserted
conduct → remain → words
[T]hreats containing ideas or advocacy causing fear of economic loss or unfavorable publicity are not "true threats" …. asserted
T]hreats → contain → loss
As a result, the judge erred in finding that the incidents described by the plaintiff amounted to three requisite acts of harassment pursuant to G. L. c. 258E…. asserted
incidents → err → c.
The court also concluded the court violated plaintiff's due process rights: [At the motion hearing, t]he plaintiff's attorney recited the procedural background and the judge began to review the plaintiff's affidavit. asserted
judge → conclude → affidavit
The plaintiff's lawyer then started to relate that the defendant had been charged with violating the ex parte order, when the defendant stated, "I object to that, Your Honor." asserted
I → start → that
The judge admonished the defendant, "No, no. asserted
judge → admonish → defendant
First of all, … you're going to understand what the rules are; okay? … asserted
rules → go → all
The rules are, you're not to interrupt at any time." asserted
you → interrupt → time
The judge then explained, "You don't, in a civil case, have the opportunity to say you object…. asserted
you → explain → opportunity
It doesn't work that way…. asserted
It → work → ?
The judge then turned to the plaintiff and asked her about the Federal trial in which the plaintiff had testified the previous year. asserted
plaintiff → turn → which
[This appears to me to be Rowley v. City of New Bedford (D. Mass. 2024). asserted
This → appear → Bedford
The plaintiff explained that the defendant had filed a lawsuit against the city for violation of the Endangered Species Act and that the suit was resolved in favor of the city. asserted
suit → explain → city
The plaintiff's counsel offered to provide the judge with a copy of the decision. asserted
counsel → offer → decision
When the judge asked whether the defendant had a copy, the defendant replied, "Yes, ma'am, I do. asserted
I → ask → copy
Yes, Your Honor," and added, "I object to it being relevant." asserted
it → add → ?
The judge responded, "What did I say about objections?" and "I decide whether something is relevant[,] right?" asserted
something → respond → objections
The defendant then stated that she disagreed that the Federal court decision was relevant to the plaintiff's request for a 258E order. asserted
decision → state → order
The judge replied, "You can disagree all you want, but—and you can voice that, I don't want you [to] think you can't voice it…. asserted
you → reply → it
But you can't say you object." asserted
you → say → ?
The judge then said that she had reviewed the defendant's motion to vacate and asked why she should not extend the 258E order. asserted
she → say → order
Just as the defendant began to explain that the plaintiff's claims did not meet the legal standard, the judge cut off the defendant and asked a series of questions, pointedly asking why the plaintiff would accuse the defendant if the allegations were not true. uncertain
allegations → begin → defendant
…and 19 more, not listed.
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support