Randy Scott v. Frederic Blum: Florida Court of Appeals Overturns Overbroad Cyberstalking Order

Randy Scott successfully overturned a wrongful, overbroad cyberstalking order against him filed by a man who did not like that Randy disseminated information and opinions about Blum. It was undisputed that Randy never communicated directly with Blum and yet Blum wrongfully obtained a cyberstalking order from local Florida judge.


Randy deserves great credit for pulling off this feat winning an appeal without the assistance of an appellate lawyer. I congratulate him. Randy did tell me he referred to the work done in my own Chan v. Ellis GA Supreme Court case and I am happy he was able to benefit from our work and my case.
In order to succeed in a petition for injunction against cyberstalking, the petitioner must establish that a series of electronic communications directed at the petitioner caused substantial emotional distress and served no legitimate purpose. "Whether a communication causes substantial emotional distress should be narrowly construed and is governed by the reasonable person standard."

"[W]here comments are made on an electronic medium to be read by others, they cannot be said to be directed to a particular person." "[W]here comments are made on an electronic medium to be read by others, they cannot be said to be directed to a particular person." Mr. Scott did not communicate words, images, or language via email or electronic communication directly to Mr. Blum. The videos do not constitute evidence of the communication of "words, images, or language . . . directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person."

The emails sent to 2200 NAPPS members do not constitute words "directed at a specific person" for purposes of the cyberstalking statute simply because they are about Mr. Blum. Nor did Mr. Scott "cause to be communicated" words, images, or language via email or electronic communication to Mr. Blum.

Further, "[t]hat [the articles and videos] may be embarrassing to [Mr. Blum] is not at all the same as causing him substantial emotional distress sufficient to obtain an injunction." The same is true for the emails sent to the NAPPS members. Mr. Scott did not make any threats to Mr. Blum's safety. Mr. Blum's distress relates to his business reputation and personal reputation among his colleagues. A reasonable person would not suffer substantial emotional distress over the emails, articles, blog posts, and videos at issue. That the articles written by Mr. Scott contain false allegations or embarrassing information is not a basis for a cyberstalking injunction.


  • Indeed your case gave me hope. I figured if I lost in appeals it would have created a conflict of among Florida and Georgia requiring the US Supreme court to seriously consider a cert application.

    Anyone reading this find all similar cases and read them, dont reinvent the arguments just apply them (copy and paste if you have to).

    Chan V. Ellis Georgia was the first hope and than came Alki v. TEXTOR in Florida in the midst of my appeal.

    The tides are turning but unless you are prepared to fight judges will always side with their bar peers.

    In this case a prose won only because he learned quick and fought hard.
  • Randy,

    Thank you for joining the forum and sharing your case and story with others. I found how you handled your case very inspiring. You appealed pro se in Florida and that is impressive on its own. But you also won your appeal pro se which had to be devastating to the opposing lawyers!

    Please keep returning and offer your feedback on newer cases that come up.
Sign In or Register to comment.