The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that a trial judge applied the wrong legal standard when he issued an injunction requiring homeowners to face targeted protest signs away from their neighbors’ yard.

The Oberholzers and the Galapos share a backyard property line, according to the court’s opinion. What started over a dispute over landscaping has descended into a years-long argument over freedom of speech after a racial slur elicited a protest directed at one house. In a precedential ruling, the court found the ”right to residential privacy may be violated when a listener is subjected to targeted speech, including picketing and protesting.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]