Unfortunately, this bill is overly broad & vague in what it regulates (terms like "alarm and reasonable emotional distress"). So it should have some words added to it, like requiring that the prohibited conduct BE AIMED AT OR DIRECTED AT the complainant. What does "reasonable" emotional distress mean? People can be alarmed or distressed by many things. If people take photos of a mayor while she is going about her daily life, that may annoy her and lead to her seeking a restraining order, but an appeals court found that such annoying behavior was protected by the First Amendment, in Cantrell v. Breaud. Even though the mayor thought that such behavior was harassing and served no legitimate purpose.
Crazy people have obtained restraining orders against people on TV, like David Letterman, when they were offended or alarmed by what those people on TV said or did: https://www.independent.org/article/2005/12/29/abuse-of-temporary-restraining-orders-endangers-real-victims/. To ameliorate that problem, the bill should be amended to add a requirement that the person suffering alarm or emotional distress be the one against whom "the act or pattern of action" is DIRECTED. Law professors such as Eugene Volokh chronicle examples of such people and how they misuse such laws -- and examples of public figures using such laws in ways that courts later say violate the First Amendment:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/06/11/new-orleans-mayor-wasnt-entitled-to-restraining-order-against-woman-who-took-photos-of-her-in-a-public-place/
Volokh's UCLA legal clinic successfully challenged some such restraining or harassment orders on First Amendment grounds, even though those anti-harassment statutes didn't seem any vaguer than this one.
Unfortunately, this bill is overly broad & vague in what it regulates (terms like "alarm and reasonable emotional distress"). So it should have some words added to it, like requiring that the prohibited conduct BE AIMED AT OR DIRECTED AT the complainant. What does "reasonable" emotional distress mean? People can be alarmed or distressed by many things. If people take photos of a mayor while she is going about her daily life, that may annoy her and lead to her seeking a restraining order, but an appeals court found that such annoying behavior was protected by the First Amendment, in Cantrell v. Breaud. Even though the mayor thought that such behavior was harassing and served no legitimate purpose. Crazy people have obtained restraining orders against people on TV, like David Letterman, when they were offended or alarmed by what those people on TV said or did: https://www.independent.org/article/2005/12/29/abuse-of-temporary-restraining-orders-endangers-real-victims/. To ameliorate that problem, the bill should be amended to add a requirement that the person suffering alarm or emotional distress be the one against whom "the act or pattern of action" is DIRECTED. Law professors such as Eugene Volokh chronicle examples of such people and how they misuse such laws -- and examples of public figures using such laws in ways that courts later say violate the First Amendment: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/06/11/new-orleans-mayor-wasnt-entitled-to-restraining-order-against-woman-who-took-photos-of-her-in-a-public-place/ Volokh's UCLA legal clinic successfully challenged some such restraining or harassment orders on First Amendment grounds, even though those anti-harassment statutes didn't seem any vaguer than this one.