"[Anti-Harassment] Injunctions Are Not a Remedy for Interpersonal Conflict"

The framing centers judicial skepticism toward anti-harassment injunctions as a remedy, using the appellate court's position as anchor while noting disagreement elsewhere—creating space for libertarian critique of government intervention in interpersonal disputes. Language like 'so reasons' and the implicit privileging of the court decision over alternative state approaches suggests skepticism toward expansive legal remedies, consistent with Reason's pro-liberty editorial stance, though the piece avoids overt charged language.

Primary voices: state or recognized government

• This article does not address the experiences or perspectives of harassment victims or advocates for protective orders
• This article does not provide substantive reasoning from the Florida court's decision or competing judicial rationales
• This article does not examine the scope or frequency of misuse of anti-harassment injunctions