A common request from clients is to make the other side stop disparaging them online or to people in their social circle. In light of what is often posted this is not an unreasonable request, but it runs counter to constitutional rights of free speech.
An example is the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling in Grigsby v. Coker, 904 S.E.2nd 619 (1995). In a child custody proceeding both parents were ordered “from communicating with any person about the other party in a derogatory manner either in person or by and through their attorneys using such terms as pedophile or other derogatory or defamatory words except when discussing the case with the counsellors or experts.”
The Texas Supreme Court struck this down stating that gag orders in civil judicial proceedings are valid only when an imminent and irreparable harm to the judicial process will deprive litigants of a just resolution of their dispute, and the judicial action represents the least restrictive means to prevent that harm. In one of the more amusing observations you will see in a court ruling, the justices stated, ” As the parties have little to say about one another that is not derogatory, the order essentially prohibits them from speaking about one another at all.”
The takeaway is that gag orders will only pass judicial scrutiny if they are limited and focused on the nature of the under lying litigation. The most common gag order I see granted are ones that preclude a parent from disparaging the child in the presence of the children.