The Virginia Supreme Court has overturned a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit over a Virginia woman’s negative online review of a local contractor. The defendant’s attorneys say that the case marks an important ruling in preserving free speech rights online—judges shouldn't be able to edit or halt speech before a legal case has run its course. The injunction would have required editing of the review in question.

“The reason I got involved is that a preliminary injunction was issued here,” Paul Allen Levy, a well-known free speech lawyer with Public Citizen, told Ars. Levy is representing defendant Jane Perez in the case.

“If plaintiffs think all they have to do to get something shut down about them is run to court and ask for it, a lot more are going to do that,” he added. “It shouldn’t be easy to shut down speech, it should be hard. The win in the Virginia Supreme Court restores that balance. Defamation law is to protect people who are being truly defamed.”

A lower court had ruled in December 2012 that Perez, the homeowner, was required to edit her harsh comments on Yelp and Angie’s List against Christopher Dietz of Dietz Development, a Washington, DC contractor. After Public Citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a 21-page petition for review to the Supreme Court of Virginia on December 26, the highest state court overturned the injunction just two days later, on December 28.

Perez accused Dietz of numerous things, including “damage to my home and work that had to be reaccomplished for thousands more than originally estimated.” The injunction was part of a larger ongoing case, filed in late October 2012, where Dietz sued Perez on allegations of defamation and an injunction against past and future statements. He is also seeking $750,000 in damages.

Unsatisfactory work, accusations of theft

Perez had hired Dietz to do painting, re-finishing, and various other construction-related tasks worth $53,000 at her home in 2011. However, she was unhappy with the work that Dietz and his crew were doing and terminated him from the job. Immediately afterwards, in June 2011, $2,500 worth of jewelry was stolen from her home, which Perez accused Dietz of taking. Later, in court, he denied stealing anything.

However, court documents show the outright theft accusation appears to have come later, while earlier she seemed to have been somewhat suspicious. At the time of the theft in 2011, she e-mailed him: “I don’t believe that you were involved and the police know this. If all 16 items are produced by the end of the day tomorrow (Thursday) then I will not press charges. Until this matter is resolved no one from the company should be in/near the house (less you dropping off the keys).”

She later said on Yelp that as a result of the theft, she acquired both a dog and a security system "for protection." Dietz then sued in his own name, rather than his company's, for the unpaid invoices, losing the case in summary judgment. Perez appears to have subsequently hired different contractors to complete what she evaluated as poor work.

Court documents also show that by early 2012, she began posting her accusations against Dietz on Yelp and Angie’s List, and later began making formal complaints against Dietz in various local DC and Virginia government agencies, and accused him of practicing construction in Virginia without a license.

Despite the setback, Milt Johns, Dietz’ attorney, remained confident.

“We did not have a chance to respond to the petition before the ruling,” he told Ars. “The injunction was only a preliminary one. The case continues for a jury trial on damages.”

Even if Dietz ultimately proves victorious, it seems likely that he’d lose in the court of public opinion due to search engine results pointing to all of this history. Heck, this even has a name: the Streisand effect.