In protection from abuse, further providing for definitions and for relief; and, in protection of victims of sexual violence or intimidation, further providing for definitions and for relief.
Summary
HB1479 amends Pennsylvania’s protection-from-abuse and sexual violence/intimidation protection order statutes to expressly address harassment and abuse carried out through social media. The bill adds definitions for “post,” “social media platform,” and “user,” and defines social media platforms broadly as public or semipublic internet services where users create profiles, connect with others, and post content visible to other users. It then authorizes courts to include in protection orders or consent agreements a prohibition on the defendant accessing, using, or posting on social media platforms.
In practical terms, the bill expands the kinds of conduct a court may restrain when issuing protective relief. Under Title 23, courts may bar a defendant from social media access or posting as part of a protection-from-abuse order, and under Title 42, the same type of restriction is added to orders protecting victims of sexual violence or intimidation. The bill is intended to give courts clearer authority to stop digital contact, online harassment, stalking, or intimidation that may continue even when traditional no-contact provisions are in place. It takes effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
HB1479 would amend Title 23 and Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by adding new definitions and expanding the list of permissible relief in protection orders. It would affect defendants subject to protection-from-abuse orders and sexual violence/intimidation protection orders, as well as courts issuing those orders, by expressly allowing restrictions on social media access and posting. The bill does not create a new cause of action, but it broadens judicial remedies available to protect victims from online abuse and digital contact.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill in the House Judiciary Committee. An amendment was adopted unanimously, 26-0, and the amended bill was then reported out of committee by a 25-1 vote. That pattern indicates general agreement with the bill’s purpose of updating protective-order law for social media, with only limited opposition at the committee stage.
Contention
The main policy issue is the scope of court authority over online activity. Supporters appear to view social media restrictions as a necessary modern extension of no-contact protections, especially for victims facing harassment or intimidation through digital platforms. Potential concerns likely center on how broadly the definitions reach and whether prohibiting access to or posting on social media could raise overbreadth, enforcement, or free-expression questions, particularly if a defendant uses social media for ordinary communication beyond direct contact with the protected person.
In protection from abuse, further providing for definitions and for relief; and, in sentencing, providing for electronic monitoring with victim notification.
In offenses against the family, further providing for the offense of endangering welfare of children; in child protective services, further providing for definitions and for exclusions from child abuse; and, in juvenile matters, further providing for definitions.