The panel heard a contested appeal of an extension and renewal‑type proceeding relating to a harassment prevention order involving two Winthrop residents, identified in the record as JW (plaintiff) and TS (defendant).

Philip Weber, representing TS, said his client’s remarks and social‑media activity were political expression, sometimes coarse, but not the malicious harassment required for a long protective order. Weber told the court the record lacked three identified instances required to support the extraordinary remedy and suggested that many communications were political critique rather than direct threats.

Liana LaMetina, counsel for JW, urged the court to uphold the extension. LaMetina pointed to a pattern that included parking in front of JW’s home on October 23, an insulting comment as JW walked by with her baby, an episode of the defendant’s podcast dedicated to "exposing" JW, and hostile emails encouraging others to contact the plaintiff. "When TS is making these posts... the anger and frustration of people in the community turns towards JW," LaMetina said, arguing the pattern produced a reasonable fear and intimidation.

The justices asked detailed questions about the requirement that the court identify three distinct incidents and about how context, prior conduct, and indirect threats or incitement factor into the true‑threat analysis. Counsel also debated whether a prior mediation agreement that the judge treated as an initial order could lawfully support a two‑year extension. The panel took the matter under advisement.