Court upholds social media ban for Kenosha stalking offender

Listen to this article

A former Kenosha man should not be allowed access to social media as condition of his extended supervision, according to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District II.

Jonathan James Petersen pled guilty to felony charges of stalking, false imprisonment and two counts of making terrorist threats, all while using a dangerous weapon related to a June 13, 2022, incident. A charge of violating a harassment restraining order while using a dangerous weapon was dismissed but read in.

The incident was a culmination of months of harassment and stalking by Petersen of a young woman who rebuffed his romantic advances. On June 13, 2022, Petersen entered the gas station where the woman worked with a knife and a fake, but real-looking gun, threatened to kill her, others and himself. The court sentenced him to 5 ½ years in prison and 6 years of extended supervision.

In her victim impact statement, the young woman said that prior to the June 13 incident, she told Petersen to leave her alone, but that made the situation “worse.” He found her social media accounts and said, “harmful things about me.” She would block his account, but he would create new accounts and do it again. She finally deleted her social media accounts.

The prosecutor and Petersen’s attorney originally agreed that no social media usage should be allowed during his extended supervision, but after sentencing Petersen filed a postconviction motion saying the decision violated his First Amendment rights. He said the total social media ban was “overly broad” and argued the condition “should be modified to allow social media with agent approval.”

At the postconviction hearing, the state opposed Petersen’s requested modification saying that after she blocked him on social media, he would create new accounts to harass her and after she left social media, he would put things on social media about her. The state reminded the court about her restraining order and the stalking before the June incident where he threatened to kill her.

The circuit court ruled to keep the social media ban in place since Petersen “was involved with the victims in social media usage that was disturbing, creating fake accounts[,] using comments[,] and deleting [the accounts]. That was a concern for the [c]ourt at sentencing.”

Petersen appealed the ruling. He asserted the “no social media” condition is overly broad since the court also imposed a no contact supervision condition prohibiting him from contacting the named victims in the case. Peterson said he “has been effectively banished from social media to protect a handful of victims.”

The court of appeals disagreed. “As the prosecutor stated at the postconviction motion hearing, without the ‘no social media’ condition, ‘how are we able to protect other potential victims who [Petersen] feels slighted by for not pursuing relationships with him?’” the court said.

The court said the no social media rule will help Petersen conform his conduct to the law by preventing him from beginning a stalking or harassment social media campaign against future victims.