OH Judge orders jail or apology for Facebook posts about wife

[Silverplum]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? This happened in OH.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120222/NEWS/302220184

"Mark Byron was so bothered by his pending divorce and child visitation issues that he blasted his soon-to-be ex-wife on his personal Facebook page.

That touched off a battle that resulted in a Hamilton County judge ordering Byron jailed for his Facebook rant – and to post on his page an apology to his wife and all of his Facebook friends or go to jail, something free speech experts found troubling..."

I'd be interested to read OhioGal's take on this.

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? This happened in OH.

Judge: Jail or Facebook apology | Cincinnati.com | cincinnati.com

"Mark Byron was so bothered by his pending divorce and child visitation issues that he blasted his soon-to-be ex-wife on his personal Facebook page.

That touched off a battle that resulted in a Hamilton County judge ordering Byron jailed for his Facebook rant – and to post on his page an apology to his wife and all of his Facebook friends or go to jail, something free speech experts found troubling..."

I'd be interested to read OhioGal's take on this.

High five to the judge!

 

[Ohiogal]

I disagree -- this judge would be overturned on appeal. The wife SOUGHT OUT this information. He wasn't doing anything more than venting. He didn't post it to her. He didn't track her down. He didn't send it to her. This is also a first amendment issue.

 

[quincy]

I have a feeling OG will be pleased with the judge's ruling.

I personally do not see this as much of a free speech issue. It certainly appears from what I've read that the guy violated the Personal Protection Order with his postings, with a contempt of court finding that could result in the possibility of jail time anyway.

The guy as a journalist should realize that publicly posting falsehoods, as he apparently did, could result in a retraction or deletion demand. This is certainly the case when it involves any news organization, and it is done by news organizations in order to avoid a defamation claim (or at least to mitigate damages should a suit arise).

Based on the articles I read, I have to agree with Antigone's comment.

Edit to add: Oops. I certainly managed to read OG's reaction wrong.

 

[Silverplum]

I disagree -- this judge would be overturned on appeal. The wife SOUGHT OUT this information. He wasn't doing anything more than venting. He didn't post it to her. He didn't track her down. He didn't send it to her. This is also a first amendment issue.

Yup, she sure did. She was blocked from his page, but managed to see it anyway.

The judge further ordered the husband to "friend" his STBX, plus anyone else who wanted to be "friended."

I think wife and judge have gone WAY too far.

This is a public service announcement, however: Be careful what you post, folks, even on your "private" page/s, or elsewhere on the internet.

 

[Antigone*]

Yup, she sure did. She was blocked from his page, but managed to see it anyway.

The judge further ordered the husband to "friend" his STBX, plus anyone else who wanted to be "friended."

I think wife and judge have gone WAY too far.

This is a public service announcement, however: Be careful what you post, folks, even on your "private" page/s, or elsewhere on the internet.

Sure it is excessive, but I think this tactic is called making an example and getting your point across.

 

[Ohiogal]

I have a feeling OG will be pleased with the judge's ruling.

I personally do not see this as much of a free speech issue. It certainly appears from what I've read that the guy violated the Personal Protection Order with his postings, with a contempt of court finding that could result in the possibility of jail time anyway.

The guy as a journalist should realize that publicly posting falsehoods, as he apparently did, could result in a retraction or deletion demand. This is certainly the case when it involves any news organization, and it is done by news organizations in order to avoid a defamation claim (or at least to mitigate damages should a suit arise).

Based on the articles I read, I have to agree with Antigone's comment.

Edit to add: Oops. I certainly managed to read OG's reaction wrong.

Falsehoods or opinion? She made life difficult for him to see his child in his opinion.
I also see it similar to Jerry Falwell and the time he did it in an outhouse with his mother and a goat. He went searching for that and sharing it with everyone.

 

[quincy]

I think the Falwell case was ruled parody, though. No one really believed what was written about him was true.

I honestly don't know nearly enough about this judge's decision and the facts behind it to give a very educated opinion on it, but from the retraction that was written by the soon-to-be-ex-husband (unless what he wrote in that was false, which I suppose is possible), it seems he was accusing his soon-to-be-ex-wife of denying visitation when it was really he who was choosing not to exercise his right to visitation.

I read that others who have weighed in on the decison (eff.org, etc) are saying there is a free speech argument to be had, but, again, from the little I read, I don't see it that way.

The contempt of court order could result in jail time, correct? If the judge found the man violated the order, I think it was a legitimate ruling to allow for either a retraction or jail. The jail would not be over what he wrote but rather for the violation of the order.

But, again, I am only basing my opinion on the article SilverPlum posted a link to, and a couple of other articles I read relating to the decision. I will take your word for it, OG, that it would be overturned on appeal.

As a note: I apparently missed the part where the judge ordered the man to friend his soon-to-be-ex-wife. That is stretching his order a bit.

 

[Silverplum]

Sure it is excessive, but I think this tactic is called making an example and getting your point across.

I'd expect a judge to rule in a manner that's in line with the Constitution, instead of acting like a teenager caught up in a hi-skool drama game with her high-pitched girlfriends.



But then, I have standards.

 

[meanyjack]

The Judge clearly overstepped their legal boundaries.

Their beliefs that what he posted -- ON HIS FACEBOOK WALL -- was a violation of the protection order is a huge stretch.

What the person posted is CLEARLY protected under free speech.

It's judges like this jerkoff who need to be removed from the bench. I can imagine this guy has civil rights' attorneys lined up to represent him to sue his ex and hopefully the Judge. And rightfully so.

I would also expect this particular Judge to be removed from this case.

 

[meanyjack]

Sure it is excessive, but I think this tactic is called making an example and getting your point across.

So you don't have a problem with a Judge CLEARLY violating one's rights clearly protected by the Constitution?

 

[>Charlotte<]

Doesn't a judge (or any attorney, for that matter) have to take some kind of oath to uphold the Constitution?
What's the actual oath? "...swear to uphold the Constitution or, y'know, whatever..." ?

 

[Antigone*]

So you don't have a problem with a Judge CLEARLY violating one's rights clearly protected by the Constitution?

Sorry, but I don't personally see it that way in this case.

Say it, forget it. Write it, regret it.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Sorry, but I don't personally see it that way in this case.

I'm interested to know why you don't.

 

[Antigone*]

I'm interested to know why you don't.

Byron's threats to his SBTX were verbal, I see this and apparently the judge did too as a continuation of verbal threats. He may have blocked her from his facebook but to say that they may not share some of the same contacts is a stretch. Hise comment about her evil and vindictive nature could only serve one purpose ~ to inflame an already tense situation.

Had he been at a bar venting with his buddies, I would have a completely different opinion, but he didn't do that. He continued his verbal harassment of this woman via Facebook, and therefore he violated the judge's order.

Just because we have the freedom of speech does not mean that all speech is protected. We live in a very different world today and we really need to be respectful of eachother and when we are not, we need to be ready to take what is coming to us.

That's my take on the matter as unpopular as it is.

~ tigi