Ohiogal
Queen Bee
Oh also there is one appeal already going up in Hamilton COunty concerning this divorce:
Tracy Winkler - Clerk of Courts 1100576
Tracy Winkler - Clerk of Courts 1100576
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
OH Judge orders jail or apology for Facebook posts about wife
- Thread starter Silverplum
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
- Status
Just Blue
Senior Member
Everybody, go unblock your X from your private pages and let them read everything you've written! Send your X an email telling him/her how to search through your FA posts!
"Friend" your X: it's a brave new world.
/////////Has anyone on this thread NEVER posted a disparaging comment about an Ex or Current thinking it would not see the blue/brown/green/gray of said persons eyes? Write it, regret it. Say it forget it.
hmmmm Where have I seen that comment before
Just Blue
Senior Member
Peoples Court???
See post # 13 ~ but yes, I just love Judge Milian and catch her when I can. I like her "quien es mas macho" line too. I guess that would be what the judge in this case is playing, huh.
Just Blue
Senior Member
LOL!! I saw your post. I was bein' a WA. The first time I saw/heard that saying was on PC.
Threatening to be sentenced to jail for failure to write a retraction most certainly could be. The same goes for being ordered to write something every day for 30 days OR go to jail is another legal issue. The guy is essentially being punished for some disparaging comments he made.
The court ORDERING someone to "speak" (write) something (esp. not scripted by him, but the judge) or face jail in itself -- because of something he wrote -- is a potential free speech issue. I see this order as a suppression of his right to free speech -- because he is being punished for venting/making disparaging remarks.
Did he state some things that were incorrect?
Yes!
BUT the legal question is HOW did he libel his ex with his posting that SHE SOUGHT OUT? Simply posting something incorrectly or disparaging does not constitute as such. How was she damaged? How did she prove that she was damaged, as required by OH law?
So, if this guy posts another disparaging remark -- even if more vague than this -- he can get punished again? As a member of the media, I think I'm going to do some research/looking into this judge who thinks he can legislate from the bench.
Like the saying goes: don't tick off those who buy ink by the barrel.
Last edited:
CJane
Senior Member
I know that my son's father sought a restraining order against me, for posts he found on this site. He claimed that he felt threatened because I had posted regarding the legalities of seeking a life insurance policy on him for an amount equal to child support until my son turned 18 (a term policy).
The RO was dismissed, in part because he had sought out specific posts by me, and then tried to create a case around specific ones.
He then asked the judge to prohibit me from posting on this site, and others, regarding him, our mutual child, or any court cases going forward. She LOL'd in the court room and said "Do you really think I'm going to issue an order that would so greatly infringe upon her Constitutional Rights, just to make YOUR life a little simpler?"
**The flip side of that is that another judge, in another county, DID consider my posts on this forum, and others, to be of note in a custody case. They didn't impact his decision greatly, but they were certainly presented as evidence, and admitted.
Without knowing all of the facts of the case in the article, I would agree that he was in contempt. And he was given a *choice about his punishment. Either he could publicly humiliate himself and admit he was a liar and was only posting to be a jerk, or he could go to jail and pay his 'debt' privately. He chose the public postings on Facebook. That's on him.
The RO was dismissed, in part because he had sought out specific posts by me, and then tried to create a case around specific ones.
He then asked the judge to prohibit me from posting on this site, and others, regarding him, our mutual child, or any court cases going forward. She LOL'd in the court room and said "Do you really think I'm going to issue an order that would so greatly infringe upon her Constitutional Rights, just to make YOUR life a little simpler?"
**The flip side of that is that another judge, in another county, DID consider my posts on this forum, and others, to be of note in a custody case. They didn't impact his decision greatly, but they were certainly presented as evidence, and admitted.
Without knowing all of the facts of the case in the article, I would agree that he was in contempt. And he was given a *choice about his punishment. Either he could publicly humiliate himself and admit he was a liar and was only posting to be a jerk, or he could go to jail and pay his 'debt' privately. He chose the public postings on Facebook. That's on him.
Big diference Cjane, you are posting using an anonymous name and you have never (that I have seen) used your ex's or your child's name in your postings.
davidmcbeth3
Senior Member
I am not impressed with judges in Ohio....they must be drinking that Erie water.
quincy
Senior Member
Thanks, Ohiogal. I will take a look at the links.
I do see the fact that the retraction was scripted as problematic, but I still do not see A retraction as problematic, even in lieu of jail time.
meanyjack, from my admittedly limited understanding of the matter, the jail time was to be ordered over the violation of the protection order - not over the writing or the content of the writing. Jail would be in response to the violation of the order, not for the disparaging comments he wrote about his wife but rather for the fact that he harassed her by writing them. It was the conduct and not the content that was the problem.
I have been looking at the retraction as similar to, say, a diversion, where the party can avoid jail time if certain requirements of the court are met. The court could have, for example, had a community service alternative instead (and, from the reaction the judge has faced, he may have been better off with community service).
Here the judge said that, to avoid jail, a retraction should be posted to correct any false facts. It was this option, to write a retraction, that the man apparently chose to take to avoid the jail that would have come from violating the protection order. I agree with CJane on this.
And, in THAT sense it would not be a violation of constitutional rights.
WERE this a defamation matter (and I am not sure it is) then the Constitution would not protect any false, defamatory, reputationally injurious statements of fact that were posted. In addition, defamatory statements only need to be published to ONE person other than the one defamed. An internet posting meets this element. The reputational injury comes from the response of those who read the defamatory statements and react in a negative way to the person about whom the defamatory words were written.
There has, apparently, been negative reactions directed toward the woman after the man wrote what he did, as was stated in his retraction. If what he originally wrote was shown to be false (and I thought that it was demonstrated in the retraction that the comments he made were false....but with the scripting, I am now not so sure), the woman could potentially have a defamation claim to pursue.
Obviously, if the wife never saw what was posted, she would not know she had been defamed, even if people mysteriously started to shun her. She would still be defamed, however, and, as soon as the defamatory statements were made known to her, the claim would certainly be there for her to make.
That said, in divorce situations, it would be rare for EITHER party to a divorce to have what they say about their spouse be believed entirely by others (similar to how no one believed Falwell spent quality time in an outhouse with his mother and a goat), and so these tend to make for lousy defamation suits. Negative comments tend to fly back and forth with some frequency during a divorce.
Thanks again, OG. I'll check those out.
I do see the fact that the retraction was scripted as problematic, but I still do not see A retraction as problematic, even in lieu of jail time.
meanyjack, from my admittedly limited understanding of the matter, the jail time was to be ordered over the violation of the protection order - not over the writing or the content of the writing. Jail would be in response to the violation of the order, not for the disparaging comments he wrote about his wife but rather for the fact that he harassed her by writing them. It was the conduct and not the content that was the problem.
I have been looking at the retraction as similar to, say, a diversion, where the party can avoid jail time if certain requirements of the court are met. The court could have, for example, had a community service alternative instead (and, from the reaction the judge has faced, he may have been better off with community service).
Here the judge said that, to avoid jail, a retraction should be posted to correct any false facts. It was this option, to write a retraction, that the man apparently chose to take to avoid the jail that would have come from violating the protection order. I agree with CJane on this.
And, in THAT sense it would not be a violation of constitutional rights.
WERE this a defamation matter (and I am not sure it is) then the Constitution would not protect any false, defamatory, reputationally injurious statements of fact that were posted. In addition, defamatory statements only need to be published to ONE person other than the one defamed. An internet posting meets this element. The reputational injury comes from the response of those who read the defamatory statements and react in a negative way to the person about whom the defamatory words were written.
There has, apparently, been negative reactions directed toward the woman after the man wrote what he did, as was stated in his retraction. If what he originally wrote was shown to be false (and I thought that it was demonstrated in the retraction that the comments he made were false....but with the scripting, I am now not so sure), the woman could potentially have a defamation claim to pursue.
Obviously, if the wife never saw what was posted, she would not know she had been defamed, even if people mysteriously started to shun her. She would still be defamed, however, and, as soon as the defamatory statements were made known to her, the claim would certainly be there for her to make.
That said, in divorce situations, it would be rare for EITHER party to a divorce to have what they say about their spouse be believed entirely by others (similar to how no one believed Falwell spent quality time in an outhouse with his mother and a goat
), and so these tend to make for lousy defamation suits. Negative comments tend to fly back and forth with some frequency during a divorce. Thanks again, OG. I'll check those out.
Last edited:
CJane
Senior Member
I understand that it's not the same. Just my experience with postings on the interwebz.
Incidentally, my exes (both of them) absolutely COULD read my facebook if they so desired. Just like they can (and I assume DO) seek out my posts here and elsewhere. That's on them.
Why is this this guy doing the retraction any different, then say when a rag mag writes something about some star and the star sues, the rag mag often has to do a retraction.
I think though the big problem here is that she made those accusations about dad, which gave him supervised visits, and the article said dad was appealing that. So technically what dad said could be true and mom and the court has kept him from seeing the child by false allegations. Perhaps though dad should have waited for the appeal and then if it favored him, then he could post what he did.
I think though the big problem here is that she made those accusations about dad, which gave him supervised visits, and the article said dad was appealing that. So technically what dad said could be true and mom and the court has kept him from seeing the child by false allegations. Perhaps though dad should have waited for the appeal and then if it favored him, then he could post what he did.
Apparently, yes, this woman sought it out.
Did the judge go overboard? Yeah. He could have definitely done it differently.
As far as social networks like these (and someone said something about it earlier in this thread), many exes have at least acquaintances in common. Example: My ex knows numerous people with whom I work. I wouldn't say they are friends, but I'm not "friends" with them, either. They are coworkers/acquaintances.
Stuff put up on my ex's wall and comments made by him on other public pages have been viewed by folks with whom I work and/or associate with for one reason or another. In fact, he's made it a point of posting directly below people he knows I work with at times. My lawyer isn't too happy of what he put on his wall about her and her firm, but one of my friends is a lawyer in that firm. So, like it or not, whether I have him friended/can see his page or not, I still hear about everything.
The whole thing is quite juvenile, really. You're frustrated and need to vent? Get a psych or vent to a friend. "Venting" on FB about another person, especially your child's other parent, while it IS freedom of speech, is really just not the way to go. People talk about this stuff because people like to have something to talk about. Writing this stuff on the social networks is almost like writing it and putting up signs--except to a much broader audience.
Did the judge go overboard? Yeah. He could have definitely done it differently.
As far as social networks like these (and someone said something about it earlier in this thread), many exes have at least acquaintances in common. Example: My ex knows numerous people with whom I work. I wouldn't say they are friends, but I'm not "friends" with them, either. They are coworkers/acquaintances.
Stuff put up on my ex's wall and comments made by him on other public pages have been viewed by folks with whom I work and/or associate with for one reason or another. In fact, he's made it a point of posting directly below people he knows I work with at times. My lawyer isn't too happy of what he put on his wall about her and her firm, but one of my friends is a lawyer in that firm. So, like it or not, whether I have him friended/can see his page or not, I still hear about everything.
The whole thing is quite juvenile, really. You're frustrated and need to vent? Get a psych or vent to a friend. "Venting" on FB about another person, especially your child's other parent, while it IS freedom of speech, is really just not the way to go. People talk about this stuff because people like to have something to talk about. Writing this stuff on the social networks is almost like writing it and putting up signs--except to a much broader audience.
- Status