We're probably going back and forth over semantics, but HE did not violate the order. There was no communication between the two. SHE SOUGHT THE INFORMATION! Plus, the post did NOT mention her name.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. .
I understand your argument that he was sentenced for allegedly (I'm still convinced this jacka** judge really stretched on this one) violating the order. But the 'violation' goes back to what he wrote. SHE -- NOT HIM -- self-inflicted any "annoyance" (or whatever) because SHE SOUGHT IT OUT. He didn't send it to her and she was blocked.
Now, if he would've stated something about what he'd like to do or what he thinks should happen and the like, then I could see the issue. Here...not so much. I anticipate this ruling being tossed out, and determined the judge overstepped.
One thing is for sure: this case is going to create interesting discussions and dissections in Constitutional Law classes across the US.