OH Judge orders jail or apology for Facebook posts about wife

[InfantCustody]

If we truly had complete freedom of speech, there would be no curse and abuse laws (VA) and no laws against communicating threats.

Where is the legal line drawn? If a law, judge or court has the power to tell you you can't threaten another, or curse at another, why can't they tell you you are limited in what you can post online about another person?

 

[Silverplum]

If we truly had complete freedom of speech, there would be no curse and abuse laws (VA) and no laws against communicating threats.

Where is the legal line drawn? If a law, judge or court has the power to tell you you can't threaten another, or curse at another, why can't they tell you you are limited in what you can post online about another person?

Let she who is without guilt here on FA cast the first stone.



*crickets*

 

[Antigone*]

Let she who is without guilt here on FA cast the first stone.



*crickets*

Give the the darned rock already ...and then pour me a darn drink, dammit!

 

[AlmostThere]

When I had an OOP against a step-son due to DV, the OOP included electronic harassment. He was forbidden to post about me at all. Yes, he blocked me, but we had mutual friends who did see what he was posting.

I do not know if that was standard (I would think if its not, it will be come standard eventually.) In my case, some of the harassment and abuse took place via Facebook, so that might have been why it was included.

Let's be realistic, Facebook is social media. It is designed to share things. Things posted on your wall are not meant to be a private conversation. If he wanted all his friends to see what he had to say, without risk of his ex seeing it, he would have told them in person, or sent out a mass message stating "DON'T SHARE WITH MY EX", if he was stupid enough to put such statements in easily sharable electronic format in the first place.

 

[Silverplum]

When I had an OOP against a step-son due to DV, the OOP included electronic harassment. He was forbidden to post about me at all. Yes, he blocked me, but we had mutual friends who did see what he was posting.

I do not know if that was standard (I would think if its not, it will be come standard eventually.) In my case, some of the harassment and abuse took place via Facebook, so that might have been why it was included.

Let's be realistic, Facebook is social media. It is designed to share things. Things posted on your wall are not meant to be a private conversation. If he wanted all his friends to see what he had to say, without risk of his ex seeing it, he would have told them in person, or sent out a mass message stating "DON'T SHARE WITH MY EX", if he was stupid enough to put such statements in easily sharable electronic format in the first place.

Maybe the auto-question "What is the name of your state (US Law Only)?" should be expanded to include, "DON'T SHARE WITH MY EX!"

 

[Proserpina]

I wonder what spinny would think of the ruling....



(I happen to agree with OG on this one)

 

[>Charlotte<]

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.

I think you have a pretty good point. Enough to make me reconsider my initial reaction, anyway. I still disagree with the judge's ruling, but I had to think about it a lot harder this time.

 

[meanyjack]

When I had an OOP against a step-son due to DV, the OOP included electronic harassment. He was forbidden to post about me at all. Yes, he blocked me, but we had mutual friends who did see what he was posting.

I do not know if that was standard (I would think if its not, it will be come standard eventually.) In my case, some of the harassment and abuse took place via Facebook, so that might have been why it was included.

What constitutes "harassment" is dictated by statute in your state. The only thing the judge did was expand that to include electronic means (email and the such). As far as the judge ruling to prohibit him from posting about you at all is another overreach of one's right to free speech.
I'm not one of those who says people have the right to say whatever they want, but you are allowed to express your opinion of someone. For example, if your ex posted on his FB wall something along the lines of "The ex got me again", that is HIS RIGHT to express that opinion, and a Judge can not take that away from him (or you).

Let's be realistic, Facebook is social media. It is designed to share things. Things posted on your wall are not meant to be a private conversation. If he wanted all his friends to see what he had to say, without risk of his ex seeing it, he would have told them in person, or sent out a mass message stating "DON'T SHARE WITH MY EX", if he was stupid enough to put such statements in easily sharable electronic format in the first place.

Irrelevant. Going by this judge's ruling, as an example, everyone who's ever made a critical remark about Obama could be arrested. All this guy did was "blast" his ex-wife and the legal system.

I have to seriously question and shake my head at anyone who agrees with this ruling and as to why one doesn't see the extreme slippery slope this ruling creates. This woman SOUGHT OUT this information; it was NOT sent directly to her. BIG difference! Nor was there anything remotely defamatory written by him.

In Ohio, the hill to climb to prove slander/libel is pretty steep (last I checked). Calling your ex "evil" or "vindictive" is hardly that; it's an opinion. The same goes w/his statement basically saying that a woman can go into court and say whatever she wants -- without evidence -- and get what she wants (in this case, a protection order and keeping the kid away from Dad). He's expressing his opinion of the legal system. Hardly a crime.

I look forward to this backwood judge's arse to get handed to him. And rightfully so.

 

[Silverplum]

Irrelevant. Going by this judge's ruling, as an example, everyone who's ever made a critical remark about Obama could be arrested.

That's entirely possible nowadays.

All this guy did was "blast" his ex-wife and the legal system.

I have to seriously question and shake my head at anyone who agrees with this ruling and as to why one doesn't see the extreme slippery slope this ruling creates. This woman SOUGHT OUT this information; it was NOT sent directly to her. BIG difference! Nor was there anything remotely defamatory written by him.

In Ohio, the hill to climb to prove slander/libel is pretty steep (last I checked). Calling your ex "evil" or "vindictive" is hardly that; it's an opinion. The same goes w/his statement basically saying that a woman can go into court and say whatever she wants -- without evidence -- and get what she wants (in this case, a protection order and keeping the kid away from Dad). He's expressing his opinion of the legal system. Hardly a crime.

I look forward to this backwood judge's arse to get handed to him. And rightfully so.

While we're at it, I've read that Dad was EXONERATED in criminal court for Mom's false accusations.

Let's discuss that part, too.

 

[InfantCustody]

He posted false information, apparently, when he claimed his wife had prevented him from seeing their son. Based on his apology, it was his choice to not utilize his supervised visitation. I'm not saying the judge was right, at all, but I don't think it's much of a stretch beyond other measures that impose upon speech. Parents are frequently ordered not to discuss custody matters publically, or with the children, during custody trials. The punishment for violating that would be contempt of court.

"I would like to apologize to my wife, Elizabeth Byron, for the comments regarding her and our son ... which were posted on my Facebook wall on or about November 23, 2011.

"I hereby acknowledge that two judicial officials in the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court have heard evidence and determined that I committed an act of domestic violence against Elizabeth on January 17, 2011. While that determination is currently being appealed, it has not been overturned by the appellate court. As a result of that determination, I was granted supervised parenting time with (my son) on a twice weekly basis.

"The reason I saw (my son) only one time during the four month period which ended about the time of my Facebook posting was because I chose to see him on only that single occasion during that period.

"I hereby apologize to Elizabeth for casting her in an unfavorable light by suggesting that she withheld (my son) from me or that she in any manner prevented me from seeing (my son) during that period. That decision was mine and mine alone.

"I further apologize to all my Facebook Friends for attempting to mislead them into thinking that Elizabeth was in any manner preventing me from spending time with (my son), which caused several of my Facebook Friends to respond with angry, venomous, and inflammatory comments of their own."

 

[Ohiogal]

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.

I talked to some of my colleagues and the issues they see are pretty similar. He had BLOCKED his soon to be ex wife from his facebook page and she sought it out. Similar to one of the things the Supreme Court ruled upon in Falwell. (He sought it out and passed it around and therefore it was not defamation as he was the one making sure his friends and family saw it -- and yes, it was also ruled parody.)

Apparently the judge in this case also SCRIPTED the apology the man was to post.

 

[quincy]

Ohiogal, do you have a link to a site that details exactly what the man wrote about his wife online (before the retraction) and a link to the judge's decison?

I am not (or at least have not been) seeing this as defamation, because it appears that these were just opinions and (perhaps some false) comments written by the man that the judge found as violating the protection order. Harassment but not defamation. If anything written were defamatory, though, the publication element of defamation in this current case has been met, as it involved an internet posting, whether the wife had access to the postings or not.

As for the retraction, I didn't realize it was scripted by the judge. Hmmm. A retraction in and of itself would not be a violation of any constitutional right. A retraction is merely a correction of error.

I am mostly curious as to what, if anything, the judge ordered in the way of any future writings by the man.

 

[Just Blue]

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.

 

[Silverplum]

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.

 

[Ohiogal]

Ohiogal, do you have a link to a site that details exactly what the man wrote about his wife online and a link to the judge's decison?

Tracy Winkler - Clerk of Courts
There is his case. Trying to access the actual orders. The legal sites I have access to are stating the man was ordered to post THAT message.