On the surface, it's seems ridiculous, yet, I can also see how this might constitute emotional abuse.

Presumably, these aren't just his friends on FB, but mutual friends, aquaintances, and family. Kids today are also quite savvy at seeing what their parents post, and although his son is only 17 months old, what happens when he's older?

I have a FB friend who sometimes posts derogatory things about her ex, who is also her 13 yr old son's dad, and I cringe whenever she does this wondering how her comments may be undermining their father/son relationship.

Still, she has the right to do it, but I could see a judge ordering her not to if the ex made an issue, especially in regards to how these comments effect the child. FB is increasingly being used in divorce and child custody cases to prove adultury or parental alienation.

But the apology is absurd. It's one thing to be restricted from making negative comments and entirely another to be forced to make positive, obviousy disingenuous ones.

The family courts in the US do not operate by the rule of law; they operate at the untethered power and discretion of individual judges. A travesty of justice, as this case shows.

Mike is exactly right. No due process; judges informed only by state hearsay and their own predjudices.
Signed, a neoliberal

I interpret his comments as more of a critisism of the US family court system obvious bias.
Which the court then proved by punishing him.

The June court order prohibited Byron from causing his wife physical or mental abuse, harassment or annoyance. She asked in December that he be found in contempt after learning of the Facebook comments.

Let's see. He was under a "protective order" in the middle of an acrimonious divorce.

He should have been able to figure out that this would be an issue if his wife ever found out.

And that she would use it against him.

====================

He was prohibited by the courts from causing his wife mental abuse, harassment or annoyance.

Annoyance?

I hope that's a legal term for some specific act - 'cause otherwise all he has to do is irk her slightly to be held in comtempt.

Which he did. And he was.

====================

It used to be that my freedom to swing my arm ended at the other guy's nose. Now it ends at his feelings.

This is not progress.

I have started a FB page in support of Mr Byron. Please click like: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Supporters-of-Mark-Byrons-right-to-free-speech/396717043678748

"Libel is a false, malicious statement published in mainstream media (i.e. on the internet, in a magazine, etc.). (If the defamatory statements are only spoken, they are called "slander".)"

Most of the time, the statements must be proven false, and it would be tough for someone to prove they aren't actually "evil", and, in this particular case, he poses the rant in general terms, though it's surely obvious to his FB friends that he's speaking of her.

I don't know. My business has to deal with this site "Tripadvisor.com", where anyone can post their criticisms, which has, on a few occassions, gotten personal.

I can't take the comments down, but I can respond to the charges and/or attempt to correct any misleading information. FB is tougher because anyone could malign you - to all your friends and family - and you can't respond if they've "unfriended" or blocked you.

If somebody decided to destroy my business reputation, they could comment repeatedly on Tripadvisor and I'd probably have to get a restraining order, which, as Conan says, is what she had in place.

Yet another reason to stay away from Facebook. Here's another:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400758,00.asp

Paul Meyers is not a judge, he's a Domestic Relations Magistrate.

According to the Hamilton County Court of Domestic Relations Web site, a Magristrate is:

Magistrates conduct trials and motion hearings pursuant to Rule 53, Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. They issue orders relating to discovery issues, case scheduling, and related pre-trial matters. Magistrates set temporary custody, parenting time, and child and spousal support orders pursuant to Rule 75, Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure. They issue written decisions addressing issues relating to evaluation and division of marital property.

Magistrates work with the Administrative Magistrate, Court Administrator, and other Court personnel on specific projects related to the development of Court Rules, Forms, and Procedures. They perform and assist in the jobs and duties of co-workers when necessary in order to maintain the standards and integrity of the Court.

Magistrates participate in programs designed to educate litigants and the general public regarding court procedures and the Court experience. They also assist the Court’s Information Technology staff in the development of computer programs to facilitate and upgrade the Court’s ability to generate and process information related to the disposition and tracking of cases.

A Magistrate position requires a law degree as well as a combination of training and work experience that indicate the possession and skills of knowledge and ability to provide an unbiased forum for the litigation of disputes.

Volokh Conspiracy had a long thread on this.

@LS

"On the surface, it's seems ridiculous, yet, I can also see how this might constitute emotional abuse."

In general, perhaps; in this case no chance. She would have to go onto his Facebook page - track him down, in other words - to see it. She can easily just stay away. If even so she feels soemhow threatened, insulted, irritated that this exists soemwhere on the internet where people can see it, she doesn't need it taken down, she needs counseling and some mandatory training in the Constitution.

and although his son is only 17 months old, what happens when he's older?

He'll probably do what alot of us kids of acromonios divorces do, get a copy of all the court transcipts

"On the surface, it's seems ridiculous, yet, I can also see how this might constitute emotional abuse." LS

hmmm, and what would you consider calling the prevention of a parent from seeing their child?

My kids tell me fairly often what their mother thinks of me, even heard it a few times when she didn't think I would. Speakerphones are good for that.

So, I tell my kids that everyone has a right to their opinions, and it is up to the listener to decide what they think is right.

I've no doubt that there are 2 sides to this, but lets think about the side that is using the court as a 500 pound hammer. And apologies? Does the magistrate actually think public humiliation will change opinions?

Boyo should watch out tho... this divorce is obviously not going his way, and it certainly CAN get worse.

That is the takeaway. Every time you think it can;t get worse, it does.

This does not surprise me.

I wonder what Domestic Relations Magistrate Paul Meyers would do if someone started a web page like PaulMeyersIsAJerk.com that would be free to post any comments on? Or even bought his "named" website.

I was about to that with a local person running for county commissioner until he got his sign off my property.

I agree with Joe's comment earlier. It seemed as much about the court as anything. And the court goes and shows it to be accurate. Clearly not the most insightful court.

On an Off-topic but related free speech cause: The University of Cincinnati has "free speech zones". From an e-mail I got today:

A student group filed suit yesterday against the University of Cincinnati in federal district court, alleging that the university's tiny "free speech zone" violates the First Amendment. The University of Cincinnati chapter of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) and its president, student Christopher Morbitzer, sought permission to gather signatures and talk to students across campus in support of a statewide "right to work" ballot initiative, but the request was denied. Morbitzer was told that if any YAL members were seen "walk[ing] around campus" gathering signatures, campus security would be alerted.

Morbitzer and YAL seek a temporary restraining order to prevent the University of Cincinnati (UC) from quarantining the group's advocacy to the university's free speech zone. The suit was filed by Ohio's 1851 Center for Constitutional Law in cooperation with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Ohio attorney Curt C. Hartman joins the 1851 Center's Ryan Walters as co-counsel.

"The University of Cincinnati is a public, taxpayer-supported institution that brazenly refuses to respect the First Amendment rights of its students," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "Herding students who wish to engage in core expressive activity into a tiny 'free speech zone' may make life easier for campus bureaucrats, but it betrays the idea of the university as a true marketplace of ideas. FIRE has warned UC in the past, and now the university must answer for its disregard for free speech in federal court."

UC requires all "demonstrations, pickets, and rallies" to be held in a "Free Speech Area" that comprises just 0.1% of the university's 137-acre West Campus. University policy further requires that all expressive activity in the free speech zone be registered with the university a full ten working days in advance, threatening that "[a]nyone violating this policy may be charged with trespassing." The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, challenges the constitutionality of both requirements.

He should apologize. I'm very sorry that my wife is an evil, vindictive....

It's as meaningful as those presidential apologies for things I never did. Mistakes were made, but not by me.

Of course the ruling is ridiculous. On the other hand; there is a reason 'dirty laundry' should be kept 'in house'. Anyone that chooses otherwise gets exactly what they deserve. Be a thinker, not a stinker!