Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Violation of Freedom of Speech? Options · View
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, February 24, 2012 7:02:20 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
First off, I saw a video clip of this guy and he's a tool. However and whatever he may or may not have done in the past, is posting comments or status updates on facebook about your ex-spouse a violation of a Temporary Protection order? Does a person have the constitutional right to vent his feelings via text on the web? Unless it's slander or libel, shouldn't a person be able to say whatever he or she likes? Is forcing a person to post an apology, or anything on his/her fb to avoid jailtime appropriate, legal, constitutional?

edit.... and his ex and her family were blocked from his fb. She was informed of the posting from a third party. So, did her infringe on her at all?

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

Judge orders man to post apology to exwife on facebook everyday for 30 days

A man with a domestic violence record has been ordered by a Cincinnati court to post an apology to his estranged wife on Facebook for a total of 30 days.

The rather unusual order was handed to Mark Byron for violating a temporary protection order granted to his soon-to-be ex-wife, Elizabeth Byron, after he was found guilty in June of civil domestic violence against her, WLWT reported.

The violation came in the form of a comment that Mark Byron posted to his Facebook account underneath a photograph of himself holding the couple’s young son.

The comment said: "If you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband's life and take your son's father away from him completely -- all you need to do is say that you're scared of your husband or domestic partner and they'll take him away!"

Mark Byron admits that he uses the popular social networking site as outlet to vent.

"I kind of liken it to having a drink with a friend in a bar and telling them how I feel about things," he told WLWT. "It’s just on Facebook I can do it on a much larger scale, and people that are interested in talking about it can say something and those who are not interested would ignore it."

Even though he admitted that he blocked his wife from his Facebook page, Elizabeth Byron was somehow able to see the photo post and the comments below it.

She then filed a motion stating that the post violated the protection order, which prohibited Mark Byron "from causing plaintiff or the child of the parties to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance or bodily injury."

Mark Byron, a photographer, said his wife cast him in a negative light.

Magistrate Paul Meyers ruled on Jan. 25 that Mark Byron violated that protection order and sentenced him to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine.

But Meyers stated that the estranged husband could avoid jail time and paying that fine if he would pay back child support and post a formal apology to Facebook for 30 days, beginning Feb. 13.

The new ruling ordered that Byron could not shut down his page during those 30 days and that his wife or someone close to her had to have access to his page for monitoring purposes.

Mark Byron begins the semi-lengthy apology with: “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.”

On Mark Byron’s Facebook page many of his friends have posted encouraging comments urging him to “hang in there” under a link that he posted relating to his case.

Some believe that the verdict impedes on citizens’ First Amendment right.

“What the courts have said is that the notion of preventing somebody from speaking or compelling somebody to speak raises the same constitutional First Amendment issues,” lawyer Jill Meyer of Frost Brown Todd Attorney’s said.

The case resumes in court March 19.











When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
charmbrights
Posted: Friday, February 24, 2012 8:50:53 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/2/2011
Posts: 192
Location: Tirphil, United Kingdom
lafayettemister wrote:
... Even though he admitted that he blocked his wife from his Facebook page, Elizabeth Byron was somehow able to see the photo post and the comments below it. ...
That is no surprise. All you need to do is find someone who will look for you.

News of ALL my novels (and where to get free copies) on charmbrights.webs.com/novels.htm.
ArtMan
Posted: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:08:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 640
Location: South Florida, United States
Have you ever read the book, The Scarlett Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne?

It seems that is now insanity found on Facebook and courts in the USA.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

Guest
Posted: Saturday, February 25, 2012 1:23:51 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
With this thread and the one about photo shopping, my question is why are people so gullible and weak? Do we really believe everything we hear, and see?

Yeah, kinda answered my own question there. And now the courts have given even more weight to a flighty, fun, nonsensical piece of media. Are his mandated apologies truly going to do anything?

As for numb nuts....."I kind of liken it to having a drink with a friend in a bar and telling them how I feel about things." And if I were listening to you, I'd know you for what you are...an ass hole.

Pay your child support and grow a pair, DICK!
Guest
Posted: Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:22:01 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
This guy does sound like a complete douche, but I have to say, I find the way that we as people are having to adapt and change because of the internet, very interesting.

To me, what the guy has done constitutes libel, or slander, in just the same way as if he had taken an ad in a newspaper, or put posters up or was spreading rumours about his ex...

I think the fact that the ex and her family did not have access to his FB page doesn't make any difference in the slightest and I could see that it would or at least could cause her mental anguish.

I don't know, it seems quite clear to me...

lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, February 25, 2012 7:11:34 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
I'm in complete agreement that this guy, from the little we know of him in this article, is a dick and complete douche. As mentioned above. But I don't see his statements as slander or libel, just his opinion. Even dicks are entitled to have them, well placed or not. Just like any news or sports reporter that is commenting on a public figure or athlete. People make and print judgements all the time, opinion is fine. On this thread he has been labeled a "dick", "tool", and "douche", which is our opinion of him. His opinion of his ex isn't libel, at least I don't think so. If he could be sued for libel, then so could we.

Libel.....(for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant)

Since the judge or her attorneys didn't say anthing about libel, I'm going to assume it isn't part of the equation. If a Protection Order has been issued, where no one has been convicted of a crime, can a person's right to speak his mind removed? That's the question. The guy is probably full of shit, but he is entitled to offer it isn't he? A man on Death Row could access a computer and post whatever opinion he wished on the internet about lawyers, cops, judges, witnesses, victims (as long as tehy were opinion) has more freedom than someone who has not been convicted of a crime? Seems a bit askew.

On one hand we have the Facebook dad who aired his family's dirty laundry to the world. Authorities and child services are investigating the man for bad parenting. All the "experts" say he should not have taken his rant public. That it's private business and should have been dealt with privately.

On the other hand, we have a judge mandating that someone use Facebook and publicly offer daily mea culpas for 30 days. All of us know someone whose been divorced. All men and women are going to talk shit about their ex to their friends and family. The court is basically telling this guy to keep his mouth shut. To me, that seems cruel. He may be an asshole, but he is entitled to his opinion.

Andrew Sheperd, The American President 1995....
""You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours"





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Saturday, February 25, 2012 9:21:11 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
Quote:
Andrew Sheperd, The American President 1995....
""You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours"


I really like this quote and wish people would remember it when they open their mouths to badmouth someone that disagrees with them.
DLizze
Posted: Saturday, February 25, 2012 2:17:52 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,552
There are several great lines in that film. another of my favorites, though not apropos here is, "This has disaster written all over it." also, "Compliment her shoes; chicks like that." I have tried that ploy, and it works. LOL

"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
Guest
Posted: Saturday, February 25, 2012 4:34:49 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
It does? How odd. 6
Guest
Posted: Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:17:05 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
I don't find the mandate cruel, but it does cheapen the reason we came about to having a court system, and over time, at least in my opinion, it has lost even more reason.

Divorced here, and the ex has a face book page as I do. Do I look at hers? Nope. Don't care, not my life. If she were to say mean things, well then, I'm rubber and she's glue and what she says bounces off me and sticks to her.

"She then filed a motion stating that the post violated the protection order, which prohibited Mark Byron "from causing plaintiff or the child of the parties to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance or bodily injury."

His actions, while immature and uninspired, I don't think cross the threshold to his prohibitions. Unless being annoyed by ones ex is a crime. Honey, you divorced the guy for a reason, you know he's annoying, be a big girl and stop calling the wahhmbulance.

She found the picture even though blocked from his sight. Really? You don't know your own value as a mom and a woman that you had to get that picture, hire an attorney, and then take this to court? And, to the judge, well, I guess there just wasn't a whole lot going on in Mayberry, so he took this one to task.

Like the protesters at the funerals of soldiers last year, I can't agree to lend credence under freedom of speech to them or to this guy.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.