spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7947
|
|
Lol, this guy is just going to sh!t on his ex wife to the kid anyways going forward.
|
Tweeby
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/04
Posts: 7100
|
|
[quote]I'm only talking about what was reported as his original post..Not what people thought he was talking about..not who people thought he was talking about...
His original post gave no specific names, nor did it implicate his ex as the person he was talking about...
Given that context...and that context alone, is my basis for opinion that he shouldn't have been found in contempt.. [/quote]
The problem with ONLY going by what he has stated is how do you know he is being totally homest? I really really doubt that he was found in contempt because of that one vent. From my understanding it is unusual to get jail time for contempt of court in civil court, it happens but not a regular occurance and not over one thing.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19801
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
The sheeple have spoken.
NOT calling you a sheeple Red...just the fact that once again, people are ready to do battle over what...part of a whole?!?
If ALL he had posted was.....
"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."
.....then I would agree that this is a First Amendment issue because you are entitled to express your opinion, but obviously that wasn't all he said, every article has indicated that the above paragraph is just a part.
And to say that just because he didn't say his STBX's 'name' or because she was 'blocked' that he couldn't have been talking about anyone...stupid. The man is going through a divorce, his FB page is public, he has been documenting and ranting....DUH.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26677
|
|
What is not based on "part" of the whole, where is the whole thing. What part of the order did he violate, was it the annoying part, the harrassment part, the abuse, and why is that the line, and who gets to decide. Is a court order to not annoy your ex even possible to follow. Since it is so obvious, what exactly is the criteria, what she finds annoying, what the judge finds annoying......if this is simple, and so clear, how does a court case about true and false statements make it to supreme court. What if his statements were true, but still annoying....what if they were true but harrassing......is this about truth, free speech, or contempt of a court order that is impossible to follow.....
|
Reilly
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/05
Posts: 3374
Loc: right here ----->
|
|
Isn't it tantamount to filing an RO..following him to McDonalds and then calling the cops to say he violated the RO?
His very existence is annoying...I'm sure she'd like the judge to do something about that too.
It is not part of a whole...his post was "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."
That's it...
--------------------
Ever notice how 'What the hell' is always the right answer?~Marilyn Monroe
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26677
|
|
I guess the scary part is that it was enough for a judge to give him the choice between jail and a FB apology......
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19801
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
It is not part of a whole.....
---> Yes it was. Just like I used "....." above to show that there was more to your statement, look how the article you posted quoted. Not only did they use "...", but the first letter of 'if' is not capitalized:
"... 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... , "
---> This was a PART of his rant, NOT his entire rant. The various articles make it clear that it is a 'part', his 'apology' makes it clear that it is a 'part', and the punctuation makes it clear.
---> As I told Red, if it was ALL he said...then I'd be right behind him on the First Amendment and IWJP. BUT. This is exactly why the media is NOT posting the REST of the rant (or the comments).
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19801
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
What is not based on "part" of the whole, where is the whole thing.
---> I would like to see the entire post (and comments) myself.
What part of the order did he violate, was it the annoying part, the harrassment part, the abuse, and why is that the line, and who gets to decide.
---> Obviously the Judge gets to decide...a decision by the way, you would be 'happy' with if you agreed. A USAToday article says:
The ruling found that several of Mark Byron's comments were "clearly intended to be mentally abusive, harassing and annoying" to his wife and "generate a negative and venomous response to her from his Facebook friends."
---> And I have no doubts they were given the current comments on his 'page'. Byron says that his comments were an expression of frustration, but that they were not 'threats' AND he didn't make them to his wife since she was 'blocked'. HELLO...wife blocked or not...your 'page' is public...it's like standing on a freaking street corner! And given how freaking crazy people are today...yeah...if my 'ex' was inciting people to make "angry, venomous, and inflammatory comments"...I'd probably be afraid too!
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26677
|
|
How about the whole court order, Obviously the judge did decide, and it is a legal decision, but what exactly makes this right, especially with the whole stolen valor act in front of the supreme court, and the WBC decision, talk about annoying, harrasing, and making people afraid, where does that fit in. If you go by
" The ruling found that several of Mark Byron's comments were "clearly intended to be mentally abusive, harassing and annoying"
then the WBC would have been shot down....
What I do agree with is that this guy is in contempt of a court order, what I do not agree with is the court order itself. The government ordering a person to not be annoying to his ex, and there are already laws on the books about abuse, harassment and bodily harm. Regardless of what the judge decided, the court order to not annoy his ex, yeah, it violates his free speech, and I would not agree with the order regardless of how his decision went on the contempt.
I am sure USA today accurately reported what the ruling said.
I am also sure that if people do not have the entire picture, they cannot have an informed opinion, unless of course, it is the right one....
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
I happen to agree with you here, Reilly...completely.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
