Reilly
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/05
Posts: 3374
Loc: right here ----->
|
|
Sanctimonious much?
No...I did not see his apology...
I don't understand WHY you feel the need to treat people like they're stupid...
Thought it was a good debate...
--------------------
Ever notice how 'What the hell' is always the right answer?~Marilyn Monroe
|
Reilly
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/05
Posts: 3374
Loc: right here ----->
|
|
[quote]What was wrong of the Judge, finding the guy in contempt of court or giving him an option of an apology instead of going to jail? [/quote]
Finding him in contempt...
--------------------
Ever notice how 'What the hell' is always the right answer?~Marilyn Monroe
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19807
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
But doesn't slander have to cause personal or professional harm? While the accusations or statements may or may not be based in falsehood (generalizing) don't you have to be able to prove harm in order for it to be legal slander?
---> Depends on what you mean by 'harm'. It's not always about money you know...you don't have to prove that you suffered financially to prove 'harm'.
---> As an example, ex-fiance started telling folks...family, friends, his co-workers, his ex-wife, even complete strangers...a bunch of lies about me to cover-up the fact that he was broke because he was spending his paycheck on meth. Let's see...I had a drug problem, I had a gambling problem, I was controlling, I was abusive, I was taking trips, he had to pay all the bills because I was spending my money on me, etc. Those folks responded with "angry, venomous, and inflammatory comments"...if I didn't receive the cut direct, I was treated very coldly. By the time the 'truth' came out...that HE was the one with a drug and gambling problem, that HE was the one being controlling and abusive, that I was the one paying all the bills...the damage was done.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19807
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
No...I did not see his apology...
---> How could you not? It was right next to the text that you copied. Big, bold letters in a colored box: " The court-ordered Facebook apology by Mark Byron"
I don't understand WHY you feel the need to treat people like they're stupid...
---> ONLY when they are.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Tweeby
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/04
Posts: 7100
|
|
I don't use my facebook so I won't look up this guys facebook. Was that the ONLY thing that was stated? From what Gecko is mentioning there seems to be a bit more than that one 'vent'.
Perhaps because I'm viewing this from a different POV that I'm not seeing anything wrong with it and actually kinda of pleased that the guy did an apology. My husband's ex lied about my husband and me to anyone who would listen to her. My YSS 4th grade teacher was afraid to be alone in the classroom with my hsuband for a conference because of what his ex was telling the teacher. Would of been nice if his ex had to do a public apology.
The count never found my husband's ex in contempt but with what she was doing she should of been. It is not simple to get contempt of court and from what I have experienced in Ohio courts I would guess tha the court was tired of this guys antics.
|
Reilly
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/05
Posts: 3374
Loc: right here ----->
|
|
[quote]No...I did not see his apology...
---> How could you not? It was right next to the text that you copied. Big, bold letters in a colored box: " The court-ordered Facebook apology by Mark Byron"
Didn't see it...sorry...
I don't understand WHY you feel the need to treat people like they're stupid...
---> ONLY when they are. [/quote]
BAER
--------------------
Ever notice how 'What the hell' is always the right answer?~Marilyn Monroe
|
Reilly
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/05
Posts: 3374
Loc: right here ----->
|
|
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..
--------------------
Ever notice how 'What the hell' is always the right answer?~Marilyn Monroe
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26700
|
|
some better call the supreme court, looks like they need some help
huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/stolen-valor-act-supreme-court-lies-military-medals_n_1294492.html
It is a free speech issue, look at the original order.....I mean how vague is this:
"to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance, or bodily injury."
So now there is an order to not break laws that already exist, as in physical abuse, and bodily injury, but we have added the ever precise annoyance, and/or harrasment.
Who gets to decide what is annoying, or harrassing. Would he have been in front of a judge if he said she dyes her hair, but she did not find it annoying. It is insanity. The judge gave this woman free reign to pick whatever fight she wanted to, and based on her personal annoyance/harrasment level. The beauty of it, what was the double check, well, of course the judge gets to determine if it is annoying/or harrassing....
I wonder how many people have said publicly, something that was annoying, or harrassing about their ex, as in they are not a good parent, or any other thing. As far as I can tell about the article, the order does nto deal with truth, justice or the American way, only if it is harrasing, or annoying. Apply the same standard to anything anyone says about an ex, or political speech, or religious speech, or debate in general, and yes, it is about free speech, and an attempt to coerce someone to conform to someone else's idea of how things should be.
The guy has the threat of jail hanging over him, did anyone expect the apology to be any different, does anyone believe that his apology is actually his own opinion.
The guy violated the court order, the court order should have been much more specific, or why not just put a gag order on the case. See those all the time, but an umbrella court order that could cover anything that comes out of his keyboard, or his mouth, or his tone of voice. I do not agree with what the guy did, but this is bigger than this one guy...
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26700
|
|
He was going to be found in contempt, the order was so vague, that there were no options, he was walking on eggshells, in a minefield. The only way he would not have been in contempt, was if he did nothing to annoy his ex wife.......and the odds of that are?????????
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19807
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
I don't use my facebook so I won't look up this guys facebook. Was that the ONLY thing that was stated? From what Gecko is mentioning there seems to be a bit more than that one 'vent'.
---> I found him. Looks like he cleaned stuff up, but I did find this post (with short videos):
PART 1 (42 secs). Shortly after 10am - on Saturday Morning July 23, 2011. Supervised visitation with XXXXXXXX - XXXXX's Grandfather. 2 hours, 10am-12pm. I've never missed a visit one time for 6 months. On several occasions, he took it upon himself to take my son away and throw a fit if I showed up with coffee in my hand. This time, I got it on video. I'd had the coffee since 8am, it was room temperature. Later, he would claim that he 'no longer wanted to be the supervisor.' This was was one of the last times I saw my son until late November - which is when I posted my reuniting photo and vented frustrations.
PART 2 (30 secs). Shortly after 10am - on Saturday Morning July 23, 2011. Supervised visitation with Greg VanDulman - Jonathan's Grandfather. 2 hours, 10am-12pm. I've never missed a visit one time for 6 months. On several occasions, he took it upon himself to take my son away from me and throw a fit if I showed up with coffee in my hand. This time, I got it on video. Later, he would claim that he 'no longer wanted to be the supervisor.' This was was one of the last times I saw my son until late November - which is when I posted my reuniting photo and vented frustrations.
Part 3 (1min 38secs). Shortly after 10am - on Saturday Morning July 23, 2011. Supervised visitation with Greg Van Dulman - Jonathan's Grandfather. The visit is supposed to be for 2 hours, 10am-12pm. I NEVER missed a visit one time for 6 months. On several occasions, he would simply not show up.. A few times, he took it upon himself to take my son away and throw a fit if I showed up with coffee in my hand. This time, I got it on video. Later, he would claim that he 'no longer wanted to be the supervisor.' This was was one of the last times I saw my son until late November - which is when I posted my reuniting photo and vented frustrations.
---> He got NOTHING on video except his FIL walking back to his car and HIM being a total ass and the FIL NOT being 'confrontational' as claimed. When his FIL said in the third video that he needed to arrive on time, Byron whines about how he had to drive 30 minutes to get there...the FIL responded that it takes him an hour, but he does it twice a week.
---> It should be noted he says he never missed a single 'visit', YET...in his apology, he says he only saw his son ONCE during 4 or those 6 months and that it was HIS choice...NOT anyone preventing him.
Perhaps because I'm viewing this from a different POV that I'm not seeing anything wrong with it and actually kinda of pleased that the guy did an apology.
---> I don't see it is a violation of the First Amendment to require someone to apologize for their words or deeds...it's called 'accountability' and 'responsibility'.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
