Reilly
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/05
Posts: 3374
Loc: right here ----->
|
|
[censored]://[censored].usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-23/facebook-apology-divorce-jail/53221786/1?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150691950556796_22563511_10150696420706796&AID=4992781&PID=4003003&SID=65invtzuf83p#fe07f7954
I don't know why...I just knew it would likely send you into a tailspin...LOL...
--------------------
Ever notice how 'What the hell' is always the right answer?~Marilyn Monroe
|
rocketgirl
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/24/04
Posts: 8562
Loc: On the beach in 14 years...
|
|
LOLOLOL
--------------------
Lisa
Diplomacy - the art of telling someone to go to hell, and them looking forward to the trip.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
I don't have a problem with the Judge ordering him to apologize to his wife for the lies he told.
I don't have a problem with the Judge ordering him to apologize to his friends for telling lies about his ex-wife.
And I certainly don't have a problem with him being court-ordered to use FaceBook...as that is the venue he used to slander his ex-wife.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Reilly
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/05
Posts: 3374
Loc: right here ----->
|
|
How did he slander her?
"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… , "
--------------------
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 ----->
|
|
Further to that..he had BLOCKED her from his FB...so she didn't find it by just happening by...His rant wasn't specific to her and he named no names...
--------------------
Ever notice how 'What the hell' is always the right answer?~Marilyn Monroe
|
SweetLight
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/07/10
Posts: 2003
|
|
I think it doesn't matter that she was blocked. It could be related to Gr8Dad's "Don't Read If" threads. Is he being any less offensive because there's a warning? Or is he just looking to offend? I also wonder if the judge knew about DS, would that be the forum for the apology instead of FB? There is a lot of history here, and few apologies given here.
|
Reilly
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/05
Posts: 3374
Loc: right here ----->
|
|
You can only be offended if you read it...
That said, the ex wife had an order (broadly written, of course)preventing him from "annoying" her...His very existence most likely "annoys" her...so...Is he supposed to go away?
He was exonerated on all charges of domestic...and he still lost his kids to her...he's allowed to have an opinion on the subject and when he didn't name her specifically, it ceased to be slander...
--------------------
Ever notice how 'What the hell' is always the right answer?~Marilyn Monroe
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Didn't read this specific article, but just a general commentary on the whole "FB vent" thing. I had a guy fb friend (known from high school, zynga games friend, lol).. CONSTANT rants about "the Creature" who was OBVIOUSLY his now ex-wife. You knew the guy's pick up and drop off schedule practically. He never NAMED the girl, but you KNOW who she is b/c it's just quite obvious. I had to de-friend him. I tried to tell him twice, very politely, how disturbing his posts were (they were obsessive in my opinion and god forbid his daughter ever read them, well it's obvious he thinks the woman who helped create her is a monster and oh, for someone soooooooo terrible, kid looks pretty fricken healthy and happy so she can't be doing THAT bad a job). It's just not normal. Now, the occasional one time here or there vent, fine.. but people use it as a passive aggressive way to get back at people, it's stupid.
|
Reilly
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/05
Posts: 3374
Loc: right here ----->
|
|
Is KNOWING who its about, or at least making a good guess, tantamount to slander, without actually naming names...?
I mean, constitutionally, on its face...is what he did, slander?
--------------------
Ever notice how 'What the hell' is always the right answer?~Marilyn Monroe
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Yes, I believe it is. It's like here. If someone makes not so subtle accusations, with no basis in proof, it's the same thing. And yes I absolutely believe its slander. For example, my reputation has been put into question by the false suggestions of another. That's absolutely slander. Same holds true for this guy.
|
Loretta
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 3940
|
|
Who on here has based their opinion of you on an accusation? I'm not aware of a single person.
|
Reilly
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/05
Posts: 3374
Loc: right here ----->
|
|
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?
--------------------
Ever notice how 'What the hell' is always the right answer?~Marilyn Monroe
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Quite a few have made comments based on jls postings. Going back when all the bulkshyt FIRST started. She said "pm did this this and that" and next thing 15 posters were talking shyt about me. Absolutely. FACT. And it's hysterical. Here YOU are.. AGAIN, questioning it. You know SHYT. That simple. You should base your opinions on your interactions, DIRECTLY WITH ME. As such, u should have no negative opinion of me. Even though you've been a total bytch bc of jl, when you NEEDED something from me? I was nothing but nice and helpful to u. FACT. Just sayin
|
Tweeby
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/04
Posts: 7100
|
|
I only read this one article about this. I would view it more of a 'bullying' issue than slander or anything else. He was not charged in a criminal court but in civil court. The civil court found him in contempt.
He was found in contempt and jail time has been ordered but as with other cases there can be a way to avoid jail time. He vented on the social network so an apology on the same site can be seen as appropriate.
He was not on an annon board and most likely everyone knew who he was talking about and even though his ex was not a friend of his they most likely have mutual friends. Vent one on one to others who won't be in contact with his ex.
|
Reilly
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/05
Posts: 3374
Loc: right here ----->
|
|
No one see's this as a complete disregard for First Amendment rights?
--------------------
Ever notice how 'What the hell' is always the right answer?~Marilyn Monroe
|
Tweeby
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/04
Posts: 7100
|
|
No one can say anything they want at anytime. There ARE limits and when you have been found guilty of harrassing someone yes your 'freedom' is limited. Just as when you break a law your physical freedom may be limited.
He does NOT have to give the apology he can spend the time in jail. I have heard of community service being an option for some, wouldn't that be limiting what someone can do? It was not do the apology or you will go to jail, it was go to jail but you can do an apology instead. Yes there IS a difference. Just as someone who was found guilty of something and given jail time but can do community service instead.
|
Reilly
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/05
Posts: 3374
Loc: right here ----->
|
|
I understand what the options were...
I think the judge was wrong and it will be overturned...
--------------------
Ever notice how 'What the hell' is always the right answer?~Marilyn Monroe
|
Tweeby
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/04
Posts: 7100
|
|
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?
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
How did he slander her?
---> OBVIOUSLY you didn't read his apology:
"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."
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
No one see's this as a complete disregard for First Amendment rights?
---> While the First Amendment gives you the right to express your opinion...as exemplified by WBC, you do NOT have the right to tell lies when doing so.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
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: 19803
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: 19803
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: 26685
|
|
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: 26685
|
|
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: 19803
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!
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7952
|
|
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: 19803
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: 26685
|
|
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: 26685
|
|
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: 19803
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: 19803
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: 26685
|
|
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.
|
Loretta
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 3940
|
|
[quote]Quite a few have made comments based on jls postings. Going back when all the bulkshyt FIRST started. She said "pm did this this and that" and next thing 15 posters were talking shyt about me. Absolutely. FACT. And it's hysterical. Here YOU are.. AGAIN, questioning it. You know SHYT. That simple. You should base your opinions on your interactions, DIRECTLY WITH ME. As such, u should have no negative opinion of me. Even though you've been a total bytch bc of jl, when you NEEDED something from me? I was nothing but nice and helpful to u. FACT. Just sayin [/quote]
My opinion of you is 100% based on you. As is my opinion of JL and everyone else on here. Sorry if you don't get that. BTW, you accused me of being one of the annon posters, thing is? I don't care. I tried to be friendly with you and as soon as my opinion differed from yours you threw it up in my face. Once bitten (called a tw@t), twice shy. You are very bitter, IMO. That is something I don't get. I've heard from quite a few regarding you, not one has said that accusation affected their opinion of you. In fact, 100% of them don't think you are any of the annon posters.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
What I find interesting about it is that he supposedly lied (NOT "slander", as it was in a printed "media", it would be LIABLE), and was forced to apologize for it.
Now, she filed contempt charges against him and attempted to have his time reduced by charges that were found to be false, as he was not found guilty. So, doesn't that mean that SHE lied as well?
Also, he had BLOCKED her from his facebook, yet she read it by some means anyway. Wouldn't that be a violation of the protective order (they are both under its jurisdiction), if not in FACT, then in the SPIRIT of the protective order?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Not bitter at all, Loretta. Funny, for someone "once bitten", you had no problem asking me for HELP with something when it suited your purposes right? Funny how that works :)
|
Miranda
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 20822
Loc: North of Mexico
|
|
I read the article and found the whole thing ridiculous. Ex spouses vent/bash each other all the time. This judge is a joke and legislating from the bench, I hope he is up for re-election this year. He cannot force free speech from the bench...totally ridiculous and the ex wife needs to get a life. I can't see what joy or satifaction she would get from this. I would hope this decision will be appealed.
If this were the standard my cousin would be under the jail. She is always posting, blogging, calling jobs saying inflamatory lies on her exes (plural).
--------------------
13.1...because I am only half crazy!
Edited by Miranda (02/27/12 08:23 AM)
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
I think people should be wayyyy more controlled what they say on FB. Way out of hand. Just in general, never mind ex rants. I defriended one high school friend. I feel bad if his kid is ever in a position to read how much he despises her mother and the awful things he says about her. I tried to tell him nicely, a few times, how bad it reflects on HIM but didn't have any effect. I literally felt ill reading most of it so I defriended him.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
"I think people should be wayyyy more controlled what they say on FB."
I don't think what people say should EVER be controlled.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Then they have to be prepared for consequences then, such as in this case. or like my friend, if his kid ends up hating HIM b/c he keeps trashing her mother. There's a consequence.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
"Then they have to be prepared for consequences then, such as in this case."
The consequences in this case were not only wrong, they were unconstitutional. Your "Facebook" page is akin to a private message board in your home. Only people who are INVITED to view your stuff, can view it. As such, it is NOT open to liable or slander accusations, anymore than a NOTEPAD in your kitchen would be open to such scrutiny.
"or like my friend, if his kid ends up hating HIM b/c he keeps trashing her mother. There's a consequence."
Not a LEGAL consequence. And lets be honest, what are the ODDS of some kid looking back 10 or 15 YEARS and finding an old facebook post?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Sorry I disagree, facebook is NOT private. Once you invite ONE person to view it? It's NOT PRIVATE. If you want a notebook in your home? THEN USE ONE. I mean the paper and pen version of a notebook, lol, not a laptop, lol..
Seriously.. we have a poster here and even YOU have lambasted her for it, about screaming "privacy violations, privacy violations!!!" when THEY are the ones who have posted/provided information yadda yadda. If you have a FB page and you have ONE friend on it? IT'S NO LONGER PRIVATE!
It's just that simple.
If you want stuff to be PRIVATE? Then don't talk about it PUBLICLY and fb, once you have even ONE person on it? Is no longer private.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
"Once you invite ONE person to view it? It's NOT PRIVATE."
But if people do not agree with or want to see something I OWN, that I INVITED them to see, that does NOT rise to the level of liabel or slander.
"If you want a notebook in your home? THEN USE ONE. I mean the paper and pen version of a notebook, lol, not a laptop, lol."
DO you really want SOMEONE ELSE deciding what is and isn't "private" in your home?
"Seriously.. we have a poster here and even YOU have lambasted her for it, about screaming "privacy violations, privacy violations!!!" when THEY are the ones who have posted/provided information yadda yadda. If you have a FB page and you have ONE friend on it? IT'S NO LONGER PRIVATE!"
Ah, the HUGE difference being that I am pointing out why people KNOW that information, but NEVER EVER debating whether or not she has the right to POST it.
"If you want stuff to be PRIVATE? Then don't talk about it PUBLICLY and fb, once you have even ONE person on it? Is no longer private."
But you still have the right to say what you wish.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Once you put something on the INTERNET, it is no longer INSIDE YOUR HOME. So you lose privacy. And you can surely say it, but there may be a penalty for it.
|
Loretta
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 3940
|
|
[quote]Not bitter at all, Loretta. Funny, for someone "once bitten", you had no problem asking me for HELP with something when it suited your purposes right? Funny how that works :) [/quote]
I'm all about moving on and letting go. I let go of the tw@t comment when you became a nicer poster for a while. I even complemented you on the change in attitude many times, publicly. I left for a while, a couple months I believe, againg, letting it go that's when i asked you to review a letter for a friend for me. All was well. I came back when you started throwing my name around as some stupid annonymous poster.
No. My dislike for you? Is all you, not due to anyone else's feelings or opinions. As for you being bitter? I think yes. IMO.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
"Once you put something on the INTERNET, it is no longer INSIDE YOUR HOME. So you lose privacy. And you can surely say it, but there may be a penalty for it."
Not a LEGAL penalty.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
Well, if a family who's daughter, named Alexis ie "Lexie, was killed by a bell falling on her, got a legal order to have you change your screen name and post an apology, you would have no problem with it?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
I disagree. If you don't like what he/she has to say, stay off their page, defriend them, block them, whatever. That is his page and he wasn't forcing anyone to read it. I personally think the judge is interfering with his freedom of speech. I have had a few "small" rants about my ex, but never named him AND, I blocked certain ppl (my kids for one) from seeing it. Of course, my ex is my friend on there and it was intended for him to see it ;)
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
That's all well and good BUT, it's already out there. It's already been READ. So your friend is friends with so and so and they tell them and then they tell someone else yadda yadda and so it goes.
And I REALLY don't get why people do the ranting at one's ex ON FB, with them as friends. Why do it PUBLICLY where all your friends (and him) can see it when you can pick up a phone, send an email, whatever... To do it the "FB where my ex can see it but I'm not saying it "to him".. tee hee hee" is about the most immature, idiotic and absolutely passive aggressive thing I've seen on fb. And it annoys the shyt out of me. Someone here did it once and I didn't realize WHO they were talking about and I replied to it, thinking it was just a general debate/discussion type post. Then I realized WHO it was, and that the ex could see it (since apparently friends of his were reaming out the original poster) and I think I actually deleted my comment. Very disappointed in the person. Just totally inmature and unnecessary.
I mean, really..
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
The consequences in this case were not only wrong, they were unconstitutional.
---> Why is an apology wrong? As for 'constitutionality'...see below.
Your "Facebook" page is akin to a private message board in your home. Only people who are INVITED to view your stuff, can view it.
---> NOT true.
---> First of all, once you 'share' something, once you 'like' something, once you join a group, once you play games...NOTHING you post is 'private'. If you check 'Privacy Settings - How you connect' it says: Who can see Wall posts by other on your profile? (NOTE: Stories about Likes, friendships and some other types of wall content aren't included in these settings.)
---> Second..."Facebook" (employees) has 100% access to EVERYTHING you post/upload.
As such, it is NOT open to liable or slander accusations, anymore than a NOTEPAD in your kitchen would be open to such scrutiny.
---> NOT totally true. There are two basic components to slander/libel: 1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another, and 2) the unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement). So yeah...if you write something libelous about someone on a piece of paper in your kitchen and NEVER show anyone (outside of the person you are telling lies about)...you're in the clear (unless you're threatening/blackmailing them when you show them). But if you have some friends over for the game and then tell them a lie about someone else...you have just opened yourself up to a lawsuit.
---> AND FYI - Byron's page is 'public'.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
So? It's no different if he was telling his "friends" about his psycho ex wife and what he says makes it back to her. Who cares? It's called freedom of speech.
As for me posting to my ex without calling him out by name? I tried sending him messages. He ignored them. I tried texting/calling. He ignored them. So, I went for the public calling out (something along the lines of "Hey, deadbeat, support your child!"). I mean really. Some are placing billboards with FACES and names of the deadbeats. Could care less what you think, honestly, and further...I agree with Loretta....YOU are the reason my opinion of you is what it is. And it's been the same since you first came here. BEFORE the other stuff.
|
cutiepie
member
Reged: 12/10/11
Posts: 190
|
|
YOU can call out your ex as a deadbeat, if he is a deadbeat. This guy "posted" that his ex was keeping the child away from him. Not true. He posted many things that were not true. Ask your pal, MrsB how this all works. You can not post things on the WEB that the poster KNOWS to be false, yet pretend they are true. Something as simple as what MrsB posted about her ex NEVER going to a Dr. appointment, taking his visitation, being in town for weeks without calling his kids or paying child support. That sort of posting comes back to bite you. Now, if it were all true, no problem. Her postings cost her 3 THOUSAND DOLLARS so far.
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Justify it however u like, it's still wrong. And what's worse is YOUR children are old enough to see it/read it. It's just a low-class, low-rent thing to do.
Now I've done minor vents, actually about exSO. A gentleman friend of mine messaged me. Now this is a guy whose wife was an alky, drank herself into some medical deal where she was in hospice care for YEARS before she died (young). She kept custody for years but my friend ALWAYS did right by her, long after he remarried and his son was an adult. Anyway, he pointed out how bad it made ME look, to be posting such things. And as much as I tried to justify it, exactly like you are? He was 100% RIGHT. I've never again, not will I, post a vent like that. It makes the poster look bad. Now, he's nearly 60, been divorced, remarried etc. he's got a healthy happy raised son. I doubt he's spent a hot minute on a board bitching about his ex. He always said this place was unhealthy, and he's right.
|
SockPuppet1
journeyman
Reged: 12/30/11
Posts: 83
|
|
$3K.....LOTS O MOOLA 4 A LTTL TRSHTLK.
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
What part of "I blocked my kids from seeing it" don't you understand? You can do that, you know. In fact, that post was available to only a small group of people (some are members here). You really don't have any right to talk about "class". What I call low class is your potty mouth and the way you treat people. It's NOT ok. I tell you I disagree with you and what do you do? Start calling names and mud slinging. Alrighty then.
BTW, with the exception of the whole CS thing, my ex and I have a pretty good co-parenting relationship. We can talk (mostly)...heck, we spent 30 minutes in front of my house the other day talking about our son and some things his dad went thru when he was a child. I don't hate my ex, and he doesn't hate me. I just have zero respect for him..and NOW he knows not to push me into a corner (he answers when I text/email now). I'm also VERY happily married, going on 12 yrs now. My kids are not perfect...they each have their own set of problems as most do...but for the most part? Our family is really happy and we are BLESSED. I wish my DH and his ex (and she lies about us up one side and down the other, including online at times...NOT gonna take her to court over piddly stuff like that) could get along as much as my ex and I do (and yes, I am saying this even AFTER I retained an atty and filed contempt charges against him...which he is fully aware of as of last week).
I also get sick and tired of certain ppl saying how DS is unhealthy and talking trash about this place. Why come here if that's what you think? Now you have the morons chiming in (trolls) because I posted to you? Hmmm.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
"---> Why is an apology wrong?"
Because the ONLY way she could have seen it was to violate the restraining order by attempting to find out information about him or contact him.
"There are two basic components to slander/libel"
Wrong, there are THREE, the third being that one must show that SOME kind of harm was caused. How was this woman harmed by a statement on her EX 'S Facebook, that are not DIRECTLY aimed at her, as she is not mentioned by name?
Interestingly enough, since it ONLY identifies her by the ACTIONS< and the ACTIONS are false, then it COULDN'T be her that he was addressing.
It is a freedom of speech, and the judge over stepped his bounds. I would have taken the jail time, and fought it as a civil liberties case. The lawyers would climb all over themselves to represent that.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Runswithscissors
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 05/29/04
Posts: 13381
|
|
General comment....I will never post anything negative about my ex on fb.... I would never want my daughter to read it. I could block them today, but I don't control fb and their settings....they could change it without my knowledge. I won't chance it. Plus the ex and I are fb friends.....LOL.
Now, I will set up a fb page in a heart beat on any woman that messes with my husband......LOL...... I dared her to try slander/libel on me..... Course my black roses to her hospital room after her tummy tuck was a nice choice........she cringes everytime she runs into me....as I publically and loudly call her a wh@re......
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Because the ONLY way she could have seen it was to violate the restraining order by attempting to find out information about him or contact him.
---> Even though you can be deliberately dense at times, I know that you're not stupid.
---> To start with, you have the 'share' feature that allows a 'friend' (or anyone since they guy's page is 'public') to 'repost' on their Wall. You also have 'printscreen', which can then be saved as a .jpg/.gif/.png/.bmp (to name a few) file and then emailed and/or printed as evidence.
---> It is NOT a violation of a Restraining Order to find out information about the person with whom you have a RO against. Forewarned is forearmed and your bet your ass I kept track of what 'Bill' was up to. From a legal standpoint, a RO is one-sided; as such, a victim contacting their abuser does not violate it. However, Judges don't take kindly to victims doing so and after reaming them, they will threaten to quash it.
Wrong, there are THREE, the third being that one must show that SOME kind of harm was caused.
---> I know.
How was this woman harmed by a statement on her EX 'S Facebook, that are not DIRECTLY aimed at her, as she is not mentioned by name?
---> Uh huh...so if I say "he who cannot be named", you would have no idea of who I am talking about? This guy has been very public about the fact that he is going through a divorce and custody battle, has a restraining order and supervised parenting time...he has even posted videos. And so he makes a statement/rant that INCLUDES the PART the media is reporting...but we're just supposed to believe that because he didn't his STBX's 'name', that he WASN'T talking about her?
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
"---> Uh huh...so if I say "he who cannot be named", you would have no idea of who I am talking about? This guy has been very public about the fact that he is going through a divorce and custody battle, has a restraining order and supervised parenting time...he has even posted videos. And so he makes a statement/rant that INCLUDES the PART the media is reporting...but we're just supposed to believe that because he didn't his STBX's 'name', that he WASN'T talking about her?"
No, she has to show that she was HARMED. How was she HARMED? Even if he put her NAME, she still was not HARMED.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
No, she has to show that she was HARMED. How was she HARMED? Even if he put her NAME, she still was not HARMED.
---> How say you? To harm someone is to injure them, to injure them is to do an injustice to : to wrong them. Such a radical concept I know...wanting to have a good reputation, wanting people to think that you are of good character, that you can be trusted, that you are honest, that you aren't abusive, that you don't lie or steal or cheat and so on and so forth. "Harm" doesn't have to be physical, it doesn't have to be financial...it can be emotional.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
Keep defending the little chips of freedoms as they are removed. When they go too far for even YOUR tolerance, you will want to say something...but you won't be allowed.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Keep defending the little chips of freedoms as they are removed. When they go too far for even YOUR tolerance, you will want to say something...but you won't be allowed.
---> Translation: As usual Gecko, you are right and I am wrong.
---> But to answer your statement. For the THIRD time, HAD Byron ONLY said the one PART that the media has released, I would be arguing First Amendment violations and against the IWJP. Had what he said been the truth (she was withholding parenting time)...I would be arguing First Amendment violations and against the IWJP. But because he deliberately and willfully LIED...I have NO issue with him being held accountable/responsible for his choices.
---> I know first hand the 'harm' that lies can do...so do you, so do many others here. So tell me...how does a court-ordered acknowledgement and apology for lies told...a violation of First Amendment? Unless you're saying that lying is 'okay'.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
Yep, lying IS okay, and should ONLY be actionable of there is DOCUMENTED harm.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
