some better call the supreme court, looks like they need some help
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...