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....
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: Gr8...immediately thought of you when I saw this..
Edit
Reply
Quote
