Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Man Ordered To Apologize To Wife On Facebook

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the play-nice-children dept.

Facebook 400

New submitter Marillion writes "Photographer Mark Byron was so bothered by his pending divorce and child visitation issues that he blasted his soon-to-be ex-wife on his personal Facebook page. That touched off a battle that resulted in a Hamilton County judge ordering Byron jailed for his Facebook rant — and to post on his page an apology to his wife and all of his Facebook friends, something free speech experts found troubling."

cancel ×

400 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The lesson here isn't about free speech (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125063)

It's about how men are shit on in pretty much any divorce case.

Wife alleges you hit her? Off to jail, guilty until proven innocent buddy.

Wife alleges you molested the kids? Say goodbye to your kids forever, pal. Maybe if you're lucky we'll let you see them for a few hours once a month with a supervisor present.

Wife wants child support? We don't care that she's spending all the money on her new ex-con boyfriend's meth lab, you'll pay it or it's jail for you, sparky!

Wife is a drug addict who neglects the kids? Tough luck pal, she's still getting full custody over you. That's what you get for showing up to court with a penis.

Wife won't let YOU have the kids during your court-appointed custody days? File this paperwork. We'll look into it in about a year, if you're lucky.

You won't let HER have the kids during her court-appointed custody days? Freeze, motherfucker! Get you're hands on your head NOW! ON THE GROUND, ASSHOLE! DON'T MAKE ME SHOOT YOU!

Welcome to the world of divorce court, Mark.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125115)

Shoulda just killed her and the kids and been done with it.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

moronikos (595352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125459)

Worked for Hans Reiser...well, maybe not.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125123)

Henry the 8th had the right idea, just kill them off, saves the hassle.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125157)

It's about how men are shit on in pretty much any divorce case.

Wife alleges you hit her? Off to jail, guilty until proven innocent buddy.

Wife alleges you molested the kids? Say goodbye to your kids forever, pal. Maybe if you're lucky we'll let you see them for a few hours once a month with a supervisor present.

Wife wants child support? We don't care that she's spending all the money on her new ex-con boyfriend's meth lab, you'll pay it or it's jail for you, sparky!

Wife is a drug addict who neglects the kids? Tough luck pal, she's still getting full custody over you. That's what you get for showing up to court with a penis.

Wife won't let YOU have the kids during your court-appointed custody days? File this paperwork. We'll look into it in about a year, if you're lucky.

You won't let HER have the kids during her court-appointed custody days? Freeze, motherfucker! Get you're hands on your head NOW! ON THE GROUND, ASSHOLE! DON'T MAKE ME SHOOT YOU!

Welcome to the world of divorce court, Mark.

lmao not completely true, but humorous.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125265)

While I think it is overstated somewhat, there are examples of each of these things happening to various men going through marital troubles.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125599)

Absolutely agree. Having recently gone through a divorce and custody battle myself it amazed me how blatantly biased the family court system is against men that have done no wrong and only want to continue to be a part of their children's lives.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125365)

being an intelligent child whose seen his mother get divorced multiple times, i gotta say the dues on the money here.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125493)

being an intelligent child whose seen his mother get divorced multiple times, i gotta say the dues on the money here.

You wouldn't know it from your spelling.

Being an intelligent child who's seen his mother get divorced multiple times, I gotta say the dude's on the money here.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125617)

Or yours.

Being an intelligent child who's seen his mother get divorced multiple times, I've got to say the dude's on the money here.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125719)

"I gotta" is a common vernacular idiom these days. Grammar nazi fail.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125811)

So why correct him at all? Language "evolves," bro!

Or at least that's his/your excuse when someone corrects him/you.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125463)

More true than you'd know, buddy.

Consider:
- Women are almost never arrested, arraigned, prosecuted, or convicted of filing false police reports - BUT
- A false police report = an arrest record, which can be used against the man in the divorce proceedings.

True story: my best friend was going out with a waitress, knocked her up... his own fault for failing to use a condom. But he manned up, did the right thing when they split up a year and a half later, filed for custody.

Judge basically told him he had NO legal rights to his kid other than visitation. He got weekends at first; then the bitch ran two states away to prevent him from even having that after he filed another motion for more rights, followed 2 months later by her filing paperwork about how, from 800 miles away, he had supposedly "not arrived for his visitation once in the past two months." Meanwhile he's got 5 motions in asking the judge to order her to return and stop interfering with his visitation rights.

Judge THEN ordered... that she move back to the city and not leave without informing the court (a) where she was going and (b) that her travel must not impact his visitation rights. She got back into town, filed a false police report, claimed he had come over and "beaten" her. Police actually did their job, examined her for bruises, took her to the ER to get checked up... not a fucking scratch or bump on her or the kid. She admitted to their faces she was lying to get him in trouble when confronted... but they couldn't haul her in ("because it would leave the kid with nobody to look after her") and the local DA refused to prosecute ("not enough evidence and we'll never get all 12 members of a jury to convict her"). So, there's a record of her CALLING IN a false police report, but no arrest and no arraignment and no conviction on her record... meanwhile my buddy spent an overnight in jail because "standard procedure" said he had to be held in a cell till they could release him after morning paperwork.

She ran off again a few months later.. and the judge REFUSED to hold her in contempt of court for violating his orders, just filed another "return or else" order.

Eventually the judge ruled to give her sole custody and my friend only "visitation rights" on a permanent basis, because the now 3-year-old kid had "a mother-child bond." Despite the fact that my friend had been fighting tooth and nail for the right to be a parent to his daughter. The only reason my buddy has custody now is that she turned over custody when she moved in with her "boyfriend" a year later, because the boyfriend didn't want to have kids in his house.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126013)

Wish I had modpoints to give - I've two friends who've gone through similar shit. Custody battles turn into more sorts of ugly, and the whole system is predisposed to believe the father is "the bad guy" even in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (5, Insightful)

El Torico (732160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125581)

Remember to record everything on video; just ask Salvatore Miglino [go.com]
The Evil Bitch of a Mother-In-Law called 911 and lied immediately after she shot him three times in a planned ambush. Fortunately for him, she's as stupid as she is evil and used a crap ass .22 caliber automatic that jammed. If he didn't have the recording, he would be the one in jail.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125887)

In Illinois he would still go to jail for felony wiretapping, and the recording would probably not be admissible as it was illegally obtained without her consent, so she would probably be free.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (2)

need4mospd (1146215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125679)

It's only humorous til it happens to you.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (5, Insightful)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125181)

Well, it's also about free speech.

Someone being required by law to post an apology is rather frightening.

You can't even force a kid to say a prayer, but you can force a guy to pretend he is apologetic?

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125339)

A forced apology is not an apology.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125909)

<marge simpson> Do it! </marge simpson>

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (4, Insightful)

liquiddark (719647) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125389)

There's no "even" to forcing a kid to say a prayer. Using a diminishing modifier is wholly inappropriate. I'm a lot more comfortable forcing someone to apologize than forcing them to recite religious text of any sort.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125731)

You're wrong; those ARE "even", in that they are equal as violations of free speech. But religious freedom has its own clause, you're just confusing which liberty the judicial order is violating. However, saying they're not equal in terms of violation of speech is like saying earth and jupiter are not equal in terms of being classified as planets. You sound crazy when you say such things, you should know this now before it gets worse.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (4, Insightful)

liquiddark (719647) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126009)

"even", in context, is a *diminishing* term. That is to say, it indicates that the lesser evil is forcing a kid to recite religious text. It does not indicate that the two are equal. You're welcome. And there is a huge difference between forcing public apologies (grounded in social traditions and legal liability) versus forcing kids to participate in belief systems (grounded in oppression of alternate belief systems). That you aren't aware of that is a little scary.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (4, Insightful)

Xacid (560407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125203)

No mod points but I'll applaud you. I suspect this whole story will be riddled with various anecdotes of how the man shafted a man over the same issues.

My most immediate frustration with the system is the insane imbalance of child support and how it's geared so the father pays 100% of what they say is required to support a kid. Even if prior to the divorce the wife worked and paid half into such expenses. It's completely unrealistic.

However, this is from my experience as a third party witness. Once of the premarital discussions I had w/ my wife was to agree that we'd settle shit like adults if things went sour. Life's too short to be worrying about making the other miserable. There's no need to drag kids through that crap either. The more disagreements you can resolve outside of the court amicably the better, IMO. Now we'll see if things actually pan out that way if I ever have the cross that bridge...

As my dad said in regards to getting married "Boy, choose wisely."

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125345)

Now we'll see if things actually pan out that way if I ever have the cross that bridge.

Good luck with that. See how long that rational, amicable divorce crap holds up when she turns into a vindictive psycho (even if *she* was the one who cheated or wanted the divorce in the first place).

My cousin had a nice, rational wife. She had his dog put to sleep during their divorce. True story.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (3, Interesting)

gnick (1211984) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125527)

Good luck with that. See how long that rational, amicable divorce crap holds up when she turns into a vindictive psycho (even if *she* was the one who cheated or wanted the divorce in the first place).

My cousin had a nice, rational wife. She had his dog put to sleep during their divorce. True story.

Do I know you? My ex is the only one that I'd heard of that literally had my dog put to sleep during the divorce. I was out of town on business. And, when I came back, she decided she wanted full custody and said that if I tried to pick up the kids from school on one of my days "on", she'd call the cops and have them go to the school. Completely groundless and she knew that, but it means that the kids and teachers see the person she's been talking shit about confronted by the cops and asked to leave...

I've got them 50/50 now, but it took months and better than $10k in lawyer's fees even though there were no mitigating issues and the law is dead clear (at least in this state).

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (4, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125877)

On the other hand, my parents handled it without requiring courts or lawyers and have remained friends.

Anecdotes are just that.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (5, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125375)

However, this is from my experience as a third party witness. Once of the premarital discussions I had w/ my wife was to agree that we'd settle shit like adults if things went sour. Life's too short to be worrying about making the other miserable. There's no need to drag kids through that crap either. The more disagreements you can resolve outside of the court amicably the better, IMO. Now we'll see if things actually pan out that way if I ever have the cross that bridge...

Speaking as a third party witness to several divorces. You underestimated the influence of your wife's potential attorney. He will strongly encourage your wife to ask for what's more than "rightfully" hers in order to have an advantage during negotiations. Remember the attorney is looking out for himself while he represents your wife. Being fair is not his objective. Getting the most for his client so that he himself will make more is his primary concern. Also the more contentious the divorce the more legal fees he is allowed to charge.

I have seen amicable divorces but it's a rare thing.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

liquiddark (719647) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125621)

No doubt all of the lawyers who wanted only to make big dollars went into divorce law rather than, say, corporate.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125637)

DAMNED truth there.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (5, Interesting)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125969)

No mod points but I'll applaud you. I suspect this whole story will be riddled with various anecdotes of how the man shafted a man over the same issues.

My most immediate frustration with the system is the insane imbalance of child support and how it's geared so the father pays 100% of what they say is required to support a kid. Even if prior to the divorce the wife worked and paid half into such expenses. It's completely unrealistic.

To be fair, ever state handles things extremely differently. From recent experience of a friend, I have learned that Tennessee has fixed tables for child support and they are entirely based off W2 and income. If the father has no income job, he is not forced to pay. Actually, without a job but with shared custody every other weekend, the woman may be forced to pay him based off how much time a year he has the kids and how much she earns. It's insanely unlikely a man will get main custody there, though.

I hear in Florida... or California... can’t remember and may not be either... but at least one state will take infidelity insanely seriously. If a mother is found guilty of infidelity, she will lose complete custody and may get weekends IF the father is generous.

However, this is from my experience as a third party witness. Once of the premarital discussions I had w/ my wife was to agree that we'd settle shit like adults if things went sour. Life's too short to be worrying about making the other miserable. There's no need to drag kids through that crap either. The more disagreements you can resolve outside of the court amicably the better, IMO. Now we'll see if things actually pan out that way if I ever have the cross that bridge...

As my dad said in regards to getting married "Boy, choose wisely."

If it's not written in paper, good luck with that. The person I noted above had similar oral agreement. She took the guy to court every other month (she also happened to steal "from him" during the marriage over the years until she collected enough in a secret bank account to put the down payment on her new house immediately after the divorce started (she did not even wait until it was finalized, she knew the guy didn’t had the money to fight possession of that house in court.)

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126067)

Sure, if you accept that she gets full control over your kids and property it will be a peaceful divorce. That's what women mean when they talk about a man being an "adult".

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125205)

At least someone is trying [wikipedia.org] to change things.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (4, Insightful)

BlastfireRS (2205212) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125211)

I can't disagree with the fact that men usually get the short end of the stick regarding divorce and child-related proceedings. Still, the issue here IS about free speech; how can a judge reasonably order someone to issue an apology online like this, while the man was (presumably) writing within Facebook's Terms of Service and directing his thoughts to his friends and family? Facebook pages may be public, but so what; it's still a medium for personal thought, much like a blog. This is actually quite disturbing, and something we need to be proactive against whenever possible.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125217)

I've seen this as a big reason to support gay marriage. Because gay divorce will force judges not to automatically side with the woman.

Too bad the judge will still just side with whoever cries more.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125329)

Or the one he wants to screw. How many minutes between gay marriage being legalized and the gay porno "Gay Divorce Court"?

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

mistiry (1845474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125579)

This is actually an interesting thought. Especially in a gay divorce dealing with children.

As a side thought...is there any precedent for a gay divorce? Now that I am thinking about it, I cannot recall ever hearing about a gay divorce, and how some of our current laws that assume a marriage is between two parties of opposing genders are interpreted...

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125831)

Actually, there's a little bit of funniness there. Gay marriage (or as we call it up in Canada, "marriage") has been legal for years and years. This has brought up a lot of gay couples as tourists with the plan to get married up here.

Anyway, our divorce laws require a 30 day residency requirement. So you can come up for the weekend, get married, spend your money up here on your honeymoon and everyone walks away a winner. If you want to get divorced then you've got to both stay here for a month.

Awkward.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125245)

True, I have seem much of this.

What you omit is the man's behavior that landed them in divorce court.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125447)

I would say it varies, I think the bigger issue is in too many divorce courts who is at fault in the marriage, who actually took the time to take care of the kids etc... are traits that are barely looked at, and often completely ignored in many cases. No it isn't all cases, but I certainly have seen cases of women completely at fault, neglecting or putting children in harmful situations, and getting full custody and favor over the husband.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

broseidon (2537346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125919)

I kind of have to disagree here. Although my mom got custody in my parent's divorce; she managed to fuck up parenting by way of drug use and petty larceny, and one court date later my dad was offered custody. Mind you, this was in Texas too, where maternal custody is (or at least in the 80s/90s, was) favored in divorce/visitation issues. I agree that courts typically favor women to the point of being unfair, but the justice system tends to take child endangerment at varying levels of severity pretty seriously.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125551)

What about the huge number of cases where nobody cheated, the couple just no longer loved each other or the huge number of cases where the woman cheated?

From the cases I've personally known, it's just as often the woman's behavior or neither party's explicit behavior that leads to it.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125247)

I wish I had mod points and that you could be modded higher than 5. So true, so true. The judge is God in his or her court and what he or she says, goes. Don't you dare question it, or your ass is grass. Sitting in on other people's cases, I was reminded of Yossarian attending to his censorship duties in how the judge handled things.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

Krau Ming (1620473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125253)

Completely agree. My brother has gotten that exact treatment, right up to the "don't make me shoot you" part. The cops were going to use a taser on him.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125337)

Bitter much? Ah the bias of man who married with their dick in mind...

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125467)

the bias of man who married with their dick in mind

Lol. Oh, you think you think only the *pretty* girls turn nuts when they get divorced?

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125363)

I can attest to this. My parents were divorced and my school was close to one of my parent's but not the other. The school district has a policy that if you live X kms from the school they will buy you a buss pass. They refused to pay for mine because my other parent's house was close enough to another school. So my Dad asked them if they wanted me to go to one school for two weeks while with him and the other for two weeks while with my mom. They said that was ridiculous and my Dad agreed and asked why they wouldn't pay the bus pass. Eventually one of the board ladies told him his job was to pay the bills and nothing else. Nice world...

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125367)

THIS.. you nailed it. It is not always unfair, but my friend just went through a brutal divorce where she accuse him of beating her, which was a TOTAL FABRICATION, but she called the cops on him one time when he was going to pick up their girls for his week with them. It was either go to trial and risk jail or take a deal for 2-years probation, brutal. And to top it off, got their nanny to lie about everything to the court.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125615)

When my wife divorced me, she swore out a restraining order saying I had beat my daughter just a few days before my son's graduation. It was to block me from going. Of course, she later dropped the fake charges, but not before I missed seeing my son graduate. She was even willing to hurt him just to hurt me.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125567)

Heck, what dystopia do you live in, Sweden?

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (5, Insightful)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125625)

It's about how men are shit on in pretty much any divorce case.

Wife alleges you hit her? Off to jail, guilty until proven innocent buddy.

Wife alleges you molested the kids? Say goodbye to your kids forever, pal. Maybe if you're lucky we'll let you see them for a few hours once a month with a supervisor present.

Wife wants child support? We don't care that she's spending all the money on her new ex-con boyfriend's meth lab, you'll pay it or it's jail for you, sparky!

Wife is a drug addict who neglects the kids? Tough luck pal, she's still getting full custody over you. That's what you get for showing up to court with a penis.

Wife won't let YOU have the kids during your court-appointed custody days? File this paperwork. We'll look into it in about a year, if you're lucky.

You won't let HER have the kids during her court-appointed custody days? Freeze, motherfucker! Get you're hands on your head NOW! ON THE GROUND, ASSHOLE! DON'T MAKE ME SHOOT YOU!

Welcome to the world of divorce court, Mark.

I bet those that have never been divorced think you're exaggerating. When I got divorced, the first time I saw my lawyer he pretty much laid it out exactly as you did. He did mention there were some fairly reasonable reasons for most of that stuff.. but I have forgotten what they were.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0, Troll)

spads (1095039) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125651)

I think this has actually improved since its hey-day in the 80/90's, though I imagine there are still "a few" (lol) remaining neanderthal back-waters. Myself, I wouldn't marry one of these damn (American) women if you put a gun to my head. Modern rabid feminism is the greatest visitation by the Angel of Death AT LEAST since the Nazi holocaust, imo.

I feel that judge and any like him/her deserve to be impeached.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0)

u38cg (607297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125699)

Wow, Godwinned in two posts. Protip: slanted divorce settlements are not equivalent to the extermination of six million undesirables.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126011)

He... didn't actually say that they were.

It didn't even look like an analogy (and some people don't even know what an analogy is).

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (0)

lucm (889690) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125833)

It's about how men are shit on in pretty much any divorce case.

Wife alleges you hit her? Off to jail, guilty until proven innocent buddy.

Wife alleges you molested the kids? Say goodbye to your kids forever, pal. Maybe if you're lucky we'll let you see them for a few hours once a month with a supervisor present.

Wife wants child support? We don't care that she's spending all the money on her new ex-con boyfriend's meth lab, you'll pay it or it's jail for you, sparky!

Wife is a drug addict who neglects the kids? Tough luck pal, she's still getting full custody over you. That's what you get for showing up to court with a penis.

Wife won't let YOU have the kids during your court-appointed custody days? File this paperwork. We'll look into it in about a year, if you're lucky.

You won't let HER have the kids during her court-appointed custody days? Freeze, motherfucker! Get you're hands on your head NOW! ON THE GROUND, ASSHOLE! DON'T MAKE ME SHOOT YOU!

Welcome to the world of divorce court, Mark.

Of course the real problem is those men who, for some reason, are afraid to "make a commitment". I wonder why.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125895)

If only this weren't true.

When I was a kid, my mom got custody of myself and my sister, and Child support. She didn't use much of the money for us kids, most of it went to help ensure that she (and her current boyfriend at any given time) had plenty of smokes, pot, cocaine and didn't have to spend too much time sober. Most of the time, she couldn't keep utilities paid (often no phone, electric and/or gas), and there was rarely enough food.

Yet, somehow, she managed to keep custody. She wonders why her kids avoid her now that we are grown up.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (4, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125901)

I should point out that this is definitely changing. For instance, my mother worked family law for about a decade in New Hampshire. The judges there seemed to have a basic rule of 50-50 division of the assets, joint custody of the kids, no child support or alimony. If one parent wanted to avoid custody (more common than you might think), then they'd have to pay child support.

For instance, if she claimed abuse, they'd want to talk to a coworker or somebody else who saw her regularly to see if there was a pattern of unexplained injuries. If she claimed that he was molesting the kids, they'd have the kids talk to a shrink to see if she was right. If there was a question of drug addiction or alcoholism, they'd check on that. The kids had representation in court with the power to reject custody arrangements that put the kids in a bad situation, and older kids were asked what they wanted with an expectation that this request would be followed if it was reasonable.

In other words, it was far more sane and equitable than you're making it out to be. Now, that was New Hampshire, I wouldn't be surprised if things were different in Mississippi, but don't hate on the people that are actually trying to do things the right way.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (1)

happy_place (632005) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125957)

Let me guess... you're divorced.

Free speech experts must be single (5, Funny)

Dishwasha (125561) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125147)

Don't they know men give up the first amendment right to free speech the second they get married, if not months or years ahead of time. Particularly when the mother-in-law is in town.

Re:Free speech experts must be single (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125251)

And they give up the fourth and sixth amendment rights. And the third amendment rights when her mother comes to town.

Re:Free speech experts must be single (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125793)

3rd Amendment only applies during peace time. Her mother coming into town can be construed to be an act of war. At least in my household it constitutes one.

8th Amendment (1)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125185)

Forced public apologies are not standard punishment for contempt of court, even assuming you agree that he should have been convicted of it. Also: what about spamming his own page with an anti-apology following the required post?

IANAL

Crazy (1, Troll)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125189)

I didn't know you can't bitch about someone on your personal page/blog... I wonder what the sex of the judge is.

Re:Crazy (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125341)

Unless the bitching is contempt of court or some such. Unfortunately the RA appears to be slashdotted at the moment so I can't tell what the actual issue is.

Re:Crazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125655)

I think a 'no disparaging remarks in front of the children' order is a pretty standard one courts hand out pre-divorce. I'm guessing that's what the judge pinned this decision on.

Re:Crazy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125711)

Male. According to the scan below, the Judge is Jon Sieve and the Magistrate is Paul Meyers. The wife's attorney is male and the husband's attorney is female.

Remind me again how Facebook is beneficial (4, Insightful)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125215)

All I seem to read about is how governments/stalkers/employers/ex spouses/what-have-you use your profile against you.

Re:Remind me again how Facebook is beneficial (4, Insightful)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125501)

It is beneficial the same way The Matrix was beneficial to the machines. You plug into it. You accept the programming because you do have a choice. But, since so many of your friends and family are on it and they are planning their events and spreading information through it, you might only be aware of the choice at a subconscious level since, in the right situation, choosing to disconnect can feel like giving up the world you know and the people you've met in it.

Once you are plugged into it, Facebook begins harvesting demographics and interaction data the way the Machines harvested BTUs and processing power.

And, much like Agent Smith assimilated the virus-like behavior that he had once disdained in humanity, Facebook has assimilated human behavior into its process for expansion, ensuring an ever growing net of data capture.

Re:Remind me again how Facebook is beneficial (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125885)

Probably the best analogy of FB yet. Bravo!

Re:Remind me again how Facebook is beneficial (1)

cparker15 (779546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125897)

Come to Zion. Join Diaspora. [joindiaspora.com]

Rush To Anti-Judgment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125277)

Why are the comments on these always "me in a microcosm" litmus tests on the world?

Like any of you have specific knowledge of the circumstances of this case. The guy could be a raving lunatic with little self-control for all you know.

Re:Rush To Anti-Judgment (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125311)

The threats to "end" his wife's life would certainly seem to bear that out.

Re:Rush To Anti-Judgment (2)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125323)

That does not mean that the punishment is/was illegal - nay, unconstitutional. The guy could be a massive asshat for all I know or care, but that judge is the problem.

Got it beat... (5, Funny)

retech (1228598) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125303)

I was ordered to remove my outgoing message on my answering machine or risk "threatening civil negotiations... and be seen as adversarial...". I explained that it was in fact my phone line, my answering machine and people were calling me. If the ex didn't want to hear it, she in fact did not need to call. But, none-the-less, I had to take it down or all negotiations were off and she would be awarded everything by default.

The machine said that I was in a fugue since my ex had slept around with a number of people and was in fact a whore. Personally, I thought this was just stating fact.

Re:Got it beat... (2)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125393)

Well, she may have been a nymphomaniac, not a whore.

Re:Got it beat... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125541)

Same thing. And no, I don't care about the semantics.

Having sex with someone at an impersonal level = Being a whore.

Re:Got it beat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125915)

Well you can not care about the semantics all you like. But nymphomania is distinctly different from whorishness. So good job on being unconcerned about being ignorant. Also, wrong.

Re:Got it beat... (3, Insightful)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125453)

If you have evidence that she slept with someone for money, present it in court, dude. Otherwise you can't call her a whore without risking defamation etc.

You have to call her a slut instead. Sluts just don't charge for it.

Re:Got it beat... (1)

retech (1228598) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125555)

It's over and done with. But she was given a lot of perks for the fucking around. And yes I did catch her. So no defamation and nothing wrong with calling a whore a whore. IMHO. The courts frown upon this type of thing since they feel it's negative and adversarial. I do not think it would be seen the same way if the roles were reversed.

But was it harassment? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125309)

The wife had a restraining order against the estranged husband barring being harassed. She was blocked by him on Facebook. Presumably someone else showed her the post, or she went looking for it. Therefore, the question is does this meet the standard of harassment prohibited by the court order? If so, then regardless of free speech rights he is guilty of violating the court order.

I won't delve into the questions regarding the sentence; I think it's more interesting to discuss whether a post like this should be construed as harassment.

Divorce is for idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125331)

This is because marriage is for idiots, and in order to need a divorce
you must first get married.

There is no shortage of women in the world, and there is no reason
to allow yourself to be trapped into an agreement which will involve
you getting screwed.

If nothing else, get the best possible attorney to write a very tough prenuptial
agreement BEFORE you get married. Think this is cynical ? Ask any guy who
has been through an ugly divorce what he thinks.

Re:Divorce is for idiots (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125423)

Well, I remarried and things are pretty darn wonderful.

Page gone (1)

mgessner (46612) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125419)

The page is gone. /.'d?

Re:Page gone (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125795)

Slashdotted from high orbit, I guess....

Re:Page gone (2)

michaelwigle (822387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125947)

Maybe just moved. Try this alternative link that works now. Article [cincinnati.com]

/.ed? Story not found. (1)

Astrogen (16643) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125421)

I'm getting a story not found at the link. Anyone got another link?

Internet pub rant (2)

Artea (2527062) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125491)

If she did not have access to his profile (being blocked) and he rants about her, isn't this the exact same as getting drunk down at the pub with some mates and doing the whole "I never liked her anyway, she was a bitch" rant? This order seems to say that you aren't allowed to rant or complain about anyone; under penalty of the law.

For Wedded Bliss, Repeat After Me Guys... (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125495)

You're right. I'm wrong. What can I do to make it better?

Apply to all situations, regardless of validity. Present present every 28 days, you'll learn the timing soon enough. Enjoy.

The link is dead Jim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125519)

The link is dead Jim

A summary of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125557)

Last section of this article:
http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-cincinnati/michelle-obama-visits-cincinnati-and-a-judge-forces-a-facebook-apology

Here is something.. (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125601)

TFA appears to have been removed, all I can find are /. copiers, except for this on the TFA site. [cincinnati.com] It is a scan of the protective order and includes domestic abuse allegations and some of the text from the facebook wall posts.

Re:Here is something.. (4, Informative)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125685)

I posted the above not having read the entire order, just scanning it, but it appears that he was under an order not to cause mental anguish, harass or annoy his wife, and the wall posts were found to violate that specific order. Especially as some of his facebook friends were adding fuel to the fire. I don't agree but that is spelled out in the order.

Re:Here is something.. (1, Informative)

broseidon (2537346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126061)

Wow.. that protective order is chock full of lawyer and woman trickery... He has to post that paragraph of BS on his facebook wall EVERY DAY for 30 days?! That right there is the signature of a SERIOUSLY vindictive woman. I'm not even sure vindictive is a strong enough word.

Look at judges/socialworks etc (5, Interesting)

Tyr07 (2300912) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125649)

Anyone notice anything related to family often has female lawyers, female judges, female social workers etc?

Talk about gender discrimination. It's not okay for there to be plenty of men in a place where a lot of control is, but it's fine if it's all women? I think not. It's proven time and time again that both sides equally discriminate and it needs to stop.

wow (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125687)

Virtual castration on Facebook.

Insincere (3, Insightful)

freaktheclown (826263) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125701)

Just make it as insincere as possible and write it in legalese ("Pursuant to court order 54522451A-L, requiring me to offer written apology...").

No one can force you to BE sorry, even if they force you to apologize.

Hamilton County (3, Funny)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125721)

Saw reference to Hamilton County, expected to read story about a clown operating as head of the court room.

The apology should have read (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125765)

"I called the woman a bitch it's true and I'm sorry for it. She can place the punctuation where she pleases."

(With apologies to Richard Brinsley Sheridan, MP)

Re:The apology should have read (3, Funny)

rjmx (233228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126029)

... or perhaps "I'm sorry she's a bitch"?

Official Apology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39126059)

Pursuant to order by Judge, I hereby do apologize to my soon to be ex-wife and all persons, real or imaginable.

Disclaimer: The opinions or apologies in this post do not indicate endorsement or agreement by this poster or Facebook.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?