Facebook crime

[Gob]

A US man who was threatened with jail time for posting comments about his estranged wife on his personal Facebook page unless he posted daily apologies for a month says the court ruling violates his freedom of speech.

Mark Byron of Cincinnati is making the apology to avoid 60 days in jail, but he plans to appeal the domestic relations court ruling. Byron and free speech and media experts say it should concern other users of the social networking site.

With hundreds of millions of people using Facebook for communication, Byron said on Friday that "if they can do this to me, they can do it to others".

The idea "that anybody could tell you what to say to your friends on Facebook should be scary to people", said Cincinnati lawyer Jill Meyer, who specialises in free speech and media issues.

The ruling is highly unusual and "troubling because it's a court telling someone to say something to - in some regards - his chosen group of friends", said Meyer. She noted that the comments were not directed to Byron's wife, Elizabeth Byron, who was blocked from accessing the page.

According to the ruling, Byron posted comments on his page in November, saying in part: "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 you're scared of your husband or domestic partner and they'll take him away."

The Byrons are involved in ongoing divorce and child custody proceedings. Byron has said his wife and the court have prevented him from seeing his 17-month-old son many times. The court maintains he is allowed to see him on a twice-weekly basis.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno ... z1nLsa901N

[Scooter]

He used his soapbox to defame his wife by accusing her of providing false evidence in court, and at best he was stupid enough to think that it had no way of getting back to her. At worst, he really isn't that stupid, and he figured that one of their mutual "friends" would not pass up the opportunity to tell her.

[rubato]

Family law fucks the father in all cases.



yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

Sure it does. That's why the overwhelming majority of men who actually give enough of a damn to contest custody will get it. But most men who divorce are content to leave the responsibility for raising their children to their ex-wives, and then of course, will complain to anyone who will listen about whatever pittance in child support they are paying, if indeed they are even meeting that obligation.

[Jarlaxle]

According to the ruling, Byron posted comments on his page in November, saying in part: "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 you're scared of your husband or domestic partner and they'll take him away."

This is exactly correct in all respects, and anyone honest will admit it.

[Scooter]

It's absolutely not correct. Particularly if the first time anyone ever hears about the alleged abuse is during divorce proceedings. Someone making such an accusation without any corroboration has a better chance of losing custody for attempting to alienate the child from the other parent, than they do of getting full custody.

I wonder, when he was busy trashing his child's mother in public, whether he happened to mention that he hadn't been meeting his child support obligations. I'll take a stab in the dark and say no...