We should be out in the streets outraged and spilling blood if we have to. This is ridiculous.

No one is going to go out shedding blood. But this judge is a scumbag.

This is one more reason never to get married and every time a woman I'm dating brings it up I will refer her to stories like this.

Anyone still thinking about tying that knot?

It is a qualified disgrace that denting her ego can get him imprisoned. The fem-fascisti and their legal mafiosi win again.

60 days in jail for embarrassing your ex on FB? Lick my wick! Plus, he to pay her attorney's fees!? It sounds just like the insanity Alan's ex-wife on Two and Half Men puts him through on a regular basis. The stuff on that show is outlandish. Unfortunately, it's tame compared to real life divorce courts.

Having to pay for your ex-witch's attorney fees is like funding both sides of a war, except she gets all of the profit instead of you. I'd just grab my camping gear, head to some big city on the other side of the country and be an "urban outdoorsman".

A cooperative slave is a happy slave!!! Just go along to get along! Kum ba yah. Everybody sing it: Kum by yah! People value their lives and comfort zones too much. There are fates worse than death.

This pushes the limit of tolerance for judicial bullshit. Free Speech? WHAT Free Speech? This incident is a grim indicator that FREE MEN exercising their FIRST AMENDMENT rights under the Constitution of the United States of America are now held to a double standard when a woman is involved.

Keep your powder dry boys, you will most certainly need it in the near future.

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.


RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.


ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

---

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A parable on Free Speech-for Hamsters:

Court Magistrate Paul Myers ... ordered him to take down the post and put in its place an apology, written by Myers, or face 60 days in jail

Let us get our facts lined up properly. Byron is not jailed for ranting about his wife. He is being jailed for not obeying a court order to take down a post that "embarrassed" his wife.

It is not the jail sentence that should be the focus for us. Our focus should be that a judge (illegally?) ordered someone to remove what appears to be factual information from public knowledge.

His wife has legal recourse through libel laws if she wants to go that way. Was that what this was about? In most states/nations libel is a civil law matter, not something that a judge can jail someone for. So what WAS the law under which the judge ordered the information taken down?

Jail for not obeying a court can be seen as a necessary part of an ordered society.

Ordering someone to remove factual information from any media should not be part of any criminal law in any society.

GOD FORBID we even voice an opinion! The "domestic family court system" is EXTORTION plain and simple. Everybody PROFITS, wherever they can find FUNDING, except the "pawns", victimized kid hostages who are usually either too little or intimated into silence.

Been charged twice with "Protection Order Violations", both were complete SETUPS with the last scheduled morning of divorce final (what a co-incidence!) as just another "intimidation tactic" that wasn't heard, "dismissed", never was prosecuted. NOWHERE in the order does it say I cannot "contact" my kids via phone YET PRECISELY THAT is what i was charged with ? I sent them messages regularly on Facebook - suppose difference is ex (and "women's center management") were too computer stupid illiterate to actually pick-up on it ?

Vote Ron Paul and help CUT OUT ALL FEDERAL FUNDING for this non-sense ! The best solution I see to "alleged DV" is de-legalize the whole concept of "marriage in general" and put a final end to the implied "family definition" debate that does nothing but unnaturally bind potential combatants together and foster "dependence & entitlements" at the sole expense of anothers individual "fruits of labor & liberties". Never mind "pre-nuptials" - each and every so-called "permanent union of two people" should be sealed with an explicit civil contract instead of just a "churchly good faith based, hormone induced kiss" ?

(ps: I finally was granted "ex-parte protection order" keeping spouse away until hearing 25 days later - sad thing is Judge didn't even READ my complaint and, in a highly annoyed manner, merely quickly SIGNED IT ! )

This is why it is good that we talk. If men didn't talk we wouldn't even know these things took place until these things happened to us.

What the judge did is common place in family courts. In the UK. even mentioning the fact that the mother has been abusing her children will be held against the father or divorcing partner. It was an error, on the part of the husband, of judgement to write about his ex on facebook during divorce procceding because of the likelyhood of that it will be construed as a provocative act. It is likely that the jail sentence is for contempt of court, when he disobeyed an order. Unfortunately, in family courts, contempt of court does not apply to disobedients ex-wives who deny access to the children for reasons only beknown to the judges. The man, unquestionably, is another victim of distorted interpretation of the law and the total abscense of justice within the judicial system.
We all are living in an ever increasing fascist state where a person's free speech will depend on what has to be said. The erosion of the rule of the law will eventually lead to its demise, therefore, in future the people will be able to have limited rights of speech. The "Bill of Rights" or "Human Rights Act" will slowly whither away in a silent demise.

NEVO

Every dv victim is scared of being embarrassed on their Facebook...

This story makes me so sick I may just take dylan's advice (although feds are trying to "eradicate" mountain men as well)

Quote from nevosopelo

What the judge did is common place in family courts. In the UK. even mentioning the fact that the mother has been abusing her children will be held against the father or divorcing partner. It was an error, on the part of the husband, of judgement to write about his ex on facebook during divorce proceding because of the likelyhood of that it will be construed as a provocative act. It is likely that the jail sentence is for contempt of court, when he disobeyed an order. Unfortunately, in family courts, contempt of court does not apply to disobedients ex-wives who deny access to the children for reasons only beknown to the judges. The man, unquestionably, is another victim of distorted interpretation of the law and the total abscense of justice within the judicial system.
We all are living in an ever increasing fascist state where a person's free speech will depend on what has to be said. The erosion of the rule of the law will eventually lead to its demise, therefore, in future the people will be able to have limited rights of speech. The "Bill of Rights" or "Human Rights Act" will slowly whither away in a silent demise.

NEVO

I have a hard time forgetting that women played a pivotal role in bringing all of this on and still continue to. They don't realize that they'll be hung with the same rope they hang us with.

It is not the jail sentence that should be the focus for us. Our focus should be that a judge (illegally?) ordered someone to remove what appears to be factual information from public knowledge.

Yes!! Since when did judges become arbiters of opinion. The UK is not exempt. "Hate" laws are left to to judges to interpret.

His wife has legal recourse through libel laws if she wants to go that way. Was that what this was about? In most states/nations libel is a civil law matter, not something that a judge can jail someone for. So what WAS the law under which the judge ordered the information taken down?

Ordering someone to remove factual information from any media should not be part of any criminal law in any society.

This a very hot topic in the Philippines. Under current law, libel is a criminal offence. Forward thinking Filipinos want it to be subject to civil law. They have good cause. Criminal cases can be decided by the drop of a judge's hammer. Civil cases demand that both parties submit proof, or otherwise, of the allegations. Such cases are often lengthy and expensive.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So the question is: "Does posting on Facebook (no weapons-right?) constitute 'peaceful assembly'?

Americans don't run this country.