Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
  • Judge imposes Jail sentence for Facebook rant

    In what can only be described as a blatant violation of an individuals first amendment rights a Cincinnati court magistrate recently imposed a 6o day jail sentence for a man who posted an angry rant on his Facebook page concerning his divorce and custody battle.

    Photographer Mark Byron had a son with his wife in 2010 and soon after the marriage became problematic. She accused him of domestic abuse and “threatening her with his fists” but was exonerated only later to have a civil restraining order issued against him ordering him to stay away from his wife. Angry about the limited access he had to his son and the bitter divorce proceedings he posted an angry rant on his Facebook page in November of last year.

    “...if you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husbands life and take your son’s father away from him completely – all you need to do is say that you're scared of your husband or domestic partner...” he posted on Facebook.

    Even though his wife was blocked from his page she saw it and told court officials that she was “embarrassed” by the post. Court Magistrate Paul Myers determined that Mark's rant of his Facebook page violated the protection order and ordered him to take down the post and put in its place an apology, written by Myers, or face 60 days in jail. Byron also has to pay his wife’s attorneys fees brought about by the Facebook issue if he wishes to avoid jail.

    “It’s outlandish,” Mark Byron said. “I’m afraid to do anything. People are even fearful that Facebook can be regulated by a judge.”

    The case is next in court March 19.


    Sources:


    http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2...0702/302210147


    http://www.facebook.com/byronphoto
    Comments 55 Comments
    1. Popadibs's Avatar
      Popadibs -
      We should be out in the streets outraged and spilling blood if we have to. This is ridiculous.
    1. Jean Valjean's Avatar
      Jean Valjean -
      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.
    1. Zuberi's Avatar
      Zuberi -
      Anyone still thinking about tying that knot?
    1. gloost's Avatar
      gloost -
      It is a qualified disgrace that denting her ego can get him imprisoned. The fem-fascisti and their legal mafiosi win again.
    1. Dylan MacVillain's Avatar
      Dylan MacVillain -
      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.
    1. The Possible Human's Avatar
      The Possible Human -
      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:

    1. Douglas's Avatar
      Douglas -
      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.
    1. michael k's Avatar
      michael k -
      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 ! )
    1. Popadibs's Avatar
      Popadibs -
      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.
    1. nevosopelo's Avatar
      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 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
    1. Nikonian's Avatar
      Nikonian -
      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)
    1. Popadibs's Avatar
      Popadibs -
      Quote Quote from nevosopelo View Post
      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.
    1. Yan Yan's Avatar
      Yan Yan -
      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'?
    1. Popadibs's Avatar
      Popadibs -
      Americans don't run this country.
    1. Zuberi's Avatar
      Zuberi -
      Quote Quote from Popadibs View Post
      Americans don't run this country.
      They never did. The same goes with the UK.
    1. Dylan MacVillain's Avatar
    1. pzreb's Avatar
      pzreb -
      On a brighter note, at least when this story was posted on Yahoo news most comments blasted the judge as an idiot and the wife as a pampered princess.
    1. outdoors's Avatar
      outdoors -
      Geez.....makes me wonder how much time I am in for?

      I hope he decides to go to jail and stand his ground.


      pzreb
      On a brighter note, at least when this story was posted on Yahoo news most comments blasted the judge as an idiot and the wife as a pampered princess.
      People are becoming more educated all the time.
    1. AnthonyZarat's Avatar
      AnthonyZarat -
      Welcome to the fight, Mark Byron.
    1. Rof L Mao Esq's Avatar
      Rof L Mao Esq -
      At this point I would like to insert that not one commenter has said anything about what might be going on with the little boy. That was the first thing I thought about when I read this article. This sort of thing is very hard on children, even (or especially) when they are too young to be lucid on the details of these adult dramas. I do know something about very young children and custody disputes, and my heart goes out to the child.

      I have no interest in which of the two grownups is more culpable here, it just sounds pretty typical on both parts. Children, on the other hand, are not party to these conflicts, just victims of them. Did either parent put him first in making their decisions here?

      Is this dialog here about being free to be the best men and fathers we can be, or something else?
    Comments Leave Comment

    Click here to log in

    Does feminism seem anti-male?

Donate to AntiMisandry

1e2 Forum