Quantcast

Post This To Facebook, Or Do 60 Days In Jail

Facebook Incident Launches First Amendment Fight

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:
Post This To Facebook, Or Do 60 Days In Jail
[ Social Media]

While it may not be surprising that something you post on your Facebook wall could get you in legal trouble, it may surprise you that a judge has ordered a man to post something on his wall or to face jail time.

Should the court hold such power? Tell us what you think in the comments.

According to court records in Cincinnati, Ohio, Mark Byron was charged with and found guilty of civil domestic violence against his wife, Elizabeth Byron in June 2011. Elizabeth was granted a temporary protection order and primary custody of their son. Mark was allowed supervised visits with their son twice a week. He has appealed that conviction, and the appeal is still processing. A divorce between Mark and Elizabeth is also in the works.

Then, in November, 2011, Mark posted to his Facebook wall:

“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 that you’re scared of your husband or domestic partner and they’ll take him away!”

Mark’s wife was blocked from his Facebook page, but somehow she saw the posting anyway. She then filed a motion with the court saying that Mark had violated the protection order, which stated that Mark was prohibited from “causing plaintiff or the child of the parties to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance or bodily injury.”

A magistrate agreed, and ruled that Mark Byron pay a $500 fine and spend 60 days in jail.

That all seems pretty cut and dried. The surprising part is what the magistrate did next.

He composed a written apology for Byron, which he wrote into the sentence. And, he ordered that Byron could, at his choosing, post that apology to his Facebook wall for 30 days in lieu of his 60-day sentence.

The magistrate-written apology reads:

“I would like to apologize to my wife, Elizabeth Byron, for the comments regarding her and our son [name withheld] which were posted on my Facebook wall on or about November 23, 2011. I hereby acknowledge that two judicial officials in the Hamilton County Domestic Relations court have heard evidence and determined that I committed an act of domestic violence against Elizabeth in January 17, 2011. While that determination is currently being appealed, it has not been overturned by the appellate court. As a result of that determination, I was granted supervised parenting time with [our son] on a twice weekly basis. The reason I saw [our son] only one time during the four month period which ended about the time of my Facebook posting was because I chose to see him on only that single occasion during that period. I hereby apologize to Elizabeth for casting her in an unfavorable light by suggesting that she withheld from me or that she in any manner prevented me from seeing [our son] during that period. That decision was mine and mine alone.

I further apologize to all my Facebook Friends for attempting to mislead them into thinking that Elizabeth was in any manner preventing me from spending time with [our son], which caused several of my Facebook Friends to respond with angry, venomous, and inflammatory comments of their own.”

Do you think the magistrate was right to offer this as a condition to avoid jail? Tell us in the comments.

While onlookers are voicing First Amendment concerns over the sentence…

A reminder that you only have the right of free speech when a judge says so: http://t.co/XTpaNFDP 3 hours ago via TweetDeck ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

…a court ordering a public apology when a defendant has been found guilty is not new. In one instance, involving the Rockmore company in Massachusetts in 2010, the court assessed a fine of $300,000 and ordered the company to purchase full-page ads in the Salem News and Boston Herald to publicly apologize for dumping human waste in area harbors and rivers from its 59-foot ferry. The ongoing behavior was uncovered when an assistant harbormaster following the ship suddenly found his own vessel engulfed in sewage. The court-ordered apology read:

“We, the Rockmore Company, sincerely apologize for contaminating the coastal waterways of Massachusetts. Our business operations include ferry service along the North Shore aboard the Salem-based P/O Hannah Glover and a lunch and dinner barge in Salem Harbor called the P/O Rockmore. Our company has discharged human waste directly into coastal Massachusetts waters. For these actions, we have paid a steep fine and have pleaded guilty to criminal charges. We are sorry. – The Rockmore Company”

The goal of such high-profile “name and shame” apologies is to deter the same sort of behavior from others in the future. Many times, this sort of tactic is used on a corporation, which has no feelings of shame, per se.

The amount of notice garnered by Mark Byron’s case is largely due to the fact that it took place on Facebook, the largest social media site in the world. Actions on Facebook and the real-world consequences thereof, are still being explored in courts and workplaces.

Recently, comments posted to a personal Twitter account by CNN commentator Roland Martin led to his being suspended by the network for a time.

Do you think the “name and shame” tactics work? Tell us your opinion.

Post This To Facebook, Or Do 60 Days In Jail
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • Red

    Freedom of Religion has been held that Freedom not to Believe is part of the intent.

    It would seem to follow that Freedom of Speech, should also involve the Freedom not to Speak.

    There are certain 5th Amendment rights here that need to be considered.

    • Pamela

      He had/has the freedom not to post the apology. The judge gave him the option of posting a clarification (correction) and apology for his previous misleading post instead of jail time for violating the terms of the temporary protection order. So it’s not a case of violation of free speech.

      • Annemarie

        So you think a “choice” is post this ridiculous statement or face jail time? People have jobs and other things they need to take care of and don’t have the “choice” to spend 60 days in jail. I think this judge is out of line and it’s another case of bias in the courts for mothers over fathers.

        • Lynne

          Yes, but he was clearly in violation of his restraining order, preventing him from “causing plaintiff or the child of the parties to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance or bodily injury”..When he chose to take his complaints to Facebook, thinking he could make an end run around the judicial order, he opened it up. If he didn’t want to go to jail, he should not have violated the restraining order. Plain and simple. Whether you have a job or not, if you break the law, you face the penalties.

          • A Nonny Moose

            Lynne:

            Get real. His wife had to

            1) be told about it and then
            2) Seek it out before
            3) Determining, all by her lonesome, that it MUST be about her, and choosing to be offended.

            I don’t know a thing about this, but I’m definitely inclined to believe the husband, based on what a raging bitch his soon-to-be ex wife is.

          • Jeff

            So, “A Nonny Moose”:
            Should you need to be told that your neighbor built their new garage 3 feet into your property before someone does something about it?

            Do you think a store clerk wouldn’t like to know they have a customer breaking the law stealing something?

            Do you think it not right that someone be told of a transgression against them?

            Think about it … if someone were talking about you behind your back, in company you share with that person, isn’t it a good thing if one comes to tell you of it?

        • Meece

          Rights are not absolute. We have the right to free speech, so long as we are making truthful assertions or being sure we clarify that it is opinion. If one person says someone else murdered someone, the person accused can sue, and can even cause criminal charges. Its called slander or libel, depending on if you go for civil law or criminal law. He had a restraining order preventing him from certain things to say, and he decided he could get around it by using Facebook. The judge did not say “you MUST post this apology”, he said “since you chose this forum to break the law, you may choose this forum for your punishment. Or you may choose a more formal forum” That’s a lot more choice than this guy gave his wife when he made the slanderous statements about her.

          • A Nonny Moose

            Meece:

            Again, you are just like this guy’s soon-to-be ex. Was her name in the post? I didn’t see it there.

            YOU, just like her, CHOSE to believe it must be about her and then CHOSE to be upset.

            No crime has been committed. No one’s name was mentioned, so no slander and no libel. You can’t prosecute the guy saying, “well, I THINK he is talking about me, but I can’t be sure, because he never said it was…of course, the only reason I know about it is because someone else told me about it, and I deliberately worked around the restrictions set to prevent me from seeing the page.”

      • Mike Wasdin

        Yes…the government and Nazis (or one in the same) always gives options…pay your taxes or go to jail…yes I see your point, he had a choice…

        The Nazi’s also gave the Jews a choice…they could go into the ovens voluntarily or they could be thrown in…what wonderful choices Nazis offer….

      • mike

        I do not agree as it would be the same if I told you that your choice was the same as he but you face death and not jail. He had no choice as he was threaten to do so..

        Mark Byron, didn’t even mentioned his x-wife or anyone else in his remark of how a women can destroy a man’s life. I support Mr. Bryon 200 percent and if the court has such power wait to it get worst as courts, police, government & other entity running down on human rights given by GOD!

        Women from all around the World, especially the U.S & Europe has too much power given by gay guys in power. Mark Bryon, is a victim now by unlawful actions by judge/court’s.

        Would I get in trouble for expressing my beliefs, if so; So be it!! Such ass for Mark, I neither have express any hatred or any strong language and I hold the rights to say the judge is a nutty.

    • Victor Scicluna

      The Judge is 100% right, in early times of written newspapers if a person felt insulted by some written article and sued and won the judge would order the guilty party to write an apology in t5he same newspaper .. so here is nothing new, the guy broke the law on facebook then he should apologise likewise.

      If the Sunday Times with a circulation of 100′s of thousands would falsely accuse me of a wrong doing it would not be enough if they aplogogised privately to me, they should do this at public level and as soon as possible and with equal importance as to the insulting article .. same goes for internet

      • A Nonny Moose

        Victor,

        What law was broken?

        • http://www.henigins.com Joseph Henigin

          Truthly no law was broken. He didn’t state her name, he posted a question concerning a situation that had occoured in his life.
          To the best of my knowledge there is no laws on the books regarding postings on the facebook or any other interactive websites or blogs.
          However, most of them have a laibility agreement and other rules to obey by.Personally he probably shouldn’t have posted it. I would have turned my anger into energy and do something productive for the community to benifit his son.
          Basically people never forget or forgive a person for a action they intended to do harm. If you want to be remembered long after you’ve passed away, doing the simple things in life, a smile or a hello to a stranger goes along way. It takes alot less energy to be friendly than it does to be ignorant and both actions cost the same amount of money.

    • Tim

      Freedom? When you commit a crime, as he did, you forfeit some of your freedoms. He abused his freedom. He lost some freedom, and this is justice: you abuse, you loose.

      He could have lost all sorts of freedoms for 60 days.

    • http://www.cmymails.com Steeven Paullas-Gutt

      Democracy is the ideal that all the citizens of a nation determine together the laws or actions of their state, requiring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to express their consent and their will.

      In practice, “democracy” is the extent to which a given system approximates this ideal, and a given political system is referred to as “a democracy” if it allows a certain approximation to ideal democracy.

      Pleas bare in mind it’s we as the people and citizen of one nation, which decide what happen, the develop of laws and our constitution. No Government or corporation of any form should be able to dictate our Liberty and Freedom of speech.

      As your own profile, users should be able to say what ever they feel like, the moment you as a users or member of a social platform or citizen of a country, don’t excite others to violence and social disorder.

  • http://www.rypmarketing.com Adam

    It seems to me the judge was being nice – giving him an option to avoid jail time and a fine.

    • http://lastdropofink.co.uk/ Matthew Ogborne

      Agreed. +1 For the judge!

      Matt

  • http://www.ingagemarketing.com Egbert

    What’s next, forcing him to post a picture of himself behind bars? While I don’t condone his actions nor his behavior towards his family, having the judiciary write up a statement for him to post or else doesn’t sound like much of a choice. In fact, a movie titled “1984″ comes to mind! Let’s identify and define clear rules for our digital personas first before we create precedents. What say you?

    • Fozzy

      “In fact, a movie titled “1984″ comes to mind!”.

      1984 is about rewriting history. It doesn’t look like anything the judge wrote was non-factual. Now, perhaps the convicted doesn’t want to post some fairly dry factual statement because it exposes too much objectivity to the truth and lacks spun sensationalist garbage to persuade his FB followers.

      But lets not try to throw trigger words like “1984″ around just to stir emotions.

      My opinion is that I’m ok with it. It’s pretty common to see things like this from people standing on street corners in a sandwich to taking out ads in a local newspaper.

      It’s called public shaming.

      We could use a bit more of that.

  • James

    The magistrate and the wife appear to be pretty tight…….

    • Pamela

      It’s not public shaming. It’s giving him the option of correcting his misleading, false, and vindictive statements, which were posted in violation of the terms of the protection order he was under. The judge gave him an option of correcting the statements or do the jail time that normally would come to him for violating the protection order. Let’s not make this into something it isn’t –even though the article already did. We don’t have to join the news media on this. It’s not a free speech issue, it’s not violating his rights, it’s not Big Brother and 1984.

      • A Nonny Moose

        What statements were those, Pamela? How do YOU know they are false and misleading? Do you know this person? How were they posted in violation of anything? I see an opinion piece. Oh, but that’s right…we’re not allowed to have an opinion…because someone might be offended by that opinion and force us to post bull false apologies because I MADE THE CHOICE to be offended.

    • mike

      Maybe they we’re bungy partners!!

  • Lyle

    I don’t have an issue with it, as long as he’s not prohibited from posting more facts of the case. Personally, I think we should bring back the stocks and public floggings and executions.

  • http://howtomakegenerators.net Glenn

    Yes, I support the magistrate. Facebook is too often used in a negative manner. If you don’t have the balls to speak your mind to someone in person, it does not belong on a facebook wall, either! Manners, people… remember them?

  • John

    Nowhere in his post did he mention any names, but stated what could be considered a fact in many jurisdictions. What was being attacked was the court, seemingly alleging corruption, and nothing else. What he stated may or may not be a fact in his particular case, but that seems irrelevant as he made no references to anything in his personal life at all. Stating an opinion or possibly a fact being punishable seems a big 1st amendment violation. It seems he is being punished for questioning the integrity of the courts to me.

    • A Nonny Moose

      John:

      You are the only one here with half a brain. Kudos to you!

  • http://www.KOwebsites.com Ken

    I like choices. He was given a choice. If he really felt that strong (and right) about what he said, he would man up and do the time. However, Facebook is an opt-in venue and this is America the last time I looked, so what happen to freedom of opinion and speech. A guy should be allowed to be an A-hole if he wants to. Where do you draw the line though. If he had wrote an email and sent it to the same friends, is that wrong and get you 2 months in jail too? I’m not really clear on what law was actually broken here. He blocked her out of his facebook account and never used her name, so I’m not seeing the “annoyance.”

    • Annemarie

      Agreed. He blocked her to avoid contact with her and then someone else on his “friends” list told her about the post and she got mad and ran to the courts like a tattling child. Do any of you have the “choice” to put your LIFE on hold for 60 days? Doubt it. Most of us have jobs or other things we need to take care of that we couldn’t “choose” jail even if we wanted to.

      Again, sounds like another case of the courts favoring mothers over fathers. Public shaming is alright to teach a lesson to kids for stealing or bad grades…even disrespecting their parents; however, this seems really wrong to me.

  • http://www.design4dot.com Michelle Dettlaff

    Wow, this is really tough. I know emotions run high in divorce (and child custody) It sounded to me that there was already a ruling that the husband would not cause further mental anguish to his ex-wife. However, FB has become this place to rant and rave about your likes and dislikes. What makes his comment so “criminal” over an unsatisfied customer posting comments about a company who did them wrong. The only thing I can think of is that there must have been a ruling in place that prevented the husband from acting the way he did. If so, then the Judge is correct.

    • A Nonny Moose

      Yes, our court system has to protect people from making poor choices…like the poor choice of seeking things out and then making another choice to be offended by it.

    • mike

      What ruling can judge rule out that does not abuse his rights of freedom of expression as he did no mentioned of his wife or judge.

      It seems the wife was a very good friend of the judge and got special favors as she might have been giving favors.

      Would I get in trouble for posting this, so be it!!!

  • http://www.lvhandymanservce.com TKL

    It seems that “in your face and crude” has become the decorum of our age. Somehow it is a badge of hipness to be bad, really bad, in your face bad, to hide the insecurity of hurt you feel. I think personal things @ public view is ALWAYS out of line, if nicely spoken & esspecially crudely splouted. I really don’t need to be informed of all your sad, tragic dificulties. Social media as in sociality not gut journalism as in grocery store tabloid. Oh well society is not polite anywhere today…just watch TV @ any given moment aka Murry Povich (however you spell it).

  • Jeff

    I’m not condoning his actions (we’ve certainly seen worse by celebrities), however, since he removed and blocked his wife from his facebook page before making the comment, it wasn’t meant for her direct viewing. how would it be any worse, if he were to make this statement in general conversation.

    Since the wife only became aware after being informed by a mutual friend and she accessed his account without authorization, I don’t see how he can be in violation of a restraining order. I would compare it to him being seen at a coffee shop by a mutual friend who, in turn, runs and gets the wife and brings her to the coffee shop to see him there and then claiming he violated the restraining order. In real life and the example, she made an effort to be in his presence.

    As far as the judge. He is totally out of line. The judge wrote the statement then is placing the man under duress in order to post it. ESPECIALLY since the claim is under appeal. That is a blatant abuse of power.

    Where have I witnessed this before? Hmmm…. oh yeah! Prisoners being forced to read statements written by their captors? I think the judge needs to rethink his capacity for his position. He may also want to spend some time glancing over our constitution.

    • Mike

      Unfortunately, the courts in this land aren’t constitutional, they represent a different jurisdiction. Look up equity courts as opposed to common law courts. They can do whatever the heck they want if we don’t challenge their jurisdiction.

  • Tiffany

    I think it is ridiculous what the judge did. I can’t believe he was even charged with anything. At no time did he mention her name, if anything he was taking a jab at the court system. I thought we lived in a country where we have freedom of speech. That magistrate probably got his pride hurt when he saw the post, but you know what our court systems do suck and this is a perfect example. The other thing is that he was charged for violating a protection order, which stated that Mark was prohibited from “causing plaintiff or the child of the parties to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance or bodily injury.” Again I read the post and it doesn’t state have anyone’s name in it so how can you say that he was harassing her. Another thing she shouldn’t feel harassed seeing she is blocked from his facebook, she should have never even seen it. But she probably had one of her friends go on so they could see what he was posting. If you ask me Elizabeth seems like she is looking for trouble and apparently doesn’t mind starting it otherwise she would have taken the post with a grain of salt. How about you stop being a busy body and just take care of your son seeing he is the most important part of this, Elizabeth!

  • John

    His FB post questioned a judge’s “judgement.” They don’t like that.

  • Richard Krueger

    His original post is apparently non-specific to person and circumstance. The judge’s imposition of an apology that is completely specific as to names, dates and actions is far more invasive, and counter productive to the wife’s and son’s privacy.

    Sixty days jail time for THAT Facebook post? If that’s “cut-and-dried” heaven help us all.

    The judge is an idiot. HE needs anger management counseling, and should be removed from the bench for the protection of the general public.

    • Alex

      Spot on Richard. I agree – the judge is a psycho. What happened to the freedom of speech that America is supposed to be famous for???

      • http://Facebook Melanie

        It is well known within the family court that many women participate in Parental Alienation tactics In a bid to control their former partner i.e protection orders. This grants the mother full power and control over the father and the relationship between father and child. I think this case is a classic example of parental alienation. This mother clearly has serious pyschological issues and is trying to control her former partner. This is fact as she had NO right to snoop on his facebook account as he had made it very clear by unfriending her and blocking her that he did not wish to have anything to do with her. It is clear to see that he is the one that needs a protection order against her. If this isn’t granted than it will be the child ultimately that misses out on a loving relationship from his father. FREEDOM OFF SPEECH is our right. I didn’t see anything abusive what so ever except a man venting his frustration. Isn’t that the appropriate way to address our emotions. or is this Judge trying to provoke violence with his abuse of power. Tut Tut Judge. He needs to be thrown off this case immediately!!!!! Believe me people until you have been in the within the family court system, you will never have an understanding off how degraging and bias it is for MEN> and thats saying something considering I am a female!

        • Mark

          Amen you could not have said this ANY BETTER

        • amm

          Melanie-you are 100% correct! We are living through Parental Alienation too. All we are told is go back to court. Husband got screwed out of everything during the divorce except the kids. Now the ex is holding them back. He hasnt seen his kids in months! She tells them and other people all kinds of things about us but she never gets in trouble for it. The police wont do anything when her behaviors escalate in public settings, or when she refuses to let him see his kids. She will turn everything around to make her look like she is the victim so that she can come out on top. We are not financially able to take her back to court. I feel so badly for this guy. The judge definitely screwed him badly. My husbands ex violated her restraining order several times and no one did anything but put a new date on the order. She wasnt held in contempt for that and probably wont be for keeping their children away from a dad who loves them.

      • JOn

        It doesn’t exist – can’t you see that by now. The dollar is gone, America is all but gone and so is our rights! You have but one right shut the hell up and do as your government tells you to

    • http://www.alda-architects.com Alan

      Agree it is a non specific comment, can’t see that he did wrong. Is he not entitled to his opinion on general issues? The judgement makes it specific and personal and the wife, well they say actions speak louder than words. Own goal I would have thought?

    • http://whiteeagleaerie.com/ Nathan P

      Your spot on with your analysis of this. I agree with you 110%!

  • Alex

    This is crazy. I have to agree with the husband’s statement on facebook blaming his wife as I know a lot of cases when women just ring the authorities and say they are being abused by their husband/partner which automatically without proper investigation lands the guy in big trouble. While I am 100% against violence against women, I do strongly believe that these claims should always be thoroughly investigated. Otherwise women end up possessing a very potent weapon that they can use at their will as they wish.

    • http://www.puamanawebdesign.com Sharon Spilman

      Try googling NDAA…

  • http://spyimplants.webs.com don muntean

    I think it was over-reaching!

  • pinger

    Well….. for 1 thing, did this guy do anything wrong in the 1st place? it is far to easy for a woman to do this kind of thing and get by with it, I have seen many case’s of women {alot of them who have be cheating with other men} suddenly decide they do not want to be with their husbands anymore, so…. they make up these stories {lies} about things they {the husbands} are supposed to have done {but did not} then sqeeze out a tear for the judge and BOOM ! the husbands out…… no, I think the judge was WAY out of line here ! remember this….. marriage is a leading cause of divorce !!!!!!

  • Judith K. Valentich

    I believe we are all accountable for our actions, and guilty parties should be required to make appropriate restitution in the form that best helps the victim. If FB was the instrument in spreading malicious disinformation, then FB is the correct venue for refuting the allegations. I applaud the judge for the decision.

  • Justified

    The judgement was right. The post was intended to hurt the wife, and the judge gave the man the opportunity to undo the hurt and avoid jail.

    • James

      Exactly….and to undo it in the same way as when he started this. “You can be a little embarrassed with your Facebook friends, or you can go to jail….your choice”

    • http://www.captaincyberzone.com Captain Cyberzone

      I agree. The guy was under court order, yet knowingly posted something he shouldn’t have and knew that he shouldn’t have because of his action of blocking his wife from viewing the page.
      I also think that the judicial system has been corrupted and is over stepping it’s bounds by legislating from the bench.

      • mike

        I agree! I think it was his rights to post what ever he wants the moment it didn’t violate the fB terms and any law. I believe the judge has marched over his freedom of speech and the wif is a dirt bag for making or even thinking of making such claim.

        Would I get in trouble for this post, what the heck; The x-Wife is scum and every women who tries to keep a man from seeing his kids is SCUM!!! The moment the father has not abuse the child then court ruling is unlawful

  • Herb Reed

    FRee Speech

  • http://pdglobal.com Dallas residential architects

    Last time I checked free speech was protected by the 1st amendment of the constitution. Since the husband did not use names the judge is way way out of line. Add the fact she had to go out of her way to even see it just adds more to the fact this judge plain wrong. I agree woman need to be protected from domestic violence, but I have several friends that were falsely accused by their wives of spousal abuse to get a better settlement during their divorce. I even had one friend whose wife told him her lawyer told her to do it even though it would be a false accusation so she could get more money. This is an unfortunately common occurrence during ugly divorces when money and children are involved.

  • Carol

    I believe the judge should have continued with the initial sentence. There is no indication, the judge sought any comment from the wife, who clearly was the victim. Only if she agreed the printed apology was satisfactory to her, should the judge have made the offer. I assume (makes an ass of you and me) most people facing jail or a written even Facebook printed apology,(one that was done for the husband, who didn’t even have to think about why he was apologising),would fairly quickly sign on the dotted line./?id=2nannies

  • James

    …which stated that Mark was prohibited from “causing plaintiff or the child of the parties to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance or bodily injury.”

    Freedom of speech only goes so far, and this protection order over rules that freedom. It’s like saying you have Freedom of Speech, but you’re not allowed to make threats against the life of the US President.

  • http://none larry

    I did not here her name mentioned one single time in his post, so what ever happened to freedom of speech? If she called the police and told
    them he stopped by and raped her..guess what on her word alone, he is going to be embarrased and arrested. then he waits for a hearing for bail. Hmmm lets see, how about she proves he did in a court, then come arrest him. So now we have no freedom of speech and we are guilty till proven innocent. The power of the government. Stop the BS and give us back our rights.

    • mike

      That’s because government is taking away of our freedom! He did not mentioned or threaten anyone and he gets jailed or post! Here’s my freedom of speech; f the judge and wife. Long live Mr. M Bryon

  • A. Nonny Moose

    I concur. In my divorce, my ex claimed abuse with no evidence and BAM! restraining orders, abuse charges and all sorts of other trumped up bs. The bottom line is that the law ALWAYS protects the female, and no actual evidence is needed. Ask your wife or girlfriend to file charges and see if evidence is needed. It isn’t. The man is always guilty, and not guilty until proven innocent. He’s guilty for life and even in the face of overwhelming contradiction, the man will always be the guilty party in abuse cases.

    I concur with the poster who said that the wife DELIBERATELY sought out the post and INFERRED herself to be the person in question. The husband posted an OPINION piece, and did not name anyone specific, but the wife heard of it second hand, and then went to deliberately get herself upset. So, let’s say there are two posters here named “Bob”, and I say, “Bob is a jerk!” Does Bob #1 get offended because I don’t specify which Bob? How about Bob #2, if he has to be told by “Joe” that someone insulted him on the internet. Does he go back to the internet board and decided he’s steaming mad now because he decided to get mad?

    Bottom line, the magistrate, like all legal figures, automatically rule in favour of the wife in any sort of domestic case.

    Any domestic dispute is not worth a hearing of evidence, because the minds of the court have been made up long before. It’s a rubber stamp kinda thing.

    Man + wife ending in divorce? *sound of papers being stamped* Must be the husband’s fault. Wife cheated on you? What did the husband do to cause this? What if the wife abuses the husband? The husband had it coming.

    There is NO fair trial in domestic cases.

    • Life Sucks

      I agree…..I am in the same boat right now….all it took was her word that a crime took place, and i have spent time in jail, missed days off work, have to take counselling, I have more court dates coming up….

      I try to explain myself…she has all the power as the “victim” yet I am being treated worse than real criminals that deal drugs, use guns, etc. Nothing I say matters, I have a stack of papers an inch thick showing what I think is valuable evidence to support my side of the story, the public defenders dont care or do anything because it will take more time to actually defend me, they just want the process over with as quick as possible….

      I think it’s total BS what the judge did, and who’s to say that if the dad did want to see his kid, if he had a TPO on him because the wife was “scared” well that’s a conundrum isn’t it?

      A probable scenario:

      Husband – “yes I’d like to see our son”
      Wife – “well I’m scared of you so you can’t”
      Husband – “but I have a legal right to, it’s spelled out in the court order”

      So instead of running to tell the courts that he’s not being allowed to see his son and causing more “trauma” and “annoying” behavior, he lets time pass and hopefully things will calm down…..yea see that’s reasonable and logical. Too bad his wife doesn’t seem to be very reasonable.

      So he posts a ranting message on facebook…IT WAS NOT A DIRECT MESSAGE TO HIS WIFE….if it was a direct message I could see how he is in violation. But a general message for all the public to see..the only way the wife could of saw the message is if a friend of hers saw it, and told her about it in some way.

      If his facebook page was blocked, then that means all comments are blocked too. She had to of been informed of the message through some other means. And instead of just dealing with the message as someone blowing off steam, she takes it as a personal insult and “anguish”….give me a break.

      I feel for the guy, I really do, as this is almost the exact same crap I am dealing with now. Unless the guy really did put her in the hospital or something, then let him rot….but yea, it’s baffling why with no proof at all, just her word, that you can turn somebody’s life upside down….

    • Very Concerned

      @A. Nonny Moose,

      I totally agree with you there, and I often see it in cases involving children as well. If the wife or child do anything, they are virtually let off the hook with nothig more than a slap on the wrist. If the man does something BAM, he is automatically accused of being guilty and made out to be an aggressive tyrant. One of the scariest things is that females have the ability to manipulate men very well, to the extent that if he does not given into the females demands she can threaten that she will press charges for rape, molestation etc even though it NEVER happened. Society has to WAKE UP and realize that life is not all about putting the female and children first! If the husband was lying there with a huge gash in his leg and nearly dying, and the mother and child just simply had scrapes and bruises (and the shock/emotional trauma), who would you save first? Society needs to wake up!

    • mike

      I agree!!!!!
      I do not agree as it would be the same if I told you that your choice was the same as he but you face death and not jail. He had no choice as he was threaten to do so..

      Mark Byron, didn’t even mentioned his x-wife or anyone else in his remark of how a women can destroy a man’s life. I support Mr. Bryon 200 percent and if the court has such power wait to it get worst as courts, police, government & other entity running down on human rights given by GOD!

      Women from all around the World, especially the U.S & Europe has too much power given by gay guys in power. Mark Bryon, is a victim now by unlawful actions by judge/court’s.

      Would I get in trouble for expressing my beliefs, if so; So be it!! Such ass for Mark, I neither have express any hatred or any strong language and I hold the rights to say the judge is a nutty.

  • Jeromy Douglas

    I think that our freedom of speech is being violated everyday. No man can force us to say or not to say anything we dont want. I will say this, for those who support a judge forcing someone to say what they dont want, will only lead to a dictatorship of the U.S. I will stand up for my rights, I will never bow to a judge, I will never let the government tell me what I can and cant do. Its we the people. Lets not forget, they work for us. They seem to forget that. The only one who can tell me what to do is GOD.

    • mike

      Yes, I agree!!! Long live true Americans, jail all fake Americans that tries to change what the founding fathers of the United States has put in place

      PS. F Democracy as it is full of SHT. The founding fathers of America hated Democracy and wanted a Republic. In Demonstration, sorry I mean in Demon (Demon – in french means demons), sorry I mean in Democracy its the mass that decides the ruling for the few.
      A Republic is we all hold equal rights. Do not take my word for it, check out Wikipedia or YouTube for more.

      So, to finish. F the wife and judge as both are bungy partners!!!

  • David

    While it is our right to have freedom of speech some people carry this way to far on the internet and think and feel that they can say whatever they want in a public forum. It is almost like the teenager who posts their parents are out of town and then some pedifile comes over. Before you know it someone gets hurt because they felt it is perfectly safe to post whatever for whomever to see. Part of this problem is that facebook is a public forum and it is literally impossible for them to monitor millions and millions of postings without someone bring it to their attention. I cannot say whether this person is right or wrong, but facts need to be throughly investigated before people jump to a conclusion. And people should also on the other hand be thoughtful of placing writings in a public forum about others. Sociasl media is only going to grow and along with it these types of problems. I would not be surprised at all to see more of this happen.

  • http://www.tronixmartmall.com Dalton Crist

    This entire scenario is completely ghetto and atypical of the injustice that occurs daily in family court. This man was merely venting his frustration with the court system and the entire situation. No names were used and no one called out. His wife was blocked from his account so there eas no intent for her to see it nor to violate the previous court order for protection.

    This was, however, an purposeful attempt of vengence by his estranged wife who used this post as a ploy to play the court system like a pawn in a chess game and the judge reacted, dutifully. The judge found his post more of an attack on his decision than on the plaintiff’s rights to protection and retaliated inappropriately by mandating this apology even as an option. The judge, representing the court, over stepped his powers by violating the defendant’s rights to free speech. However, if the defendant had verbally attacked his wife by name with the intent of doing her mental harm by knowing she would see the post, he would then be in violation of the court order. This did not happen in this case. In my opinion, the judge should be removed from the case and brought up for disbarment. But because of the politics involved in our justice system, none of this will happen, a precedent will be set, and other judges will likely follow.

    • http://whiteeagleaerie.com/ Nathan P

      I agree! I’d challenge it as a violation of the First Amendment if I were this guy.

    • chase

      Agreed, the bs that a woman can do no wrong shown consistently in the court system is just that – bs.

      Personally I think the judge, the ex wife and many prosicutors should be forced to listen and be able to recite word for word the lyrics to Frank Zappas song “You’re an asshole”

      Come to think of it, maybe everyone should…

  • http://www.csiwholesale.net Dale Carlow

    I believe that this is a blatant abuse of judicial power. What’s next? Public spankings? Of course, there isn’t anyone on this earth that can make a person do anything that they don’t want to do however, there are many who can make the person wish they had. This is a wonderful example of that.

  • Alex

    Spot on Richard. I agree – the judge is a psycho. What happened to the freedom of speech that America is supposed to be famous for??? This sets a precedent for women to put their husbands/partners behind bars should they wish to do so. Men are guilty – no evidence/investigation required

  • Andy

    I have personally dealt with the JUDGE in this case….. in my case he ignored his obligations (as a then magistrate) he was and still continues to legislate from the bench. he is one of the most corrupt judges to ever be on the bench at the Hamilton County, Ohio, Domestic Relations Court…….. He does not like his “authority” being questioned (what judge does) but I personally taught him what Judicial Canons are and had many of his decisions overturned…….. Recuse the magistrate, Replace the judge……. This POS needs to learn the laws and not make them as he goes…..

  • Jon

    That’s outrageous… Typical judge abusing their power. I think we need to get rid of technology and go back to the caveman days… All you had was a loin clothe and a club… Hope someone over rules that judge and the judge has to pay a fine.. that would be ideal…

  • faye

    Nobody should be forced and what about facebook the government is trying to rule yes obama wants to be a dictator and if we don’t get rid of him we will be in for a fight for our rights as well as being another Greece or Syria….He should be impeached before we loose all of America and our freedom.

  • Hina

    I knew we were FAST becoming a ‘police’(d) state, but this is a form of ‘terrorism’ also. When did the government take over purely personal content and where has our freedom of speech even if written) go?
    It’s irrelevent as to whether he is guilty or innocent; it’s our rights that I am concerned about!

  • Dick

    Free speech ion in courts and with laws is not nor has ever been totally free. And this is right in a logical lawful society. For example the prohibition against yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater. Similarly, it is illegal to make threatening remarks. In this case, the husband was already legally restricted. If it had been a billboard that he rented and he posted the same note, the judge would undoubtedly make the same deal but the retraction would have to be on the billboard.

  • Mike

    It’s all ridiculous. The man didn’t mention his wife in his posting and did nothing more than tell the truth about the American divorce scene these days. He should have been applauded, not imprisoned.

  • http://shanferguson.ucoz.com Shan

    I am not so sure that letting out of jail time in leiu of a continuous facebook post is really even legal on the other hand I also am not so sure that what he was charged with is kosher either, I saw nothing in his post that directly mentioned his wife or son by name and idiots vent on FB all the time. I am a firm believer in if you have a problem face it dont facebook it anyway, I as a rule barely even visit my facebook page anymore for that amongst other reasons.

  • Rachelle

    Definitely a violation of his rights… and there is a comical twist as Facebook won’t let him post something that long! Looks like he’ll have to serve the 60 day sentence anyway…

  • http://tinyurl.com/cashgrab123 Randy Gregg

    Wow that is really something. I thing the judge was right in making him post that. People get mad and don’t think about the impact of social sites these days. It’s no different than having a newspaper right a retraction about something they wrote. You go judge!!

  • Ken Lehman

    If this ruling is really allowed to take precedence then many comments like the ones in here can be criminalized even though to do so would be unconstitutional. Then one is forced to give up time and money to appeal it.

  • CFL

    Tough way to learn that “restraint of tongue, pen and keyboard” are valuable skills to have and good advice.
    But I bet he won’t forget this one.

  • http://www.spynuts.com Rob Kennedy

    Just another way to bully people, my opinion is the Judge is wrong, he does not know all the facts even if he did.. jail and a fine is one thing, forcing someone to post or expose any of his personal affairs is just wrong and an over-step authority and in my opinion a violation of his rights to privacy.

  • TW

    Considering that he could avoid jail time just by pasting the stupid judge’s letter for facebook posting is a good deal. Take it, then bide your time and when the restraining order is over with, get custody of your kid and post her damn address with what you really want to say!

  • Kevin

    i don’t really have a problem with the sentence… it was a choice, after all (and rather a clever one at that), of a “traditional” sentence or this… HOWEVER, i do think the guy’s right to free speech was violated by finding him guilty in the first place (of the posting that is)…

    the fact that he only chose to see his son once in four months would indicate that he’s a major a-hole, so the emotional part of me thinks he deserves all the hardships he can get… but the fact remains that he didn’t really do anything illegal by posting the FB comment, tasteless and obviously aimed at his wife as it was…

    • Life Sucks

      we don’t know all the facts…but I posted this in another comment that could be a likely scenario….maybe the guy is a loving father that wanted to see his kid but he was afraid too…
      Keep in mind he had a TPO on him…but he was allowed to see his son? How does that work exactly?

      A probable scenario:

      Husband – “yes I’d like to see our son”
      Wife – “well I’m scared of you so you can’t (the protection order)”
      Husband – “but I have a legal right to, it’s spelled out in the court order”

      So instead of running to tell the courts that he’s not being allowed to see his son and causing more “trauma” and “annoying” behavior, he lets time pass and hopefully things will calm down…..yea see that’s reasonable and logical. Too bad his wife doesn’t seem to be very reasonable.

      So he posts a ranting message on facebook…IT WAS NOT A DIRECT MESSAGE TO HIS WIFE….if it was a direct message I could see how he is in violation. But a general message for all the public to see..the only way the wife could of saw the message is if a friend of hers saw it, and told her about it in some way.

  • http://www.airpoetry.com Patty Kay Mooney

    To avoid jail, he makes one post which then slips downward, losing relevancy among the millions of other posts that appear on people’s news feeds. His true friends will still love him, the people who don’t like him still won’t, and he will have avoided doing jail time. I don’t think anybody here (in the comments thread) knows the full story so it’s better to avoid judging the judge.

    • mike

      I understand and respect your view but no judge or anyone should have the rights to say anything about his comments as he did no mention of his x or judge judy! So, for me the judge is taking a pist on freedom of speech and fb should have been the first to make any claim but he didn’t abuse any terms or policy. Check out my above, I hope Judy boody gets in contact with me so I can share a piece of mind

  • TAM

    If you have the guts to post something like that in a public forum, airing your dirty laundry,then you should have the guts to follow through with an apology in the same public forum. Facebook is a “public place” as far as I am concerned, if you don’t want to get in trouble for what you say on it, then be careful what you say. It can and will get back to bosses, law officers, teachers, other family members and so on. If you wouldn’t post it on a billboard then don’t post it there.

  • Tina

    I think the judge was absolutely right to request he post the note. If a Father chooses not to see his son why should the Mother be chastised in front of her friends. He has the option 30 days or the words…that too is his choice~ kuddo’s to the judge!!!

  • Jeff Jones

    All the Mgistrate did was offer this dufus an alternative to jail time so he could further think about his actions and the repercussions thereof. Dufus was NOT told he had to post the appology. There is a big difference.

  • Alec

    I’d rather do the time. We all know the kinds of cruel and vindictive things that women will do in a divorce – who’s to say this one is any different.

    I’d do the time before I retracted my statement if it was me.

    • Alec

      Actually I take that back. I’d post it. Then directly above it i’d post that the words written were those of the magistrate and not my own and it was only posted to avoid doing jail time, and that the magistrates words in no way reflected my own feelings on the matter. Done and done.

  • http://www.ishantechnologies.com Srinivas

    This is one of the stupid things i have heard in recent past. That man was in stress and has posted due to his problems and frustrations. And this punishment is more or less similar to what teachers in India give to kinder garden students.

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom