Post This To Facebook, Or Do 60 Days In Jail

    February 23, 2012
    Mike Tuttle
    Comments are off for this post.

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.

  • 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


            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


            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


        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!


  • 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


      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.

  • http://ephedrinewheretobuy.com Mike Budd

    Seems totally fair to me.
    Think twice before posting, FB is a public place, we all know it.

    “If you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband’s life”… while the appeal is still processing, it has no sense.

    Lucky he got this option.

  • Phyllis

    We all should take a close look at this situation. This is America and this guy should be able to say what he wants without being forced by a court offical to post HIS beliefs. I say if the magistrate wanted to get his opinion out he should have written an article and posted it to the web without forcing someone to write his opinion and affix their name to it. This is OUTRAGEOUS for a court offical to act like a ganster forcing someone to do such a thing, he should be fired!! Everyone knows the family courts are usually ugly it’s the job of the magistrate or judge to make them better not add to the sorrow of all parties involved.

  • Don

    We should take it back to the day where women stayed in the kitchen and was seen and not heard

    • Kevin

      and maybe we could go back to the days when people learned the correct third person past form of the verb “is.” but i guess that was still post-neanderthal so that doesn’t really count as far as you’re concerned…

      • Grammar Police

        ‘Was’ is third person past. It’s just not the correct form for third person plural in the past. Besides, neither ‘was’ nor ‘were’ are forms of the verb ‘is’. All are forms of the verb ‘to be’.

  • Dennis

    This is a pretty easy out for someone who is obvious narrow minded and short tempered. Unfortunately, his actions was a common means of revenge against a divorcing spouse. All personal and no regard for the concerns of the children. If he were to post it, then he would at least be exposed to concerned, adult thinking (should he also read what is being said).

    In my opinion, if he can’t act mature, and set a good example for his kids, then he’ll probably choose an ill-thought way to jail.

  • A Mom

    NO WAY should that judge have been able to do that. My son is a victim of a bitch like her and has lost custody of my grandchildren to a drug addicted stripper who lied and said he abused her. Why these judges (men) continue to give power to the lying bitches is beyond me. Oh, except that we found out that our judge goes to her strip club and they go into the back rooom…could be there’s more to this story too.

  • http://www.wrigglepot.com.au Chris


    He had an order against him – all he had to do was follow it. It’s not like the judge pulled a random “you must post on facebook“. He gave the option of cleaning up what he himself created. I’m sure if he had sent 100 emails or letters the judge would have told him to clean up via emails or letters.

    It’s the same thing as people complaining about speeding fines. Don’t speed – don’t get fined. Don’t break an order that is against you – don’t get in any more trouble. Simple really.

  • PlvsVltra

    This is one of the most retarded events I have ever heard for.

  • Ralph Stegall

    This just another example of justice going too far in their interpretations of case law. And to me it seems to be another case of the judge trying to make a name for themselves. What that is saying is that you do not have any recourse to fight back concerning a case that has more than normal ramifications. It is getting to where nothing especially your first amendment rights are sacred.

  • Humanitarian

    This is fucked up.

    A forced apology is not a sincere apology. Forcing apologies can result in dishonest apologies.

    The judge’s attitude: ‘We have declared you guilty, therefore you must admit your guilt or be punished’.

    This is the kind of crap that happens in third world dictatorships.

    What is meant by freedom of speech, is the freedom to express your views. Forcing someone into saying that they have a particular view, when they don’t, goes against free speech.

  • Missing my Own Kids

    What gets me is that the judge and the wife think that his son wasn’t really taken from him because, after all, they do allow him two supervised visits per week.

    Let me tell you from experience, two visits per week is not at all satisfying. Each visit only serves to remind you of what you’ve lost. Add to that the shame and embarrassment of your child thinking that you need to have someone watching you or else you will hurt him and I can see why the father may have passed on the privilege.

    Advice to fathers: you’d better do whatever the mother of your children asks you to do. Wash the dishes. Pick up your dirty socks off of the floor. Put the cap back on the toothpaste…because any one of these offenses is all she needs. She can take your children away from you, and don’t believe she won’t.

  • http://www.bdfoto.co.uk Barney Douglas

    100% agree with the magistrates.

    On the other hand I 100% disagree with Facebook’s policy of allowing pictures showing serious personal injuries, pictures of drugs in people’s possession, but removing pictures of women breastfeeding and fine art nudity..

    Perhaps a magistrate would like to tell Facebook that that is wrong.

    But I doubt anyone would dare take Facebook on.

  • http://www.lawyersorgraverobbers Diarmuid Hannigan

    The unelected unaccountable judiciary is our secret government. It constructs and administers laws that are created by lawyers in the interests of gaining revenue for the legal proffession it has nothing to do with the welfare of families because it is not constructed by family lobby groups hence the power exerted by this judge.

  • Valeria Vernon

    The point is that sometimes on Facebook you can find crazy people. This man has posted something that caused ” … Friends to respond with angry, venomous, and inflammatory comments of their own…” Just imagine if one of these friends decided to go beyond words. He has reacted to any wrong she may have done to him by putting her – and HIS son, remember – in a dangerous position. This is violence which might do more harm than a beating. The only way to calm down everybody is what the judge has decided, there is no other way. Many of you seem convinced that his wife is wrong. Whatever she has done – or not done – there is no excuse, this man IS violent.

  • Marie

    As a former victim of domestic violence and subsequent harassment, I applaud the magistrate for his decision and his fine writing style. Thank goodness, finally a judge has sided with a woman and her child all the way through. Judge Judy could not have done better.

    My ex shoved me upside down while I was sitting in a chair because he went loco. I dialed 911 just before he yanked the phone out of the wall. I sat on the floor, my things scattered about me, huddled and protecting myself with my hands over my head. He said, “sure, sit still NOW, you b*, where are the car keys?” Then he grabbed my purse and dumped it on the bed in the other room. I said I would get them for him and walked onto the front porch, and 4 very burly police officers were walking up the steps.

    They took us into separate rooms and one officer donned a blue glove and felt the bump on my head and took photos. They asked if I wanted to press charges and I said yes, with some trepidation. They took him away and he spent 3 days in jail. Afterward, he cut off all access to our checking account and I had to move in with my parents. I had filed a restraining order and he continued to harass me by writing letters to my elderly father trying to tell him his side of the story.

    He was only charged with a misdemeanor, as he pleaded down from battery to a lesser battery charge. He had refused to let me fix my car before and had threatened me and I had no way to leave. He was messing around on me and inviting women over to try and get me to do a threesome (unknown to me). When I found out, I went to therapy and he said the therapy was doing me no good because I wasn’t believing him anymore and I should stop doing therapy. Then he just whigged out. I was sitting in the next room, checking my email and he jumped out of bed (this was after he’d downed a few whiskeys) and ran in and slapped my face and shoved me as hard as he could. I flew upside down out of my chair and landed on my head. It happened so fast that I didn’t even register it until several hours later, when I started shaking and had to call an old friend for support.

    So much for a romantic wedding in Scotland. Go figure.

    Several months later, he filed for divorce. Thank goodness. And then I heard he was so relieved because his Thursday evenings were now free and that stupid anger management class was done. I don’t know where he is now – don’t care – but I sure feel sorry for any woman who meets up with him now. So yes, I think it’s the least that man could do, to apologize and the judge was entirely correct in his ruling. Kudos, finally a judge who has some empathy and common sense in this messed up world.

    • Dan

      I get where you’re coming from, Marie. Those must have been some really rough miles for you. The thing is, the guy is appealing his conviction. I’m not asking you to feel sorry for him. But if you look at it in a different light, we really don’t know if what was said happened the way it did or not. If the guy is truly guilty, there should be worse punishment. At this point, though, leave the Facebook part alone. If what he wrote was true, leave it alone. If a lie, then shame on him. But don’t compare your experience to others’ if you don’t know the whole story. It isn’t always that way. (the aggressor, male or female, should at least have enough honor to just leave before things go too far)

  • joe

    little by little they are taking your freedoms away from you. this is not a democracy anymore, it is a dictatorship. the government or the courts are telling you how to live your lives and in many ways what you can say when and where.wake up people, you are loosing your country little by little.

  • http://dyslexiaglasses.com/visualdyslexiasolution.html John Hayes

    His crime was causing his wife to be viewed in a poor light and misrepresenting her behavior on facebook after having a court order against doing that. I think the judge could have given him 60 days in jail and was being lenient by offering the option of posting the correct information and apology.

    My take on the judgement is that the judge felt his going to jail for 60 days would not correct the misrepresentation that the wife was subject to by what must have been people she knew while the facebook posting would reach the proper people and expose the man as being an untrustworthy reported of facts about his wife.

    The punishment fit the crime better than any alternative.

  • Steve

    I think this was as wrong as the original post. Who knows the truth either way. I guess if this sets a precedent that will be adhered to, perhaps others will think twice with cavalier their cavalier comments. It’s a new world…

  • Patty

    I think it’s perfect! He had a choice. I wish more cases were handled this way for people who are not a danger to society rather than jail time. That doesn’t seem to resolve anything, just makes them more angry and bitter.

  • http://www.nautical-gifts.us NAUTICALDECOR

    I think it was great that the judge ordered this!.

  • Mike

    The judge was way out of line… end of story…
    His forced apology was an infringement of the defendants 1st amendment rights in that free speech means not only can you say what you like (provided it is the truth) without fear of retribution from the government but also that no person can force you to say something that you do not want to say… under any penalty. Additionally, the judge infringed upon the defendants 5th amendment rights insomuch as he forced the defendant to admit his participation in “criminal” activity.
    My humble opinion is that this judge ought to be brought before the bar and disbarred from practicing law – whether a wife states that domestic violence occurs or not – it is still required that evidence is brought forward to prove guilt and since divorce is a civil rather than criminal matter, the judge had no right whatsoever to demand a public written apology and even less right to sentence the man to a custodial sentence for failure to comply with such a demand.

  • kevin

    If she was blocked from seeing it, then its an indirect message of hurt. Im sure they share many friends, colleagues, family etc on Facebook. The ruling would prevent him making negative comments to all these people, not just to his wife. Rightly so! However, come on! its not as if he used her name in vain, used bad language, threatened anyone. It just doesn’t seem that bad a comment. The REAL outcome here should have been either absolutely nothing…or…if the comment does violate a law……a warning. Take it off Facebook, and dont make any more comments. Not from a judge though. It shouldnt have got that far. Who decided that the said comment justified a court appearance? Personally, i think there must be more to this….maybe the guys reputation precedes him …or he did actually say more….or he was warned because of other comments. Anyone friends with him on Facebook yet?. Me neither.

  • http://fishforless.com Kev. Hawthorn

    The Judge is 100% right,even soft if you had asked.CAUSE THE PAIN WEAR THE SHAME! Wasn’t this adult cyber bullying.
    Kev. (AUST )

    • Dan

      Kev. The guy is appealing his conviction. He was forced to write that he’s guilty as charged. That is wrong. What if the conviction gets overturned? Whether he truly is guilty or not, the comment itself sounds more emotional than anything else. And while bullying is part of society, and I don’t agree with it in general, let’s not get too emotional about that. This wasn’t bullying, unless you take everything to heart.

  • http://www.pattycarroll.com Patty Carroll

    Magistrates have the right to select the correct punishment or action that will achieve the desired outcome. If this Judge felt that would be more humbling for this guy to apologize to Facebook friends in such a public way, then so be it. In former times, people were publicly ridiculed as part of punishment, and this is a tit for tat situation. He probably should have added some community service to the sentence!

    • Dan

      Patty, did you read that he’s appealing? What if the conviction gets overturned? And more often than not, women are favored in these cases, whether they told the truth or lied. I’m not saying this stuff doesn’t happen, and it certainly is sad. But we also don’t know all the details of what did/didn’t happen. The judge should’ve just had the man remove his post. BTW, it isn’t just women who get emotional in these situations.

  • http://childrenscastle.net Brenda Bell

    Absolutely rediculous!!. The government wants to controll every aspect of our lives. It is like forceing you to put a baby in a car seat. We did not have car seats like they have now when our baby was small. Don’t get me wrong, I think kids should be put in car seats. I just think the government shouldn’t have the right to force us to do things that don’t concern them.

    • ProtectTheInnocent

      It’s the government’s job to protect those who cannot protect themselves. A baby doesn’t have the ability to put himself in a carseat, so the government is right to try to force the parents to do it.

  • donny price

    The Judge should be removed

  • Joe

    Yeah, always assume the guy is in the wrong. Then Google “kristin ruggiero” to read about the lovely lady who set up her ex (a man serving his country in the Coast Guard) to convicted in April 2008 of criminal threatening, sending obscene material and violating a protective order based on her false allegations. Luckil(after he served 6 months), a Police Chief uncovered the evidence that she framed her ex-husband Jeff Ruggiero, having him jailed for threats she said came from him. Kristin had purchased a disposable cell phone and worked it so the threats appeared to come from Jeff. Now she is dead (died in prison on the day her first conviction was upheld), her cop boyfriend is going to prison for helping her, and he is still fighting to regain custody from her family. Family court must be reformed.

  • Spamexterminator

    The court made a few fatal flaws and he could press charges against the judge and have him disbarred. 1st he never mentioned any names in his comment. 2nd it’s not illegal if it is true. Though there is more to it than the mother claiming she is scared of her domestic partner, she would also have to file a police report to discredit his emotional stability(i.e. domestic assault complaint to get P.P.O.) and 3rd he blocked her to prevent her from reading it and she circumvented it, probably by creating a secondary account under a different name which is both her fault and a violation of facebook policies. I really hope he throws the book at that system for it’s flawed policies and strikes a blow in protecting our basic human rights. If they get away with it their just another step closer to taking away your basic freedoms.

  • http://www.scrapmetalsandplastics.com greg


  • Sarah

    Don’t you think that there are a whole lot of facts that no one knows about? Perhaps the woman was blocked from his account, but how old is his son? Does his son have facebook, and can see what his father says…his father who apparently has opted to not take advantage of child/parent visitation? Is everyone that is saying the judge is wrong to require this, saying that this woman is outright lying? That she has absolutely lied and given no evidence of domestic abuse? Is that what this is about? Is everyone that has posted on this know this couple and their case personally? I’m just saying, it’s very easy to judge and start blaming other people for problems, when maybe people should just be responsible for their own behavior, and accept the consequences.
    Everyone keeps going on and on about free speech, but there has never been a time of freer speech, than now. Read a book for crying out loud and find out about our American history. Unless all of you are just mad about not being able to beat your wives without negative consequences anymore.. A whole lot of opinions out their without a lot of facts…almost like all of you work for the media or something

  • Brad Angell

    It sounds to me like a dictatorship if I ever saw one. Furthermore, Fathers have never had any rights what so ever. Why do you think so many vindictive women use the kids as weapons against the fathers.
    Because the courts condone it. My prayers are with both parties. Stop letting Satan rule your life. That goes for the Government too. Amen

  • Anon

    No, not by a long shot, he was completely out of his mind, with all due respect, the Judge does not have the power to force someone into doing such, and by doing that the poor man was basically forced to post something that was wrong, and, by the Judges order, he violated the terms of the protection order.

    Good luck to this man.

    Signed: A Former Police Offier

  • sandi

    this judge is awesome nasty comments made about someone on their wall should have consequences especially if they are not true. The judge is absoulutly right to do this.

  • Frank

    I see nothing wrong with the judges ruling. Mark was in the wrong because of the violence. I would like to knew how he would feel if someone beat him or whatever he did.

  • Dan

    This is a tough one. It is true, though, that all a spouse/partner has to do, is say that the other abused them. It could just be verbally. Sometimes it is physical, too. Question – What provoked the incident? And, how serious/mild were the physical injuries? In these sorts of cases, somebody always loses, and it isn’t always the party that may be lying.
    My opinion is that there is no good reason to apologize on Facebook for the incident, admitting guilt to the charges, especially when the case is being appealed. The spouse/partner could just as easily have posted something on her own Facebook account. Why not?
    Whether it’s on Facebook or in person, people will always talk, and always put their 2 cents’ worth in. It doesn’t mean they think before inserting foot in mouth. Or, even if they’re right, their emotions many times unnecessarily run rampant.
    Let’s face it, no matter what we say or do, there’s always going to be someone who won’t like you. That goes for the accuser and the accused as well.
    My suggestion, get the divorce, get over what was done, and move on. The judge should’ve stayed clear of Facebook. What the man did shouldn’t have been unexpected, although it’s not the best thing. Women also can be the aggressor in domestic abuse cases. So it’s not just limited to men.

  • http://www.webdesignjustforyou.com Eileen Forte

    The judge should absolutely have no authority to force a person to post anything on his facebook account or anywhere else, period.

    Constitutional rights say you can write what you want. If you harm another, well then, you can pay the price, i.e., a fine or days in jail.

    On the flip side, you also have the right NOT to write what you DON’T want. It’s outrageous how judges take the authority they are entrusted with and think, “I’ll make him apologize in writing!” as if he were the judge’s child!

    The judge stepped over the line.

  • Freeman

    yes, the judge was right as the main purpose of the justice is to realise the guilty of his wrongful action & to correct him.This is a better way of correcting him to apologise to his wife on the same medium he used to harass her.In jail he would have done nothing to improve the present situation viz a viz his wife.

  • Catharine Kent

    Sounds like a GOOD deal! The letter was professionally worded and states exactly what he did… Mislead others into thinking SHE was to blame

  • Merrlyn

    Most importantly, the sentence was given FIRST. The Facebook apology was an OPTION to the 60 days.

    And yes many men get creamed in court; but ALSO many men ACT as if they’d been creamed, when, of their own choosing, they deny themselves the right to see their children just so they can blame their spouse/ex-spouse. I’ve seen this in action so many times, from both sides it’s not funny anymore.

    Sometimes there is no balance in these court cases. But I’ve seen both genders use their children as weapons against each other and the real losers are their children …

    If he loves his son, let him take his lumps – deserved or not – so he can prove his love is greater than his angst.

  • Betty

    what happened to freedom and the right to speak our minds?? whent to far with this one

  • http://www.theakurians.com General Bobby Farrell

    NO! This is one more incident – destined to become a layer – of KAK God-Playing-on-Government-Payroll! Unfortunately these kinds of encroaching idiocies will stop when the last perpetrator is shoveled under.

    Wasn’t it Voltaire who wrote to the effect, “… there will be peace on earth when we strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest!” ??? And long before the effects of Marx & Murdering Idiots had total control of the stage ………

    General Bobby Farrell
    That Damned Akurian

  • Jennifer

    So since the man posted what he was feeling personally about the situation he is punished? Sounds like to me he was posting his OPINION about how he felt. If that is the worst thing the man felt he could say i think his wife should develop a bit more of a callous on her psyche. Not to mention if she was banned from his Facebook page she was obviously fishing for something to get him on by looking from someone else’s account. i think the judge should take another look. Freedom of speech is a right that should be taken more seriously by this judge!

  • Shane Phillips

    This is laughable at best. People use their Facebook pages to vent all the time. If I were him i’d just deactivate my profile for a couple of months and flatly refuse to make the post. His wife does sound like a nasty and vindictive person, and it disturbs me to see men being treated unfairly in situations like this more and more often these days. It seems most countries legal systems assume that women are delicate flowers that cannot do any wrong.

  • Michelle

    I do not believe in utilizing shame as a behavioral motivator or tool. That said, I would also not classify this as shaming. I see it as an opportunity for taking responsibility, something it would seem from this man’s public outburst that he would indeed benefit from learning.
    This man opened the door by using Facebook as his venting platform in the first place. The judge did indeed give him a choice. I concur with the judge’s offerings, and do not see this as Nazi like oppression at all. Having to be self responsible for your own issues with anger and abuse is a good thing.

    • Jim

      Public outburst? This is not a public place where others have no choice but to listen. This is a person giving an opinion, I might add one not directly connected to his X-wife in any way. This is a social media site one which someone has to chose to follow someone or request being in the loop. This would be comparable to asking someone for a car ride then complaining about the conversation in the car. His wife was blocked from the content.
      This case is a typical case. Women who report abuse during a divorce have better chances of getting financial gains and getting control over the kids. These same women who suddenly report abuse, have usually never reported any kind of abuse during the span of the marriage.

  • Dan

    Sound like a violation of our first amendment rights to express our opinion about laws and legal procedures. Bring in the Gestapo and the KGB.

  • http://www.goodearthlandscapeinstitute.com michaels

    I would have given him 30 days in jail along with the making him apoligize on facebook…Why are people so ignorant…
    People need to be more mindful so much ignorance Right speech People Right Speech

    • Jim

      How was that comment ignorant? Did I miss reading something? Since you used the word Ignorant, I feel its important for you to realize that his comments are the inverse of ignorant. For his comments to be ignorant or for him to be ignorant he would by definition have to have no knowledge of the subject. He has direct knowledge and lets face it the courts are commonly taking these complaints during divorce proceeding. Between 1975 and 1995, the total yearly number of child abuse reports grew from 600,000 to over 3 million after the child abuse protection legislation that Senator Mondale sponsored. The passing of this legislation has also resulted in the increase of allegations of child abuse in divorce battles. The courts are used like a tool by women. A large portion of these reports only come up during the divorce proceedings. Its out of control. I actually know a man that had to go through a children and youth investigation because a woman anonymously reported that he was taking his 2 year old to night clubs. Sounds ridiculous but its fact.
      60 days in Jail for a FaceBook post. Being forced to post a staged apology to FaceBook everyday? Really. This is yet another ridiculous case blocking up the judicial system and at what cost. We spend thousands of tax payers’ dollars on this man while he sits in jail. Its feels similar to sending someone to Jail for ripping off one of those tags on a Mattress or Couch.

  • http://admiral-inground-concrete-swimming-pools.4t.com/ Roger L. Owen

    I would do the jail time…

    I am So Glad to be Out of the USA. I have more freedoms in the Philippines than I ever experienced in the US…

  • http://admiral-inground-concrete-swimming-pools.4t.com/ Roger L. Owen

    To follow up on my earlier post, I haven’t touched an American female in over 20 YEARS… And many of these posts made by American females tells the reason why. Females from the US are known to make the worse wife. As one Florida attorney told me over 35 years ago, “It’s the Screwing you get for the Screwing you got”… I did not think he was funny then and he is less funny today. I am So glad to be out of the US where I now experience True Freedom from the Tax-Man and that legal system… Check out the ExPats Philippines group on Linked-in.

  • Jim

    If you take the time to look at Marks comments they do not mention his wife by name. There is no name or detail that would tie the information to his wife directly. It’s merely an opinion. So it has about as much weight as any Confucius quote. This Judge obviously allowed his personal opinion to cloud his judgement, especially considering that his wife was blocked from the content on his site. How she got a hold of the content seems to be questionable is the first place. The punishment certainly does not match the crime in this case on either side. I’m disappointed but unfortunately not shocked.

  • Debby

    I Love it! Think it’s ingenious and the judge is awesome!

  • Lucky to be alive

    This man was found guilty and convicted of domestic violence, and violated a restraining order. This guy obviously has issues or he wouldn’t (a) have been convicted (b) not visited with his son when he had the chance and (c) posted this hateful message on Facebook. These judges see thousands of cases, and it is pretty obvious to see the difference between a loving parent and a hateful one.

    My ex-husband terrorized me and my kids, threatened to kill us and tried to, and we are very lucky to be alive. (Oh, and by the way, the first time I tried to get a restraining order, I was denied, so the myth about women getting them automatically is ridiculous. I had to wait until I had proof of his death threats before I got a temporary restraining order)! Even though my ex-husband was convicted and sent to prison for some serious domestic violence, I was amazed how he could con people into thinking that his threats were just a “joke” and that he was somehow the victim of the court system, just like the comments that I read in this post. Important tip: The bad guy with the sob story is not the victim. Amazing how gullible people are.

    I applaud the judge for giving Mark Byron a “choice” to set the record straight, so the guy couldn’t continue to lie to his “friends” on Facebook. Judges deal in facts not crap. Hopefully those “friends” of his are a little wiser and won’t fall for his next sob story. And it sounds like some of them owe the real victim an apology.

    Lucky to be alive.

  • http://poorcredit-creditcard.co.uk Simon

    I don’t think the guy should have to do anything whilst this is in appeal, if / when this gets over ruled will the judge post an apology,

    I think this kind of court activity is damaging society all over the “Free” world.

  • http://the-link-builder.co.uk/ the link builder

    This is another sad example of people miss using Facebook – to discuss sensitive and private situations in their lives. Of course he has the right to vent his frustration with the court system – but not on the web it’s not wise to critic any government in public no matter what platform you select – they won’t take it lying down. I hope the situation improves quickly for the sake of the all concerned.

  • Mojo

    That’s fine, just delete all your friends before posting the apology, surely there is no law against that?!

  • T. Lane

    the court has no right to do this and has caused him to suffer damages, of embarrassment and humiliation. i find the magistrate guilty of crimes agaisnt his first ammendent rights as a US ctizen. I find prabable cause to charge the magistrate with slanderous comments and hereby suggest he be removed from his position for attempting to impersonate a human being. i further suggest that the magistrate serve 1000 hours of community service or walk around the streets of Ohio with a sign aroud his neck confessing to his dillusional contemptuous remarks and a full public apology on national televison

  • henrys mate

    Seems totally fair to me, why should he be allowed to make out it was his vindictive (soon to be ex) wife that stopped him visiting his kid? Live by the sword, die by the sword.

  • madpat

    The judge, in my opinon, is totally out of line in this case, particularly as the FB posting is an expression of a belief that causes no harm, insult or threat to anyone. All he did was point out an unfortunate truth without naming anyone.

    Now, the comparison between this case and the one re. the polluting comoany I think is unfortunate. In the second case I believe it was not only good but that it should be applied as often as possible. To express your opinion, without harm to anyone, is not the same as to pollute, which does.

  • http://damescribe.hubpages.com/ Gin

    I think it’s a good strategy for a Judge. Badmouthing anybody for personal benefit shows poor decorum. Reminds me of medieval days when somebody was put in the stockades for public display as a criminal of one sort or another. I would suggest stiffer fines if a Judge would prefer not to use this method. A parent is a adult and should be a positive role model to the child. I would also have to say that this should also apply to women who poison relationships with the removed parent. Laws should balance for parents and bad behaviors for the well being of the child.

  • George

    Government has killed and tortured more people than any other source in history.
    Why would you want the government involved in anything? When government fears the people you have FREEDOM.

  • Jeff

    Perfectly legal and not unethical. The judge offered the Facebook posting as an ALTERNATIVE to jail time which is within his powers. The father could simply do the jail time if he so chose in which case everyone he knew on Facebook would find out anyway. So long as the convicted is provided an option, it is his or her choice.

  • David – FL

    If he had blocked her from his page then she had to intentionally go to his page through a fake account or someone else’s to see it. If I’m not mistaken a restraining order doesn’t apply if you go out of your way to track down the person the order is against. This judge is way out of line!

  • Janeen B.

    The judge didn’t have to over ANY alternative!! I can’t believe your misleading title led me to believe that the man had no choice but to post something to his Facebook wall or go to jail. OBVIOUSLY, he was sentenced to jail, and the judge offered the Facebook post as a generous leniency. The man was found guilty of domestic violence, and his post on Facebook about his wife was just another way to hurt her. He deserved EVERYTHING HE GOT.

  • http://www.domainsinternational.net Carlos Martins

    Hi all
    If the Gestapo gorillas had the same power in 40s (Internet), they will use it with the “criminals” like jews and resistants, then they shoot them after the posting.
    It is like their style.

  • joe

    In reference to 60 days in jail. No the judge does not have the right to demand anything of this person.first of all we have the first amendment which is supposed to protect the right of free speech and if that is restricted in any way then it is not free speech.secondly he did not name her so this is not defimation of charactor.thirdly, you would not believe what is going on in those family courts.the lawyers and judges are doing there own thing and treating people like a bunch of dumb asses.they don’t adhere to the law standards and an example of that is they will put you in jail without formally charging you of a crime which if in direct conflict with the constitution.

  • http://wealthnote.com Levi Blackman

    Yeah, it may be a violation of the constitution but honestly I would like a judge to give me a “no jail” option. I would take the deal and keep my mouth shut. Jail sucks.

  • secret

    nazisms govern you americans!!!

  • Lady Di’

    I personally have some serious doubts about Facebook. Never used it much myself and certainly not post a mug shot of myself. No one is forced to say or not say anything on facebook, that is their choice, but like any other privalege come responsibilities. Unfortunately, some folks do not take responsibilities seriously. Facebook is abused or used by many I’m afraid as a means of venting frustations, hostilities, etc. for other people. Frankly, who gives a rat’s behind what someone thinks of a person they may not know?

  • Colonel Braddock

    I would have been forced to tell the judge to kiss my ass. I’ll do the 60 days instead.

  • http://jaybeacham.com jay beacham

    They were wrong to do that but often in divorce situations the courts take Parental, speech and religious rights away from the father mostly but sometimes from the mother.
    Most judges laugh at the constitution thus causing these kinds of problems.
    Jay Beacham

  • Joey

    the facebook wall pages states “Whats on your mind” and he was just posted what was on his mind. I don’t want to say too much against the judge here, or he may have me do 15 jumping jacks and say 3 hail mary’s.

  • Yos

    The mas was marely given a choice. He choose to defame his wife to their acquint, just right he apologise to misleading them.

  • http://fishercase.com Paul Fisher

    The guy posted a truthful statement about family court in general. If you have not been in Family court you have no idea, because you still believe in the some fanciful idea that that court has something to do with justice.

    His guilt or innocence in a domestic violence charge is irrelevant to being able to post generally accepted facts about family court. If such a statement of fact causes the wife to feel bad that is her problem.

    This is absurd.

  • http://fishercase.com Paul Fisher

    @Simon, no joke! A decision in appeal is not a final order, period.

    I think that if the DV charges are overruled, we the people, should hold this judge accountable in a similar manner.

  • http://huntall.com huntall

    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.

  • nwosu chukwuemeka

    The judge has shown very good understanding to him by offering him a written apology to be publicly posted in his facebook page,to help him avoid a jail term over offensive comments in the same social media.

  • Justin

    This is absolutely appalling and ridiculous that this can actually be considered mental abuse. He should not only not have to post that apology, but he shouldn’t have gotten in trouble in the first place. While the message was directed at her, it wasn’t directly to her as she was blocked. He was venting and she saw it off hand by most likely hearing it from someone else. That would be the same as me saying something to someone else, and then her hearing about it and then I get in trouble. Free speech should have protected him on this one. People have posted plenty of negative stuff on Facebook and not gotten in trouble for it like this. I hope his appeal goes through and he sues her. What a b.

  • jennifer

    That’s bs. U have right to say wat u want and if he blocked her from his page then she was deliberately trying to cause more problems. Its a damn shame. Women like that only care about themselves and don’t care about who they hurt along the way its just sad andthe judge is an ass for doing that. Freedom of speech dummy maybe he needs to look at the constitution again and realize he is wrong

  • jp

    Judge should be removed from case. He has violated this guys freedom of free speech.

  • jp

    We need to vote that judge out. Men’s freedoms are being jeopardized

  • http://www.godgamesproject.com Timothy R. Waggener

    In any court case involving domestic violence towards woman the man is forced to prove himself innocent rather than having to be proven guilty. It’s not sexist to say it… It’s just acknowledging how bias people are and how our society really works. It’s sad to think that if this man was innocent he’s being forced to publicly state himself to be guilty in an apology. Whatever is left of him after the experience, they had no right to take his pride too…

  • Will

    First of all why dont you all look at the fact that this man never said who he is talking about in any of the statement. He could have been talking about his best friends ex wife ..If I was him, File a complaint against the judge. The judge is not GOD, They are watched by the Judicial Qualifications Comm. Unless he states her name there is not one single person on this planet that could say he is talking about her. The False allegations used by others in courts gets no harm done.

  • Pizzaman7

    I am so sick of activist judges who apply the law liberally and not follow the letter of the law. Judges aren’t supposed to make laws. That is the job of our legislators.

    This is a private Facebook page. He can put anything he wants on it.

    We are becoming less and less free. We all need to be active out there in protecting our freedoms guaranteed by our constitution. The people we put in power are not following the constitution.

    I will also say this…I have friends who have gone through divorce and things are so slanted towards the women that it is sad. I had one friend who had lost his job and on unemployment. The judge didn’t care and made him take out a loan so he could make his usual child support payments. He wasn’t out of work for very long but the minute he gets a higher paying job he gets hauled into court and his payments go up.

  • richard

    i just want to say a big appreciation and thanks to ASHRA of ASHRA SPELL TEMPLE for bringing back my ex love within 3days my ex love is back and will are happy together now, you can contact ASHRA for all your love ,family issues , on email :ashraspelltemple@gmail.com

  • mike

    Life sucks thanks to gayer and idiots in power!!!