Judge Orders Man To Delete Revenge Blog

nonprofiteer writes "A Minnesota man violated a restraining order obtained by his ex-girlfriend by blogging about her mental health and sexual issues, and sending links to posts on the blog to her family, friends, and co-workers. The judge then extended the restraining order by 50 years, ordered the guy never to write about his ex on the Internet and ordered him to delete the blog he created. Even though there was no evidence that what he had written was false, the judge said the ex-girlfriend's 'right to be free from harassment' outweighed the guy's 'right to free speech.' 'I believe it's rare, if not unprecedented, for a court to order an entire blog deleted,' says technology law professor Eric Goldman."

Comments

hipaa violation as well?

[Joe_Dragon]

can he now be fined for that as well?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

no he is not a health organization.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Deep Esophagus]

Only if he's a medical professional. HIPAA does not apply to the general public, only medical service providers.

I'm really torn on this one... On the one hand, yeah, free speech. On the other hand... that borders on stalking, and possibly endangering her. On the other other hand, do we really need yet more government intervention to enforce niceness? Where do you draw the line at "you can be THIS much of a jerk, but any more and the law steps in"?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[BZ]

Usually that line is drawn at whatever the criteria are for getting a restraining order. What those are varies by jurisdiction, I bet.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[phantomfive]

Where do you draw the line at "you can be THIS much of a jerk, but any more and the law steps in"?

If you were to measure the damage in dollar amounts, you can take someone to court for very small amounts, less than $100.

In my book, he crossed the line with his demonstrated intent to hurt her. He isn't trying to protect the general public by sharing this knowledge, and he isn't even trying to entertain people. His pure goal is to hurt her however he can (ironically he might have a sub-goal of getting her back). I see no problem if we as a society protect people like that with restraining orders and such.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[jcr]

Well, there's a tort here of willfully causing emotional distress, which could be litigated, and a jury would be within its legitimate power to order a remedy to the harm he's causing. Ordinarily that would mean taking his money and giving it to the plaintiff. As for forcing him to STFU, I'd be a lot more comfortable with a jury in a civil action deciding that than a judge or any other government official.

-jcr

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[jesseck]

I'm really torn on this one... On the one hand... On the other hand... On the other other hand...

How many hands do you have?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

they should let him hassle her so the other "ladies" can see it and learn how to pick better men. it would be for the greater good.

"oh I just love bad boys." "wait, he's also bad to ME?! like, I am like so totally shocked!"

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[cheekyjohnson]

You could always just play guessing games about his intentions and tell everyone that people have the right to not be offended. That method seems to be quite popular.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[tragedy]

You have to question whether the intent was necessarily just to hurt her though. It could have also been, from his perspective, a way to defend himself from what he saw as slander from her. Clearly the judge didn't think so, but judges aren't infallible.

The ultimate problem with restraining orders is that they're not some sort of magical force field. Often in order to get a restraining order, one party has to claim to be afraid of physical harm from the other. The thing is, someone truly dangerous isn't going to be stopped for a second by a restraining order. They may, however, help keep marginal situations from escalating by keeping people apart. Simply preventing people's feelings from being hurt is another matter, however. Harassment is one thing, but where does normal relationship bitterness end and harassment begin? It seems like the ex-boyfriend in this case went a little too far, but it seems like the judge went a lot too far.

And to add my own personal experience with restraining orders; once, years and years back, I went with my then girlfriend while she was babysitting a friend's children. It turned out that her friend and her husband were having relationship difficulty and she had a restraining order against him forbidding him from being within some particular distance of her. So, naturally, her big plans for the evening were to go to where she knew he would be and force him to leave and then follow him around the whole night. And that really does seem to be how restraining orders are usually used: just one more weapon in the troubled relationship arsenal. The people getting the restraining orders are quite often aggressors rather than victims, or at least are aggressors as well as victims.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[phantomfive]

You have to question whether the intent was necessarily just to hurt her though. It could have also been, from his perspective, a way to defend himself from what he saw as slander from her.

Figuring out intent may be the #1 difficulty with our legal system today. A lot of laws rely on intent as a distinguishing factor in how serious a crime is (it's the difference between first degree murder and man-slaughter). The difficulty is, of course, that it's impossible to do accurately.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[phantomfive]

So, naturally, her big plans for the evening were to go to where she knew he would be and force him to leave and then follow him around the whole night.

What a great friend. :/

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[jagapen]

That's not how our legal system works, though. With limited exceptions*, juries are the finders of fact and judges are the finders of law. In this case, the question of whether the man committed the tort of intentional infliction of emotional harm is a question of fact and thus would go to the jury. If they said yes, then the remedy for the damage caused be the tort is a question of law and thus is a matter for the judge. (In this case, the remedy is enjoining him to delete the blog and to refrain from further writing about the particular topics relating to his ex.) It is entirely appropriate, in our court system, for the judge to make such orders.

Personally, I have no problem with this order. A ruling by a court is a very, very different thing than an act of an executive or legislative body. Rulings by courts of original jurisdiction generally have little precedential power (i.e. they don't bind other courts; one ruling does not stare decisis make) and they are much easier to fight and undo than a statute or executive order. Also, it is entirely consistent with centuries-old doctrines regarding harassment and innumerable previous rulings which have not destroyed free speech. Adding "...on the Internet" does not make it a new and troubling concept.

* Trivia: Wisconsin's constitution makes juries the finders of fact and law in libel cases.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[rthille]

He's obviously a Motie!

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, her goal might have been to hurt him, originally. We don't forbid that; why should we forbid the tat and not the tit?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

juries are the finders of fact and judges are the finders of law.

This has always puzzled me. Surely it should be the other way around. Interpreting facts is hard: it requires expertise in a range of fields, including ballistics, genetics, etc - and most especially, probability - which your average jury doesn't have. But interpreting law is, or should be, easy: if a jury of the defendant's peers can't interpret the law surrounding the case, you can't reasonable expect the defendant to have understood it.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[techhead79]

And that really does seem to be how restraining orders are usually used: just one more weapon in the troubled relationship arsenal.

Exactly! Don't want your husband around the child you both had? All you have to do is convince a judge to give you a restraining order. Pretend to be horribly in fear of your life regardless of what the man did or did not do. Restraining orders are used all the time as a tool to win. Grind your X into nothing. I've seen it done all the time.

I personally think he should be allowed to say whatever he wants online. However he crossed the line when he contacted her family or anyone she knows. What's next? How much more control can we give someone over other people?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[phantomfive]

why should we forbid the tat and not the tit?

It has to stop somewhere.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Jane Q. Public]

I think the judge was out of line.

I think a blogger should be treated like any other kind of speech or printing press. If the guy published a newspaper, a judge might order him to stop writing nasty editorials about his ex, but he wouldn't (likely couldn't) order the newspaper to shut down.

Honestly, these recent court cases involving things like speech have been disturbing. Courts have been setting some very bad precedent in recent years, and I think we'd better watch our asses. I mean things like on the one hand, curtailing the speech of this blogger (although I think we can agree that harassing speech can be curtailed, his whole blog did not need to be shut down). And on the other hand, saying that corporations are "people" and can spend whatever campaign money they want, as a matter of free "speech".

Does anyone besides me see a pattern here?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[blackicye]

I think the judge was out of line.
I think a blogger should be treated like any other kind of speech or printing press. If the guy published a newspaper, a judge might order him to stop writing nasty editorials about his ex, but he wouldn't (likely couldn't) order the newspaper to shut down.

I see your point, but I liken this to starting your own newspaper for the sole purpose of telling the world how much of a psychotic bitch your ex was, and then trying to sell your paper to her friends, family and business colleagues.

He is doing the rest of the Minnesota Male population a favour if he speaks the truth though :P

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[mrchaotica]

The real issue here is not how many hands he has, but that he's not geeky enough to use the right idiom.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Maestro4k]

You have to question whether the intent was necessarily just to hurt her though. It could have also been, from his perspective, a way to defend himself from what he saw as slander from her. Clearly the judge didn't think so, but judges aren't infallible.

If you really think that's in question, you should read the article more carefully. This guy didn't just create this blog, he then went on to: "Under pseudonyms, Arlotta then promoted the blog to Johnson's family, friends, contacts and employer as well as some unaffiliated parties, like the local media." It's rather abundantly clear he created the blog simply as a means to harass her. It was simply there so he had something to pseudonymously point friends/family/employers/coworkers/etc. to so he could humiliate and embarrass her. The fact he was doing this with pseudonyms is the real nail in the coffin, he obviously knew he'd get in serious trouble quickly if his used his real name to do so. He was quite willfully violating the restraining order against him. Frankly he sounds really, really obsessed, and potentially dangerous.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[geminidomino]

It's just a coincidence that "somewhere" always seems to be when the poor, delicate female flower has gotten to do her damage.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[phantomfive]

It's just a coincidence that "somewhere" always seems to be when the poor, delicate female flower has gotten to do her damage.

It sucks being a man.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let it play itself out. Why should his intent, expressed purely in words, to cause her harm actually cause her harm? What seems to be causing her harm is her reaction. And yours...you make his words more important than they are!

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

And on the other hand, saying that corporations are "people" and can spend whatever campaign money they want, as a matter of free "speech".

What was actually said is that the principle of Freedom of Speech applies to the speech regardless of whether it's a person or a corporation doing the "speaking".
And the only change to campaign spending was that it removed a restriction against spending money on mass media during the last month of an election.

It did NOT rule that "corporations are people" and it did NOT remove all campaign spending restrictions.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Jane Q. Public]

Well, you may have a point considering that it was called Help Anne Johnson... I agree that in this case, it does seem to be that harassment was his whole point.

But if it were even a slightly more general case, it would have sent up big red flags.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[erroneus]

And what about his right to express how upset/angry/disturbed about her he is?

In this respect there is a freedom of speech issue that is also important and can certainly translate into FoS issues for the rest of the nation if this precedent is continued to be set.

"Intent to harm another?" Does it matter if it's the truth? And in his mind, how can you say his intent isn't trying to protect the public? I've had a psycho ex. I pity anyone who has any dealings with her. Granted, I only tell my story verbally, as examples of how this, that or the other could go wrong in life and I don't usually mention her name or anything like that and I don't go out of my way to contact any of her family ... that's just psycho behavior itself. But to restrain someone from telling his story? That's somehow wrong to me.

I think the judge should stop at contacting her "indirectly" which is what he had been doing.

Freedom of Speech is such an important right that limiting it should be extremely rare if ever done. People have the freedom of thought which should always be exercised. And when people are faced with someone else's speech, they need to be able to decide for themselves whether to get behind it or reject it, but not be able to suppress it. That's where things get slippery isn't it?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[LocalH]

Misandry is not an acceptable substitute for misogyny.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

No gripping hand... but good thinking!

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[cheekyjohnson]

But then people would have to toughen up and actually investigate things that they hear/read! It's so much easier to ban 'offensive' things under the guise of intent and "harassment," and believe everything that people tell you!

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real issue here is not how many hands he has, but that he's not geeky enough to use the right idiom.

nice!

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that in the Constitution?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[erroneus]

You don't see where "trends" can and are followed in the justice system? One only has to watch the erosion of male rights in family law across all 50 states to see that even though "precedent" is technically not an issue here, there are trends and practices which continue to spread and develop in that area. This is the problem of the difference between theoretical and practical.

The fact is, women get a lot more latitude than men. Women get a lot more forgiveness than men. Women get a lot more consideration than men. Women are innocent until proven otherwise beyond all possible and impossible doubt. Men are guilty... no... just always guilty even with proof to the contrary.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[erroneus]

Damn. I wish I said it the way you said it. To me, at least, it is a much more obvious way of expressing what is wrong. The problem, I suppose, is that people REALLY THINK they have a right not to be offended. That's what needs to be changed in our culture.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

Unfortunately, one can't control what they're attracted to. If you're attracted to guys who exude that sort of energy, aggression, sex drive, that "knowing what they want and going for it" attitude, etc, you can't just decide to not be attracted to it, any more than a guy who's attracted to women with big breasts can just decide not to be attracted to them.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

He used to have two hands like you, then he took a arrow to the hand

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[ComaVN]

Perhaps not, but you can stop acting on the impulse.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anachragnome]

"The people getting the restraining orders are quite often aggressors rather than victims, or at least are aggressors as well as victims."

This, this, this.

My wife and I once asked for a restraining order against a man and his son (granted, without difficulty). They were pissed when we did so and immediately claimed some bullshit and filed for their own. When I was notified, as a respondent, I didn't contest their claims thinking that two restraining orders would simply be redundant and serve the same purpose--keeping them the fuck away from us. WRONG.

They asked for different restrictions that were used against me, such as requiring me to stay 5000' from their house, when we had only asked for 500'. The problem here is that we lived in the same neighborhood and my house was within 5000' of theirs. They called the cops on me the moment I came home from work and I had to go to court to contest the order they had.

On top of this, a restraining order is only as good as the resolve of the Judge that signed it. Both of those two men later violated the order we had against them (literally chased my wife and daughters at knife point, only to be held off by a total stranger with a 12-guage. (Thank you, if you're reading this!)), witnessed by over a dozen police officers (fuck you, Alaska State Troopers), admitted their guilt in court to the very same judge that signed the violated order...and walked out of that courtroom before I did, free men.

Needless to say, we left the state and I now own a gun.

The worst aspect of restraining orders I can think of is the false sense of security they provide--no piece of paper will stop a nutcase once they got their panties in a bunch.

(If you did nothing wrong, and someone files for a restraining order against you, ALWAYS contest it. It doesn't cost a penny to do so, but it might cost many if you don't.)

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Chrisq]

Unfortunately, one can't control what they're attracted to.

I thank my lucky stars every day that there have been no recorded incidents of sheep starting "revenge websites".

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[gnasher719]

I think a blogger should be treated like any other kind of speech or printing press. If the guy published a newspaper, a judge might order him to stop writing nasty editorials about his ex, but he wouldn't (likely couldn't) order the newspaper to shut down.

I think you're quite an idiot. If he was a journalist writing for a newspaper, he would have been fired and be unemployable. If he published a newspaper, well, the News Of The World _has_ been closed down for that kind of thing. A blogger who publishes things _with the intent to hurt a victim who has a restraining order against him_ cannot have any protection.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really torn on this one... On the one hand... On the other hand... On the other other hand...

How many hands do you have?

Two originally, but one was torn in half.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

Stop dating people you're attracted to? Really, is that your suggestion?

I think it's easier for a guy to say something like that because guys in general are more physical in their attraction than women, more based on looks. I.e., looks being equal, a shy girl in a bar has dramatically better odds of going home with someone than a shy guy in a bar. How a guy acts is hardly the only aspect of how attractive he comes across, but it is a major part of it. Here's an experiment for you: go to a club some time and only give a meek, timid "hey" to whoever you want to pick up, only respond with short, meek statements to what they say, avoiding direct eye contact, etc, and compare your results to going there and being assertive, self confident, and persistent. "Bad Boys" win because bad boys tend to exude behavioral traits that many if not most women are attracted to.

One could say that this distinction -- far from universal, but definitely extant -- is a cultural phenomena. But there's certainly a reasonable genetic argument to be made for it as well, at least historically.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll admit, I haven't ready the article carefully or fully, but:

You have to be pretty careful about judging "potential danger", you could easily wind up in a minority report world where someone hasn't done anything wrong, but it's determined that they were getting close, or were getting ready to do something very terrible. The problem, of course, is that they haven't done anything wrong, and as of today, there's no reliable way to tell if they would have.

The problem, of course is that you can't actually be accurate in those predictions. It's a really dangerous catch-22 in prevention vs. persecution.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Ihmhi]

Ooh, finally someone understands me!

If I'm not working (and subsequently have no money), I don't date. Aside from the fact that I wouldn't be able to cover expenses such as contraceptives, dates, etc., I am not in a position to raise a family. If you stick your eleventh finger into a woman without being prepared for the possibility of a kid coming out nine months later, I think you're kinda irresponsible.

My friends don't get it. They can't understand how I'm not running around like an idiot going after women. As much as I'd like to date right now, it's just not practical and so I don't. How hard is this to understand?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Ihmhi]

And yet if he shit-talked an ex in an e-book under a pen name, he'd have no problems. That's pretty much the way around this.

"Sir, I'm not promoting the book so vigorously in order to harass my ex-girlfriend. I'm promoting my autobiography in order to sell books and, you know, make money off of my hard work."

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[jcr]

. With limited exceptions*, juries are the finders of fact and judges are the finders of law

That's what the government would like us to believe. The fact though, is that the jury has the power to determine both the facts and the law, and even nullify a law in a case before them, although they may be told otherwise.

-jcr

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[gmack]

Our ability to not act on our impulses is what separates the human race from the animals. Your comparison is bad because in bars/clubs there are no other way to judge people but on looks and is a competitive environment to begin with and that makes it a poor place to look for a potential date although I can see your real problem seems to be the implied "if I don't take what I can get I will get nothing".

Years ago I broke up with a girlfriend after dealing with her constant lies, bad temper and generally manipulative behavior and I had to stop and think about my life since she wasn't the first girl I dated who behaved like that. I realized my problem was standards so since then I have applied a "am I better off with this girl than I am when single" filter to relationships and it makes made me notice a few things: worst case "lonely" is better than "pissed off" and that better girls had a bit of a learning curve but were worth the effort.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[The Creator]

The only time a woman isn't going after a fucktard on impulse is when she is doing it a warp speed!

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[reub2000]

Except the guy has already done something wrong. So he's being punished for violating an order which was pretty clear.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

Your comparison is bad because in bars/clubs there are no other way to judge people but on looks

Please go back and re-read, because I said just the opposite. Perhaps *you* only go on looks in bars/clubs, but you'll find that many if not most women do not.

Dating isn't necessarily about "acting on impulses", but there's a vast difference between "not acting on impulses" and "dating only people you don't find attractive instead of people you do".

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

Perhaps having a little more respect for women than a place to "stick your eleventh finger" might be a good start for you.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

To put it another way:

Picture you find... oh, let's just say women with a mullet, simply unattractive.
Now imagine someone telling you, "You can only date women with mullets."

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[makomk]

And to add my own personal experience with restraining orders; once, years and years back, I went with my then girlfriend while she was babysitting a friend's children. It turned out that her friend and her husband were having relationship difficulty and she had a restraining order against him forbidding him from being within some particular distance of her. So, naturally, her big plans for the evening were to go to where she knew he would be and force him to leave and then follow him around the whole night.

Yeah, the way restraining orders on exs are granted and interpreted seems to be absolutely nuts, based more on ludicrous gender roles than on any real danger. I wouldn't be surprised to see violently abusive women getting restraining orders against their exs, stalking and violently attacking them, and then getting them arrested for breaching the restraining order.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[realityimpaired]

Only in the US would there be *any* question whether his creating a blog for the specific purpose of harassing and embarrassing an ex who got a restraining order against him was legal.... Your country has a *really* fucked up idea of what free speech means, and how it integrates into a productive society....

To be blunt: you can say what you want as long as, to the best of your knowledge it's true, and it doesn't interfere with the rights of others, such as the right not to be threatened or harassed. In any other country in the first world, she wouldn't have even needed a restraining order for what he did to have been illegal.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[realityimpaired]

At that point, however, he could still face prosecution for libel if he couldn't prove what he'd said was true.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[realityimpaired]

And what about his right to express how upset/angry/disturbed about her he is?

Didn't read the article, did you? After posting said blog, he then went on to create aliases and to use those aliases to anonymously e-mail the woman's employer, her family, and her friends with links to the blog. That goes beyond simply expressing his feelings about the relationship and how it ended, by a very wide margin.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[digitig]

Our ability to not act on our impulses is what separates the human race from the animals.

Do you have evidence for that, or do you believe it because Aristotle said it a couple of thousand years ago and nobody has dared challenge it?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[realityimpaired]

But if it were even a slightly more general case, it would have sent up big red flags.

In a slightly more general case, this case probably never would have made it to court... if you keep a blog about your daily life and you make one or two posts about how much you hate X person because of the way they screwed you over, and then go back to posting about the quality of the pizza sauce on your dinner last night, then it's doubtful that you'd then go on to create anonymous e-mail addresses and use those to send links to the blog posts to the woman's employer....

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

Indeed, even rats have been shown to practice metacognition. Presented with a choice with consequences -- full reward for the right answer, no reward for the wrong answer, and a tiny reward for an "opt-out" choice -- lab rats will choose the right answer when the test is easy, but as it becomes increasingly difficult they begin to hesitate more and more, and eventually start to choose the "opt-out" choice. That is, they know what they do not know and will make choices that are not impulsive, but are well thought out.

The gp could also be referring to delayed gratification, but higher nonhuman animals have also been shown to practice that. For example, if you have chimps in a setup where there's a device that slowly loads up a food dispenser with one desired food item after another, but stops as soon as the chimp takes the food, after prior experience with the test, most chimps will wait until all possible food items have been loaded before taking them. Delayed gratification has also been shown in dolphins and a number of other animals.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[DJRumpy]

In my opinion, he made his intent pretty clear. His intent was to bully, which most is not allowed in most TOS agreements to begin with. Yes it is speech, but still bullying.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[DarkTempes]

The judge may not have even needed to order it to get the blog taken down.

It more than likely was against the blogger.com/blogspot content policy and could have been taken down (or filtered) by request.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[erroneus]

No, I read that. See the stand-alone statement I wrote saying "I think the judge should stop at contacting her "indirectly" which is what he had been doing."

That part was clearly harassment.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[somersault]

This from the guy advocating picking up women in clubs? You don't go to a club looking for a long term commitment. I'm not saying it can't happen, but most of the people in there are hoping for some fingering.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Neil Boekend]

It sucks being attracted to insane girls.
Being a man isn't so bad in and of itself.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

This from the guy advocating picking up women in clubs?

There's not a single part of that sentence that's correct.

And my point stands.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

But then dating dirtbags because you can't fight a natural impulse, then complaining when they can't fight their impulse to be dirtbags is a bit rich. That's like someone who self harms suing a razor blade maker for making sharp razors - if you know it's going to hurt you, stay away, and if you can't, don't whine about it to the rest of us.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Attila Dimedici]

At this point, he could face prosecution for libel. You know when I look at the Constitution, I don't find in there any place where it mentions a right to be free from harrassment. I do, however, find a right to freedom of speech. I have trouble seeing how an enumerated right is trumped by an interpreted right.
I believe that if the judgement had said that the order was because the blog and the man's actions subsequent to creating it were a clear violation of the spirit of the restraining order and that on the basis of that held the man in contempt of court. Then gave the man the option of serving jail time for contempt of court or delete the blog (with the understanding that if he restored the blog the jail time would ensue) Followed by an order not to promote the blog (or anything like it) to the woman's contacts.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[delinear]

There's never been a general rule that all speech should be free. There has always been a rider that says free speech that causes harm to others is not blanket protected (i.e. the typical shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre example). The law has long established precedents on how to handle this within the bounds of the "reasonable man", there is nothing new here and no extension of governmental influence, it's merely that it's being applied to online harrasment.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Attila Dimedici]

I think the judge should stop at contacting her "indirectly" which is what he had been doing.

Actually, I think the judge should have held him in contempt of court. I would have even had no problem with the judge ruling that the man should delete the blog on the basis of the fact that he used it in a way that was clearly in violation of the intent of the restraining order by promoting it to the woman's contacts using aliases. Although I think the ideal way to deal with it would have been to give him a short jail sentence for contempt of court with the option to avoid that by deleting the blog (and not reconstructing it later). If he chose to serve the contempt of court sentence, he could keep the blog up, but the judge could have ordered him to never promtoe it using an alias and to never promote it (or anything similar) to any of the woman's contacts.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Attila Dimedici]

No, juries are do not determine law. What you are getting at is jury nullification, which is the idea that the jury can find that the law should not apply in this case (or perhaps any case, but they don't get to actually determine that relative to other cases).

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[somersault]

So you're not a guy? And you didn't say this?

Here's an experiment for you: go to a club some time and only give a meek, timid "hey" to whoever you want to pick up, only respond with short, meek statements to what they say, avoiding direct eye contact, etc, and compare your results to going there and being assertive, self confident, and persistent. "Bad Boys" win because bad boys tend to exude behavioral traits that many if not most women are attracted to.

Of course the macho act is going to go down better in a club, but that's because the type of person that would be a match for a quieter guy like me and probably a lot of other Slashdotters just isn't that into clubbing. I don't mind clubbing if I'm drunk, but in general I'm just not interested in clubbing or even being drunk.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[dkleinsc]

On top of this, a restraining order is only as good as the resolve of the Judge that signed it. Both of those two men later violated the order we had against them (literally chased my wife and daughters at knife point, only to be held off by a total stranger with a 12-guage. (Thank you, if you're reading this!)), witnessed by over a dozen police officers (fuck you, Alaska State Troopers), admitted their guilt in court to the very same judge that signed the violated order...and walked out of that courtroom before I did, free men.

Please name names and jurisdiction if possible. If police officers and judges choose not to respond at all to an assault with a deadly weapon (a serious felony in most states), it is definitely in the public interest to know that. I'm not saying you didn't do the right thing by leaving, just that corruption like this ought to be exposed to scrutiny.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

Women do not deserve to be put on pedestals simply because they're women any more than men deserve to because they're men. They do not deserve any more, or any less protection under the law. I wonder if this would be such a hot button news item if the dispute had occurred between two men who had a falling out over a business dispute?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[delinear]

If I said I was going to kill you for that comment you'd (hopefully) know that I was either joking or just blowing off steam and not serious. If I said the same thing to someone I already acknowledged had mental health issues or who otherwise already had reason to feel threatened by me (as evidenced by a restraining order) that's a whole different story. Generally the law on what constitutes assault takes into account the reaction of the reasonable man, but it also allows for special knowledge that you might have that would skew that reaction. If you know someone is going to react badly to a threat and you make the threat, you can't, in good conscience, rely on the defence that you weren't serious. You knew or ought to have known the reaction you'd get, you can't really complain about the consequences of that.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

I'd contrarily state that: given the premise of "what you're attracted to can't be helped" and "it's unreasonable to ask someone to not date people they're attracted to", ridiculing women who end up getting treated like that is not productive, and that a better avenue of your efforts would be toward eliminating cultural acceptance of stalker-ish behavior from guys. And if you don't think we live in a culture that glorifies guys doing stalker-ish behavior, let me ask you something: how many times have to seen this plot in TV or the movies?

  * Girl leaves guy (or never goes out with guy in the first place)
  * Guy can't get over girl
  * Guy does something like punch the girl's new fling, stand outside her window blaring love songs, kisses her when she's not expecting it, or something of that nature.
  * Girl decides, "wow, this guy really loves me" and starts dating him.

In the movies, we call that "a love story". In real life, we call it "stalking". And the ending is not romance, but a restraining order.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Lehk228]

I don't know about your state but in NY orders of protection bind both parties.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Nesa2]

This is just bunch of bull and you know it. Are tabloids trying to protect general public when they write all kinds of lies and worse about stars in order to sell paper. They turn a profit no this. They also have larger customer base than this guy.

Free speech is free speech... and it is not free speech when someone can arbitrarily say - no you are not allowed to voice your opinions. Thus also my support of Wikileaks... content matters not... we don't get to decide what is free speach and what is not...If we do, then it's not free speech to begin with.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[MagusSlurpy]

You know, it is possible to date a girl without having sex with her. Trust me, I do it all the time.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[delinear]

You're right that interpreting law should be easy, but it's not. If it was, we wouldn't need to spend several years in law school just to learn the very tip of the iceberg. There are thousands upon thousands of laws on the books, new laws overrule old laws without the old laws specifically being removed, sometimes two laws might appear to be in conflict, precedent comes down from other courts, judges have to often do their best to interpret how a vague law covers a specific situation, or how a law created in past years applies where new technology is involved. Generally criminal law is more black and white, but there are numerous shades of grey in every other area. No, I think the jury of your peers deciding your guilt and the trained experts deciding how that means the law applies to you given your specific set of circumstances is really the only workable solution (other than throwing out 99% of the laws on the books and mandatory law classes during school and refresher courses for the rest of your adult life).

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[MagusSlurpy]

For me, it's more that I'm not interested in the kind of girl that likes to go clubbing.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

1) I thought it obvious. 2) Did you miss the word "experiment"? I described an experiment on human attraction. How you saw that as advocacy that clubs are an ideal way to meet people is beyond me.

Attraction doesn't change based on whether you're in a club or not. The same things that attract you to someone in a club attract you outside the club and vice versa.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure there are nice, honest, and attractive women out there who have integrity and are looking for the same thing in a man. If you are lucky enough to find one of these rare animals, please do come back to /. and tell us about it. Maybe its bad luck, I dunno... But I have yet to meet a woman that through her own actions doesn't deserve to be treated like dog shit. Sorry. I do respect them, until I catch them in their lies. Generally only takes a few days. Look, if women want respect from men, then they need to start acting in ways that are respectable. Simple as that.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[ifiwereasculptor]

Stop dating people you're attracted to? Really, is that your suggestion?

It is mine. Either that of "shut up and take the abuse". But "caveat emptor" sounds less assy. What you're saying is women like jerks and therefore should be able to date jerks without them being such jerks. See the problem with that statement? They also should be able to eat heaps of chocolate without getting fat and to buy tons of fashionable accessories without spending all their money. That's great and I myself often wish I didn't have to choose between what I like and what is not stupid to do, but life doesn't spoil us like that, so you have to wise up at some point and listen to the Rolling Stones instead of your fickle urges.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Alranor]

You know when I look at the Constitution, I don't find in there any place where it mentions a right to be free from harrassment. I do, however, find a right to freedom of speech. I have trouble seeing how an enumerated right is trumped by an interpreted right.

Presumably you'd have no problem with me plastering your local neighbourhood with posters informing everybody that you're a paedophile?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[somersault]

Nope, it's not obvious. I always thought of your name as a geeky Evangelion reference for some reason.

Well, in a club you're not going to be able to have much of a conversation, which is why I don't think it compares much to meeting someone in a place that you can actually hear each other without shouting. Physical attraction and "chemistry" is important, but after the last several girls I've met who at first seemed interesting and attractive but turned out to be quite shallow and brainless under the surface, I'm really wary of letting myself be anything more than just friends with people I've only just met. I think that had the side effect of a couple of girls I could have dated assumed I wasn't interested, but I'm happier with that right now than having another relationship that I'll regret getting into.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[fotbr]

If you're going to call others idiots, you might want to make sure you have your facts straight: News of the World was closed down by their parent company; they were not forced to close by any government.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Alranor]

So, as I asked above, what would your recourse be if I decided it would be a fun idea to cover your local neighbourhood with posters accusing you of raping small children?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[TWX]

Your comparison is bad because in bars/clubs there are no other way to judge people but on looks and is a competitive environment to begin with and that makes it a poor place to look for a potential date although I can see your real problem seems to be the implied "if I don't take what I can get I will get nothing".

Sure there is. Talk to them. Treat the bar like your own personal, undeclared speed-dating session and talk to the ladies in the bar. Look for signs that what they're saying is too good to be true, and filter those out if you're actually looking for a long-term relationship. Pay attention to the kind of people that they're hanging out with too.

Or, just skip the bar scene and start doing activities that women also like to do. That doesn't mean doing effeminate activities, but it does mean, generally, getting off of the computer. In my case I met my wife when I learned to dance. BTW, dancing is a great way to meet women for non-long-term relationships too. I mean, you get to put your hands all over a woman for three and a half minutes and she thanks you for it when you're done. It can often lead to more intimate contact.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Attila Dimedici]

Feel free. Of course, I will sue you for libel.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[somersault]

That's kind of what I said. I find the idea of it kind of attractive because often the geeky girls I'm attracted to are so quiet and reserved and scared to do anything fun. But in reality a lot of the girls out clubbing I just wouldn't find interesting to hold a conversation with. It's difficult to find someone in between. Possibly because I don't play MMOs.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[couchslug]

"Needless to say, we left the state and I now own a gun."

BOTH of you should be trained to use it in armed combat. Find a pro to do that, ask the local cops (good way to make friends with any who instruct on the side).

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Lord Apathy]

Stop dating people you're attracted to? Really, is that your suggestion?

Why not? That is what I had to do. I'm attracted to long tall blonds with huge racks and tight asses. But alas, I had to man up and realize that it was never going to work. There were just to much distance between us. That, and she kept calling the police when she would catch me looking in her window at night.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[couchslug]

Restraining orders don't work on wackos, they are for documenting them.

Armed self-defense is the ONLY way to STOP an assault and death is the only cure for mental illness.

Be armed, trained, and PRACTICE.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Hatta]

Why?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Alranor]

You know when I look at the Constitution, I don't find in there any place where it mentions a right to be free from libel. I do, however, find a right to freedom of speech. I have trouble seeing how an enumerated right is trumped by an interpreted right.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Lumpy]

"Unfortunately, one can't control what they're attracted to."

Yes you can, It's called cultivating a better taste, or a reality check. People who claim they can not are too lazy to make any changes in their life.

My daughter always had a thing for the pot-head goth losers. That changed when she hit college to men that are not "complete idiots" by her own terms. When a person grows up and realizes that they need changes in their life and puts an effort into those changes, You change your "tastes".

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[torkus]

It's only 'stalkerish' if you don't like him/her an want the attention.

To clarify - it's not the ACT, but the (completly arbritrary) interpretation by the other person.

Since we seem to live in a zero tolerance society it's lose-lose and all the "great catches" wonder why on one approaches them.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[CPTreese]

I have no issues making eye contact and being bold and assertive in a bar. I can even talk in detail about the implementation of a hyper-drive and shield modulation and yet I have never been able to take a woman home! Obviously you are wrong.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Lumpy]

The winner is the first one to file.
Also note: when you start into the legal system the only people who win are the lawyers. The American legal system is a dark and evil place that everyone should use everything in their power to avoid at all costs. Selling your soul to Satan is far far less evil than dealing with the United states legal system.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[CapuchinSeven]

Please go back and re-read, because I said just the opposite. Perhaps *you* only go on looks in bars/clubs, but you'll find that many if not most women do not.

Honestly getting the feeling you don't go out much, or live in a bubble or something.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[luis_a_espinal]

Your comparison is bad because in bars/clubs there are no other way to judge people but on looks and is a competitive environment to begin with and that makes it a poor place to look for a potential date although I can see your real problem seems to be the implied "if I don't take what I can get I will get nothing".

Sure there is. Talk to them. Treat the bar like your own personal, undeclared speed-dating session and talk to the ladies in the bar. Look for signs that what they're saying is too good to be true, and filter those out if you're actually looking for a long-term relationship. Pay attention to the kind of people that they're hanging out with too.

Or, just skip the bar scene and start doing activities that women also like to do. That doesn't mean doing effeminate activities, but it does mean, generally, getting off of the computer. In my case I met my wife when I learned to dance. BTW, dancing is a great way to meet women for non-long-term relationships too. I mean, you get to put your hands all over a woman for three and a half minutes and she thanks you for it when you're done. It can often lead to more intimate contact.

^^^ This. For years I got caught up in the "bar/club scene as the only dating ground on the planet", with predictable results. When I started socializing with women on different contexts (school, working out, and eventually dancing, as in trained dancing in a dancing school as opposed to humping with 50 cent in the background), it was a complete different thing, like night and day. I also met my wife in a dance school. A bar/club is good to play the game and have fun fling style... but to date or looking for a girlfriend there, big mistake, big mistake.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[omnichad]

We do have a lot more latitude on what's considered free speech. If it's true, then you can say it with no consequences - normally. Imagine if this wasn't an ex but a politician. Our legal system is set up around the right to blast them into the ground, publishing whatever we can dig up on them if it's true. Unfortunately that digging up of dirt sometimes becomes the basis for an opposing political campaign, but still a fair trade-off to have a certain level of freedom.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[FredFredrickson]

That doesn't mean [...], but it does mean, generally, getting off of the computer.

You must be new here...

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[jeffmeden]

lol, golf clap. well done. My mod points would have been yours...

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[FredFredrickson]

Hahaha a joke about women and star trek in the same sentence! Why do we have such trouble getting laid with gold like this around?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Attila Dimedici]

It isn't. Suing you for libel does not infringe on your freedom of speech. It just requires you to pay if you say something libelous. Libel laws do not prevent you from "speaking", they just punish you if what you "say" is untrue and derogatory. That is why I told you to feel free to put up those libelous posters. It is your Constitutional right to do so. Just understand that defaming my character is an actionable behavior that I will take action in court to prevent. Of course, if you prefer, we could go back to the remedy that the Framers preferred and have a duel.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Nesa2]

There is a difference in that and you voicing your opinion. If you want to say something to an extent - I think this person rapes small children, I have no proof, but I still think he does... that is fine... it is free speech and that is your opinion. But if you label me as raping small children, I think there is a term for that called libel. Courts can handle cases like that... it is generally used where you'd have to prove that either I am raping kids, and you are correct.... or you are incorrect and you will end up paying a large fine and issuing public apology.

This guy was voicing his opinion from his experience, and he probably has reasonable amount of experience with this person to be a good judge of what she is and is not. So unless they had a trial for libel, and unless he was found to be wrong in his description of her, and if he presented that information as facts on his blog and not just his opinion, then yes... he is guilty of libel.... but extreme measure would have been to get him to issue apology, take down just one article in his Blog, and pay a fine for damages done.

This argument that you use is same argument everyone will use to limit free speech because it frightens people what free speech can accomplish.

You can use a gun to defend yourself and other people, or you can use it to commit crimes. It does not mean that gun is the problem, it is person using it. Free speech is a weapon in much the same way. With great power comes great responsibility....

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[misexistentialist]

If you insist that women can only fuck aggressive guys, and suggest that aggressive behavior be eliminated, the conclusion is that there is no fucking.

New plot:
* Guy likes girl
* Guy watches softcore porn
* Girl gets a cat

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Miamicanes]

The constitution applies to conduct by the government. Common law applies to actions between individuals. Common law has a long, well-established tradition of recognizing that there's a line between "things that are false" (slander/libel) and "things that might be factually true, but are none of your business or anybody else's". In a case like this, intent matters. She might not be able to sue him for slander or libel, but harassment is a definite possibility.

The justification for ordering specific performance (removal of the blog, refraining from future public comment about the woman over the internet) is based upon another well-established legal principle: Equity. Equity is an extraordinary relief granted by courts in situations where monetary judgments are not sufficient to make the injured party whole.

If the woman became a public figure, the man might have had an affirmative defense. However, by all appearances, she wasn't.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Alranor]

I'm just not sure I understand the fundamental difference between "you're not allowed to do this, and if you do it you'll get punished" and "you're allowed to do this, but if you do it you'll get punished"

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[fussy_radical]

Forever a Friend Zone.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

But... women *do* like jerks. Look at the evolution stages of women idols:

Justin Bieber
Edward Cullen
Hugh Hefner

They want the "bad boys", or they want the big baller who flashes the Benjamins at the nightclub. Someone who cares about them will be ground under their heel, or at least tolerated until someone richer or cooler comes along.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Attila Dimedici]

The difference is between "You're not allowed to do this and if you try the government will use force to stop you," and "You're allowed to do this, but if it is defamatory and untrue, you will be punished."

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Plunky]

Even the fine summary says that there is no evidence of falsification.. and if its true, then a libel case would be dismissed, no?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[DinDaddy]

Our ability to not act on our impulses is what separates the human race from the animals.

Bull. If that were true, you could not train dogs to do things like not eat a snack placed on their nose until signaled, or not defecate in the house.

And on the other side, there are an overwhelming number of people who seem to be unable to curb their impulses, based on very simple observation of those around you.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

If you insist that women can only fuck aggressive guys

Since you just tore the last one down, do you need me to build you a new straw man, or can you do it yourself?

New plot:

Apparently, without the "guy stalks girl, therefore causing her to fall in love with him" plot, all movies and TV shows must become boring -- is that your argument? I had no clue there were so few possible plots out there.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[DinDaddy]

Because all aggressive guys are jerks, there are no otherwise decent ones, and no jerks masquerading as agressive but decent to confuse the decent ones with. Nope.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[orgenegro]

In real life sometimes that ends in a restraining order, and sometimes it ends in a relationship. The culture you're decrying exists outside of the movies as well - that you see it in movies just illustrates how illogical and arbitrary people (both men and women) are. I mean, for one, I never see any men intentionally going to a movie that involves romance whatsoever, so it must be women creating this culture. Doesn't the description you give describe the plot of Twilight? I ridicule everyone for their poor choices, it's the only way they'll learn.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

Right, because it's totally the woman's fault and not the abuser. And while we're at it, it's a rape victim's fault for wearing a skimpy dress and a collateral damage victim's fault for being too close to where a bomb fell.

Let's be explicit: Just because a woman may be attracted to a "bad boy" doesn't give him the right to abuse her or make it her fault that she is abused. Quit blaming the people who hold a (extremely common, and IMHO, historically genetically advantageous) attraction for the clearly wrong actions of the perpetrator.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

Lol, you are too rare ;)

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hugh Hefner wasn't a jerk. Back in the day, the Playboy enterprise participated in the civil rights movement, frequently printing articles and op-eds in favor of the cause.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

Yes you can, It's called cultivating a better taste, or a reality check.

Great idea! And while we''re at it, let's have gays and lesbians cultivate a taste for the opposite sex. The debate is over!

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Tastecicles]

This is why they have expert witnesses - ballistics and other forensics, psychologists, etc., to present the evidence in a properly processed manner and to help the jury understand what's being discussed.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[realityimpaired]

If there's no evidence that it's false, then yes, a libel case would be dismissed.

But the summary could be misleading... "no evidence that what he said was false" could actually mean that there's no evidence, but it could also mean that no evidence was presented, largely because the truth of his claims has absolutely nothing to do with whether he's harassing her. What was in question wasn't the claims he was actually made, it was how he was using those claims to cause harm to her. For her own privacy, I'd be surprised if the courts even considered the truth in his claims.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

BTW, I find it awfully amusing to hear a bunch of guys who've never been attracted to a guy in their life talk about the manner in which women should be attracted to guys.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh Justin Bieber a bad boy? What universe are you from?

When he first started he barely qualified as boy. What bad boy stuff has he done? Bite off bat heads? Nope.

I saw a video clip where hecklers were throwing water bottles at him and he didn't even throw one back.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

"it's unreasonable to ask someone to not date people they're attracted to"

Is it? Seems to me that you expect society to compensate for your own lack of personal responsibility. If you know the guy is a crook but you "can't be helped", it's your own fault. Blaming "culture" for our own bad choices is no good to anyone.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Khyber]

"Our ability to not act on our impulses is what separates the human race from the animals"

And... no. Humans are animals.

That was the dumbest statement I've heard all day.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[hairyfeet]

Hear hear! I'd just add that I think a lot of the "bad boy" females are into the drama and WANT there to be lots of bullshit going on. For an example I was helping a friend work on a car when he sliced his hand wide open, we're talking damned near to the bone. meanwhile his GF has been harping all God damned day and comes out to start again. He says "I'm gonna go around the corner, I'm gonna smoke a little of this joint while Kev tries to tie off this hand enough that I won't bleed all over his truck when he takes me to the hospital, because I am gonna need probably 20 stitches or more. Now if you do not leave me alone I'm am gonna knock you on your ass, so just quit now" and as he walked around the corner sure enough there she went! I grabbed her and said "Dawn that is a fucking stupid idea! Leave his ass alone already for the love of God! Can't you see his hand? I can see tendons and bone showing!" Did she listen? nope and when he hit her for the first time in my life I was like "Well stupid bitch got what she deserved'. Next day i go over to help finish on the car and she is just blabbing away all about "what he did" on her cell, and I swear she was practically bouncy because she had new drama!

I too learned that its better to care about the personality than the specific looks you find attractive. Normally i like VERY pale women, Irish redheads being my favorite, yet the woman i'm with now is more than half Creek Indian and dark enough that she is often looked on as a Mexican, so why am I with her? Because she is kind, intelligent, sweet,fun, dropped everything and used up all her vacation time when she found out my sister was about to pass so the boys would have another shoulder to cry on, just a truly great gal. Plus you have to love any woman that when people try to speak Spanish at her goes "Me no Mexican, me Indian, me kind scalp your ass!".

As for TFA, maybe its just me, but as someone who was practically raised by a grandfather that helped to liberate one of the camps in Poland i take free speech VERY seriously and don't think a judge should have a right to put a muzzle on this guy. We already have laws on the books for stalking, harassment, and libel, so it isn't like there aren't legal remedies if what the guy is saying isn't true. And if it IS true? Well maybe she shouldn't be doing things and blabbing about them to BFs if she doesn't want them to be public.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find a place where it says everyone is entitled to the pursuit of happiness. I think someone going out of their way to impede my happiness should be considered against their right to free speech. If someone is using their right to free speech mostly to affect someone else's happiness, then I don't think it is unreasonable to limit their right to free speech.

Anyway, the guy had already agreed not to violate her privacy in an earlier, shorter HRA. Judges don't like noses being thumbed at them.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you feel attracted only to agressive and jerkish men (this is what you are implying in your last sentence), then I have bad news for you. You prettty much get what you deserve.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[ifiwereasculptor]

it's a rape victim's fault for wearing a skimpy dress and a collateral damage victim's fault for being too close to where a bomb fell.

If said girl likes to date known abusers/rapists and if the collateral damage victim likes to go jogging through warzones, then your analogy makes sense. I was talkiing about the abuse inflicted by being a jerk, not raping or killing. I thought that much was obvious. And I still do.

Just to clarify, your point was women like jerks because they are jerks, but they should stop being jerks when convenient. And that we shouldn't advise those women to modify their behaviour because it's arguably somewhat instictive. Well, so is rape, if you want to play disproportinate analogies. My point is that crap comes your way when you act hedonistically on impulses doesn't go away with excuses like "well, it was somewhat instinctive", so if you want to avoid X, you simply don't chase after nor select X when offered. Saying "well, but I want X" will immediatelly prompt "then shut up about it and take the consequences". Remember: crazy is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[cayenne8]

Your comparison is bad because in bars/clubs there are no other way to judge people but on looks and is a competitive environment to begin with

Err...isn't that pretty much ANY environment you are in (which should potentially be anywhere you are on the planet) when looking for a mate?

I mean, unless you are depending on meeting only through friends...well, the big world out there is a competitive environment, and if you are looking to not be single, you are always on the look...and pretty much anywhere the first and only thing you have to go on...is looks.

I don't care where I am..I've never had the opportunity to look across a room/store/pool/etc...spy a girl and think to myself, "God I gotta go over there and meet that girl, she has the BEST personality I've ever seen!!"

I dunno...where do you look for potential dates? I pretty much look for them 24/7...anytime I am outside of my house. Sure, bars are one venue, and not often the best (I have a bit of trouble hearing with all the ambient noise...but having booze there does make things easier, "conversation lubrication" so to speak)....but everywhere you go there are potential dates.

Hell, I play a game with myself...every day, no matter where I am, I have to go approach and speak to the most beautiful woman I see that day.

If later in the day, I see one even more beautiful than her, I have to approach her...etc.

It is a competition...much like everything else in life...you have to be aggressive it you want to get what you want.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[cayenne8]

I have no issues making eye contact and being bold and assertive in a bar. I can even talk in detail about the implementation of a hyper-drive and shield modulation and yet I have never been able to take a woman home!

I think you found your answer right in your statement.

1.You're going good on the eye contact, and assertive part.

2. Do not start talking to her about "hyper-drive and shield modulation".....

#2 is where you're losing it. You want to get her talking about HER...and you toss in some witty remarks, short stories...talk about things that make her think good thoughts...find out what she likes, pick up on those verbal cues, and use those to keep the conversation going...etc.

I've heard it said before...there has NEVER in the history of mankinds, been a woman who got home from a date or just met a guy, and complained that she got to talk too much about herself.

Seriously...step one is to learn that...women love to talk...use that to your advantage.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucky. I've had to endure the soggy sock puppets blog ring and the ensuing anxiety for years.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[mcgrew]

It's reasonable, concurs with observation, and has yet to be disproven. Although I'd say it's one of the things that separate us from the other species (humor being another), not the "only" thing.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

If said girl likes to date known abusers/rapists ... Just to clarify, your point was women like jerks because they are jerks,

No. It's that it's frequent for women to be attracted to certain characteristics, such as self-confidence, aggression, energy, sex drive, a "knowing what he wants and not afraid to get it" attitude, etc, which also tends to be correlated with, but does not inherently impply, someone causing abuse or other problems. Comparing that to a woman being raped because she's dating a *known* rapist isn't an accurate analogy at all.

And that we shouldn't advise those women to modify their behaviour because it's arguably somewhat instictive. Well, so is rape, if you want to play disproportinate analogies.

Let's go with that. You yourself call that an analogy; thus, in your mind, trying to change a behavior that puts a woman in a dangerous situation is morally equivalent to trying to change a behavior that *harms* a woman. Or am I reading you wrong? If not, that's just absurd. You correct criminals, not victims.

You think any instinctive activity that has a correlation with risk shouldn't be done? Well, good luck banning sex itself, because that's a prime example.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[cayenne8]

If you stick your eleventh finger into a woman without being prepared for the possibility of a kid coming out nine months later, I think you're kinda irresponsible.

Wow...you actually tell them your real name!?!?!

Man..that is my definition of commitment!!

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

And hey, while we're at it, lets ban gay men from dating the same sex to reduce the risk of aids... right?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[mcgrew]

Not only that, but where in the Constitution is power granted to the government to take away this asshole's free speech, the same Constitution which enumerates his right to speak and grants power to the governments?

I think if this goes to appeal it'll be tossed. I can't imagine how that judge could rule like that.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[cayenne8]

You know, it is possible to date a girl without having sex with her.

Ok, I'll grant you it is possible.

The larger question is WHY?

Why on earth would you 'date' a woman if not for sex....if you're not nailing her, you are merely a friend. That is not dating.

Hey, nothing wrong with having some chicks as friends...they are often quite useful to find women to DATE (ie: more than friends, which is sexual).

But, there is no reason for dating if no sex. I don't think the 3rd date rule is written in stone, but shortly after that, if I'm not going be be nailing her, I'm moving on to the next one that will.

And its a big world, there is ALWAYS a 'next' one.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

I can only guess that you haven't read or seen Twilight. It actually doesn't fall into this pattern. Edward has early 20th century romantic sensibilities (courting, etc), and quite the opposite of the trope, tries to discourage her from having interest in him (due to the danger to her). Jacob does come into significant conflict with Edward, but not in a "stalking Bella" sort of manner, and the hostility isn't something that attracts Bella (rather, the two of them fight for her by more by trying to arrange the situation to manipulate her emotions).

And the fact that you think stalking ends in a relationship in the real world... sigh.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[cayenne8]

Of course the macho act is going to go down better in a club, but that's because the type of person that would be a match for a quieter guy like me and probably a lot of other Slashdotters just isn't that into clubbing. I don't mind clubbing if I'm drunk, but in general I'm just not interested in clubbing or even being drunk.

No...not just for bars.

And she's not talking some kind of freakish "macho" act.

But you DO need to exude confidence....in yourself, in your life. That is one of the #1 things women respond to. It isn't being a jerk, necessarily, although it often goes with someone that is a jerk.

Approach, approach, approach....yes, it is true, that often the BEST looking women..are alone because too many guys are scared to approach her. Approaching cold...show's confidence in yourself...

Honestly, I wish I'd known a lot of this stuff earlier in life....it actually should be taught to guys as young teens, like a health class. It sure would save a lot of anguish..and make things easier during those difficult teen years.

Meeting, dating and bedding women is NOT a black art.....it isn't that hard, just takes confidence in yourself and yes...a little practice being able to appears sociable and carry on a conversation.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't the law stepping in. This is a private citizen asking law enforcement for help. You're afraid the government will start reading blogs and determining if they warrant response: that's a at least a nanny state and at worst 1984. Not the case here: government is doing exactly what we want them to: intercede when asked so things don't get all wild west.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[digitig]

It's reasonable

On what grounds?

concurs with observation

What observations?

and has yet to be disproven.

What would disprove it?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[cayenne8]

BTW, I find it awfully amusing to hear a bunch of guys who've never been attracted to a guy in their life talk about the manner in which women should be attracted to guys.

I whole heartedly agree.

They're not listening....things you are saying are what they NEED to listen to. They are not women...they don't think like women, and most women...will NOT tell you this stuff.

I learned...and learned to listen to other men, that have figured out what you're talking about.

Women like a guy to be assertive. Not necessarily a jerk. Although a jerk often has these traits too, a man doesn't necessarily have to be a jerk to also exude confidence...and be assertive.

Our society more and more...is raising our men to avoid or not show these traits. I've heard the term "pussification"...and while it sounds a bit derogatory, in many instances, if you think about it...it is a bit true.

The ideal man for most women..is not a guy with female characteristics....shy, demur....that is not in general what a woman looks for in a man.

I've found that approaching women as much as possible...builds my confidence. I no have no fear of being 'shot down'..dunno why I ever did in the past.

I approach women as often as I can...sometimes just as a casual comment passing in the grocery store, or walking across a room to a group of girls to ask the time, and start from there chatting with them...if I'm after one in particular, I work it to where I can grab her hand/arm...and pull her from the group so we can have more time alone, etc. I find the I approach, it seems to show confidence in myself right away...and women respond more and more to it.

I think I'm in the ballpark of what you've been posting on this thread....and guys aren't wanting to listen to what you say..and are reading the wrong things into what you're saying.

Listening...you gotta do that.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[FyRE666]

I've heard a sense of humour is also good.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[cayenne8]

I've heard a sense of humour is also good.

Absolutely!! Being fun to be with...is a good thing.

Again..let her talk, and throwing in a witty remark having to do with what she's saying..goes a LONG way.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Cederic]

trained dancing in a dancing school as opposed to humping with 50 cent in the background

I go to dance classes that _teach_ humping with music somewhat better than 50 cent in the background - try blues dancing to Popa Chubby's "Sweat" or swing dancing to Touch and Go's "Tango in Harlem".

Lots of scope to wriggle, play and (if she wants to) grind.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[phantomfive]

Are tabloids trying to protect general public when they write all kinds of lies and worse about stars in order to sell paper. They turn a profit no this. They also have larger customer base than this guy.

And they have to be careful, because they can be and often are sued for things they say. Notice a lot of the lies they tell are about celebrities who are so publicity hungry, they don't care, as long as they are in the news.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Shotgun]

I had no clue there were so few possible plots out there.

Neither does the entertainment industry execs in America.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside of the truly dysfunctional, nobody is attracted to evil bastards.

When Nice Guys [tm] complain that women are attracted to "Bad Boys", what they really mean is that women are attracted to men with confidence, courage, assertiveness, etc. These are not character flaws. The problem is just that, especially in their 20s, most men aren't capable of recognizing there's a third option other than "obsequious wimp" and "antisocial asshat".

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Hatta]

Attraction changes based on the type of person you are. Different types of people congregate in clubs as opposed to other areas. The rest of the argument is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[gmack]

I hang out places that provide the ability to talk to women in a non expectant environment like volunteering somewhere or a meeting based on a hobby. Heck those slashmeets that slashdot had about a decade ago were good for that. The other way, from experience, introduces me to girls I find myself wishing would just shut up after I spend any amount of time at all talking to them.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Hatta]

This statement:

I'd contrarily state that: given the premise of "what you're attracted to can't be helped" and "it's unreasonable to ask someone to not date people they're attracted to"

Contradicts this one:

a better avenue of your efforts would be toward eliminating cultural acceptance of stalker-ish behavior from guys

Dating IS social acceptance. Women date assholes because they like them, which is the definition of social acceptance. If you can't change what people are attracted to you can't change what is socially acceptable. Men get sexual favors for acting like jerks, that's a more powerful incentive than anything sort of cultural stigma you might like to impose.

Besides, your strategy has unintended negative consequences. If you were actually able to reduce the number of assholes in the world, that would just increase demand for the remaining assholes. That gives those assholes an even greater advantage over the women they date and abuse.

Really, the key is to teach your kids impulse control. Just because you like something doesn't mean it's good for you. It's entirely appropriate to ridicule someone who can't learn this lesson.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Hatta]

Quit blaming the people who hold a (extremely common, and IMHO, historically genetically advantageous) attraction for the clearly wrong actions of the perpetrator.

The fact that women reward these "wrong actions" with sex implies that they're not actually that wrong at all. Men are just doing what they need to to have the best chance at passing on their genes. If you're going to excuse the behavior of women because it's evolutionarily successful you also have to excuse the behavior of men that is evolutionarily successful.

Until women stop voluntarily having more sex with jerks than they do with nice people, we're going to have more jerks than nice people. The supply of jerks, like everything else, is demand driven.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[somersault]

Yep I'm pretty sure it would be easy to meet and "bed" plenty of women if I did the socialising thing, but I'm getting way too selective. Every time I've ended a relationship I added another thing to the list of things I did or didn't want in a girlfriend, and it's really hard to find someone that fits those criteria. I'm past dating for the sake of dating, I am happy to be single now, and if I happen to meet someone great, that's good. If not, I'm not that fussed. I used to feel really bad for my one single aunt, but now I'm wondering if she has the right idea.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[mcgrew]

Treat the bar like your own personal, undeclared speed-dating session and talk to the ladies in the bar. Look for signs that what they're saying is too good to be true, and filter those out if you're actually looking for a long-term relationship.

A bar is the LAST place to go to look for a long-term relationship. It can happen, but it's unlikely you'll find one there.

BTW, dancing is a great way to meet women for non-long-term relationships too.

The bar is the place to look for a non-long term relationship, unless you don't want to do any more than dance.

Church is the last place to look for any kind of relationship, but again, it happens -- my grandmother met her 2nd husband in church (Grandpa died ten years earlier).

I've found that the best way to find women is to stop looking for them. It's weird how shit just seems to happen sometimes.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[mcgrew]

If I'm not working (and subsequently have no money), I don't date. Aside from the fact that I wouldn't be able to cover expenses such as contraceptives, dates, etc., I am not in a position to raise a family.

Let her pay, you chauvinist. Women have jobs these days. I've picked up the tab for a lot of unemployed women, why can't an employed one pick up the tab for you? Or don't any women ask you out?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave it to an idiot to try and turn this into a Gay thing. Hello? are you really that fucking retarded? He said NOTHING about that. in fact his example was that of the loser goth set and normals.

To convert it into gayness like you want.

Being attracted to whore flamers compared to semi manogomous closets.

But that is probably far to high brow for a idiot like you who has to bring hate into it.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Culture]

A motie? Get a grip!

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[pclminion]

Just because a woman may be attracted to a "bad boy" doesn't give him the right to abuse her or make it her fault that she is abused.

She doesn't deserve to be abused. TRUE.
He has no right to abuse people. TRUE.
She contributes to the situation she finds herself in. TRUE.

Quit blaming the people who hold a (extremely common, and IMHO, historically genetically advantageous) attraction for the clearly wrong actions of the perpetrator.

Ah, the "it's in my genetics" argument. Okay. It's in men's genetics to be aggressive dickwads. That justifies the behavior. Right?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[mcgrew]

When a person grows up and realizes that they need changes in their life and puts an effort into those changes, You change your "tastes".

And it's not just growing up, you'll find your tastes changing as you age. Changes in music, women, everything. In my case, my musical preferances have expanded to the point that I like just about anything but opera and hip-hop. With women, when I was young I was after the skinny ones, these days the skinny ones turn me right off. I used to be partial to larger breasts, but women my age with large breasts tend to have them hanging to their knees.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[mcgrew]

Maybe it has to do with jurisdiction, but in Ilinois if you have an order of protection against someone, you are under the same constraints as they are. If you take out an order of protection against me, then show up at a bar I'm in, I can have you jailed.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[lgw]

Imagine you're only attracted to children and someone tells you "you can't ever date children". I don't see a problem with that restriction. Society functions on the basis of people dealing with the fact they they can never have some of the things that they want.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[mcgrew]

Being a man isn't so bad in and of itself.

Maybe not, but women have it GREAT. For example, they have a plethora of birth control choices, men have three: abstinence, condoms, and permanent surgery. Men have to reproductive rights whatever. If she gets pregnant and wants an abortion, she gets the abortion even if he wants the child. If he doesn't want the child and she does, she has the kid and he pays for it.

Why should the onus of child support fall on the man, who has no reproductive rights whatever, and not on the women, who is in a position to control her reproduction?

If you're looking for a job, and the other, equally qualified candidate is a woman, guess who gets the job?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[lgw]

Men never do seem to learn that when women seem to be asking for advice, they never really are, do we? Hint to men: women don't ask men for advice, only for confirmation. You must spend hours pretending to listen to her jabber on, but don't dare suggest she's said something wrong, or you're in for it, just keep the occasional "yes, dear" flowing and you'll do well.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

So there really are articles in there!

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[danomac]

If that were true, you could not train dogs to do things like not eat a snack placed on their nose until signaled, or not defecate in the house.

You can train them to behave when you're around. When you aren't around, dogs will eat whatever they find. It isn't necessarily not being around people in general, if you (the trainer) are not around, dogs don't behave like you think they do.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[c 0xFF]

Bzzzt. Wrong.

Believe it or not, there exists a level of intimacy between "friends" and "sexual partners." And believe it or not, a lot of people enjoy this level of emotional and physical intimacy. Girls, especially, of course, but many guys as well. Dating is the process of developing these emotional connections, and isn't just a way of getting a girl in bed.

I feel sorry for the girls you "date."

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[HereIAmJH]

Our Constitution (US) is set up around the right to say what you like and the GOVERNMENT can not limit it, with a few exceptions. (Shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc) Our legal system is set up so that you can say whatever you like, but you are responsible for what you say. Free speech doesn't mean there are no consequences.

The whole argument here about free speech does not even apply to this case. This is about contempt of court. Note that the summary starts off with "violated a restraining order". The court told him to "leave this woman alone." He thought he found a way to harass her that wasn't specifically spelled out in the order of protection. The judge told him he was wrong. If he wants to argue with that, he's free to appeal. But refusing to follow the instructions of the court is contempt, and there are penalties for that. You could stand in court and state your intention to read the Constitution, and when the judge says shut up and sit down, he's not infringing on your right to free speech.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[gottabeme]

Well, yours was the dumbest I've heard all day. It's precisely true: our ability to think and decide and resist natural urges is one of the things which makes us human--as opposed to animals.

You can define "animal" however you want--I do not include human beings in the definition. Life on earth fits into about 4 basic categories: plants, animals, single-celled organisms, and humans, aka people.

If you're one of those who thinks that animals are as important and valuable as people (or more so), then we probably don't have much common ground.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Khyber]

"our ability to think and decide and resist natural urges is one of the things which makes us human--as opposed to animals."

No, moron. Go look at other animals, oh such as the Bonobos Monkey.

Many animals have demonstrated decision-making processes, like ravens, crows, dolphins.

Rats are shown to help other rats stuck in traps, bringing them food.

Your unwillingness to place humans alongside animals is evidence of a weak education.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[gottabeme]

Call me when dogs train themselves to not do those things.

These people you speak of choose to not exercise self-control. They are able.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Khyber]

"If you're one of those who thinks that animals are as important and valuable as people (or more so), then we probably don't have much common ground."

Food? Source of clothing? Source of chemicals for humans? Medical testing to make sure things are safe for humans?

Without those animals, your ass might not be here today.

Wow, the ignorance must make you a very happy person.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[gottabeme]

That's not the same as humans' ability to think and create. It's memory. If their impulse is hunger, it's not impulse control to use memory to get more food to fulfill the hunger--it's satisfying the impulse.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anachragnome]

"Please name names and jurisdiction if possible."

As much as I feel comfortable doing so.

The judge in the case is now dead. I believe he died of natural causes (old age). That being said, I don't think there is much point in revealing his name, but I can say this--He was a Judge in Superior Court in Fairbanks, AK, and was replaced by, oddly enough, my old attorney, the very same one that represented me during all of these restraining orders.

The officers? Doesn't matter--as far as I am concerned the entire Alaska State Troopers office is corrupt. Even their receptionist stonewalled me when I tried to get a copy of the police reports--my attorney had to get them. As soon as they realized that they fucked up huge (by not taking the violators of the restraining orders into custody, and by not even charging them), they immediately set about trying to make ME look like I was at fault. The State Troopers helped those two men ask for, and receive, additional help from the Alaska Office of Victims Rights, who were then used against us as well. The Office of Victims Rights actually violated their own bylaws by representing someone with a criminal record (both of these men had been on probation within three years of asking for representation--an automatic denial of representation, according to their bylaws, yet they still represented them). Interestingly, the Alaska Office of Victims Rights bylaws include a clause that prevent anyone from holding them accountable for ANYTHING they do, even blatant violations of state laws.

Names and Jurisdiction? Alaska...that pretty much covers it. Nice place to visit, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the people that live there are fucking nuts, and those that aren't probably cannot afford the plane ticket to get the hell out. Alaska was the worst decision I ever made. The corruption is widespread, and in every sector of life.

I'd love for some asshole in the Alaska State Troopers to try and sue me for these statements--I've saved every single scrap of paperwork and evidence for such a day--and this time, since I no longer live there, they'd be doing so in a court not under their influence. I'd also do my best to get the media involved, with the sole purpose of dragging as many skeletons out of the closet as possible.

Also, I didn't "just leave". Those two assholes actually tried to convince the state to prevent me from leaving, and the Office of Victims rights HELPED them with this. This was the moment I realized the true depth of corruption in Alaska. In court, I asked them how me STAYING in Alaska alleviated the threat they claimed I represented to them--they had no reasonable answer and it became obvious to the Judge (a different one then the one that signed the restraining orders) that they were just trying to harass us. He "let" us go simply because there was no wriggling around what I did my best to make obvious--I was being harassed by not only these two men, but the State as well. I think the Judge realized he would become part and parcel to the harassment if he did anything otherwise, just as I had hoped.

(To be honest, I don't want to publicly release actual names because those names could be used to cross-reference this Slashdot account/Nickname with my real name. I've been victimized by people in the past and do not wish to make it easier for someone to do so in the future, especially those asshole Troopers in Alaska. As is, they could easily use their police powers to figure out who I am, but then they would be abusing those powers and I would most certainly bring that up in court. In short, at this time, anything they did to me would be an abuse of power and they know damn well I'd use that against them--I've learned how to play their game and they know it.)

I've come to the conclusion that the only value a restraining order has is that of convincing a jury that you did everything in your power to prevent further harassment, and that you were well within your rights to blow the fuckers head off.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[gottabeme]

You don't get it.

If a woman chooses to pursue a relationship with someone who is abusive or demonstrates abusive tendencies, and is later abused by him, he is guilty of abuse--but she made a poor decision. If she hadn't gotten involved with the guy, would he have randomly chosen her out of the phonebook to go to her house and beat her?

If someone goes out on the ocean in a rubber raft when a storm is on the horizon, would you say they did nothing unwise? They could see it coming--they didn't use good judgment. If someone gives all their money to a con man who says he's got a great investment, but doesn't have any proof or credentials, would you say they did nothing unwise? They made a dumb decision.

"These women" who continue to date abusive men need to use their capacity for thinking and exercising judgment to avoid such people. Maybe they do FEEL attracted to them--so what? They should THINK that they're a bad choice and stay away from them. They should CHOOSE to date someone more stable and self-controlled, and then if they invest in a relationship with such a man, they will DEVELOP FEELINGS for him.

People are not animals. Anyone who says people can't or shouldn't resist their urges and impulses and feelings of attraction degrades the human race. We have brains--use them!

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[gottabeme]

No, you missed my point. I'm talking about people who think it's more important to be nice to the poor, innocent animals than to take care of people.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[gottabeme]

Call me when an animal can make a moral decision.

Your unwillingness to recognize that people are more valuable than animals is dehumanizing. Human life is not equal to animal life.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[ChrisMaple]

There's nothing in the Constitution that explicitly prohibits first degree murder.

People have been driven to suicide by blog posts.

The Constitution explicitly protects freedom of speech and the press.

Therefor nobody should be prohibited from using a blog to drive someone to suicide.

For those too thick to understand it, I consider the above hideous, evil, and wrong.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[ChrisMaple]

A difference is when legal action can be applied to the violator.

In the absence of freedom of the press, if the government discovers that something it opposes is about to be published, it can prevent the publishing, destroy existing copies, and destroy the machinery of the press in extreme cases. With freedom of the press, the violator can be punished for the damage he does, but he cannot be prevented from publishing. Freedom of the press is a great tool against tyranny, because once the news gets out it's too late to stop it.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Ihmhi]

I'm sorry that I've offended your tender sensibilities. I have provided an edited reply, and I take full responsibility for my actions.

If one were to engage in copulation by way of the vaginal canal, one must be aware of the possibility that insemination may occur and cause a resultant pregnancy. It would be ungentlemanly (to say the least, good sir!) to advance upon a lady if you cannot provide for her and your offspring.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Khyber]

"Call me when an animal can make a moral decision."

Keko the Gorilla, for one of many that I could bring off the top of my head.

Oh, did we suddenly forget about Jane Goodall's work?

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Jane Q. Public]

"In a slightly more general case, this case probably never would have made it to court"

I am not so sure I agree. The government has already tried to have blogs taken down for bogus reasons, in ways that infringe speech. It *has* been happening. Whether those cases will stand up when they make it to court remains to be seen.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

2. Do not start talking to her about "hyper-drive and shield modulation".....

To each their own. I once chatted with a guy for about an hour about our differing world conquest plots ;)

and complained that she got to talk too much about herself.

Careful you don't end up in the "too shy and quiet" zone, though. FYI, we play that exact same game, the whole encouraging-them-to-talk-about-themselves thing.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

Women like a guy to be assertive. Not necessarily a jerk. Although a jerk often has these traits too, a man doesn't necessarily have to be a jerk to also exude confidence...and be assertive.

Thank you -- exactly. :)

And while there is no single thing that all men or all women are attracted to, being attracted to men who are assertive is extremely common. There are plenty of girls who like guys to be shy and demure to be sure. I'll mention, however, the only ones of my friends who are attracted to guys like that are also bisexual. Anecdote? Sure. But I'd wager on 2 to 1 odds that if you meet a girl who likes her guys to be shy and demure, she'd also like to do things like braid his hair, paint his nails, or put barrettes in his hair. The latter of which one of my bi housemates has already done with her new shy and demure boyfriend. ;)

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Rei]

+1

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd contrarily state that: given the premise of "what you're attracted to can't be helped" and "it's unreasonable to ask someone to not date people they're attracted to"

You could state that, but since the premise is false there's no reason to go further.

It's perfectly reasonable to ask that. Attraction is not reasonal, and allowing your instincts to override your reason is the very definition of unreasonable - and you're trying to claim it's the other way around?!

You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're both at fault, it's not a zero sum game. It's not going to get better until that is acknowledged and women stop rewarding abuse.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we get some mod points here? This needs a +5 Insightful...

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[gottabeme]

I assume you meant Koko. And you'll have to explain what moral decision of Koko's you're referring to.

I don't think Goodall's that good of a reference for you. Here's a quick example:

But perhaps more startling, and disturbing, was the tendency for aggression and violence within chimpanzee troops. Goodall observed dominant females deliberately killing the young of other females in the troop in order to maintain their dominance, sometimes going as far as cannibalism.

Yeah, great moral decisions by those chimps. Do you really want to claim that you're only as good as an animal?

Since you still don't seem to get it, I'll put it yet another way: Call me when an animal can make a moral decision based on moral principles rather than what's in front of its face, e.g. one of those chimps restraining its murderous instincts because it's wrong to kill. Animals do not reason. Some do exhibit primitive emotions--that's not the same thing.

But, hey, if you say that you are no better than a chimp or a gorilla, who am I to argue with you? Speak for yourself, though.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[CPTreese]

I think you're the only one who got the joke. I've never even tried to pick up a girl in a bar. When I go to a bar I am only concerned that the bar has a good selection of micro-breweries

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[jcr]

>No, juries are do not determine law.

Excerpts from a couple of state constitutions:

Indiana: "In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts."
Maryland: "In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.
Oregon: "In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases."

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Tubal-Cain]

If there's a chance I'm going to get sent up the river for something I didn't do, I would prefer requiring that a dozen strangers be so thoroughly convinced that it's a unanimous decision; rather than one Judge that "understands" it all by virtue of having taken a Forensics for Dummies correspondence course.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[Khyber]

You using chimps as an example when I used a totally different primate species rather invalidates your argument.

Chimpanzees aren't as intelligent as gorillas.

Re:hipaa violation as well?

[gottabeme]

What did you mean when you said, "Oh, did we suddenly forget about Jane Goodall's work?" I'm no expert on her or Koko, but as far as I can tell from a quick googling, she did not work with Koko. So when I pointed that out about chimps, I was pointing out that your mentioning Goodall's work doesn't seem to help your argument, because it seems that she's famous for working with chimps, which, as you said, aren't so smart.

I also asked for clarification about Koko, but you haven't provided any.

I'm still waiting for you to flesh out your argument. I think I invalidated yours, not mine.

Well...

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

He violated a restraining order. The first amendment issue isn't novel just because he happens to be talking about her on a computer.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

restraining orders usually cover things like physical distance and direct communication. writing about her doesn't seem like a problem unless it was specified in the restraining order. he should be in the clear if he isn't slandering. it wouldn't shock me if this judge was some neo-feminist windbag. a lot of them are.

Re:Well...

[Lehk228]

harassing someone who has a restraining order on you is a good way to get locked up, carefully toeing the line of what your restraining order will let you do is a good way to get a 500 page restraining order where you have to ask the permission of the court to fart.

Re:Well...

[hedwards]

Restraining orders are also supposed to bar harassment as well. I'm personally troubled by this order as it tramples all over his 1st amendment rights and if this isn't over turned it represents a serious threat to freedom.

Re:Well...

[phantomfive]

Well, according to law professor Eric Goldman, ordering someone to delete their blog IS rare and perhaps unprecedented. That's something I heard somewhere.

Re:Well...

[Gaygirlie]

and direct communication.

That's the thing: he was directly sending messages to her and her relatives. That is likely the primary reasoning behind the order. (NB. I didn't read the TFA yet.)

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't any order that bars harassment trample first amendment rights regardless of whether or not these things were said on the internet? I don't know if the things he said can be classified under "fighting words" and thus exempt from first amendment protection (probably not).

Re:Well...

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

restraining orders usually cover things like physical distance and direct communication. writing about her doesn't seem like a problem unless it was specified in the restraining order. he should be in the clear if he isn't slandering.

From TFA:

On December 22, Arlotta consented to entry of a six-month HRO that prohibited him from (1) committing any acts “intended to adversely affect [Johnson's] safety, security, or privacy,” [emph mine]

He started the blog the day after.

it wouldn't shock me if this judge was some neo-feminist windbag. a lot of them are.

It wouldn't shock me if you were a fucking idiot. A lot of anons are.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is this trampling on free speech? It is clearly speech that is NOT covered as political or in the public interest

Re:Well...

[Dhalka226]

For what it is worth, I agree with you. However I still don't agree with the premise that ordering the blog deleted does not overstep a boundary.

If it was harassment, he should be arrested for harassment. If it was a violation of his restraining order, he should be violated and locked up. If he does it again, it should all happen again -- harsher and harsher.

To me, the blog itself was not the harassment; he could have sat around on somedouchebaghateshisex.blogspot.com forever ranting into the wind and I doubt anybody would have cared. It was the way he essentially stalked her via sending his nonsense to her family and friends that crossed the line. That being the case, that is the behavior that should be punished and stopped. His right to be a dickhead and write his drivel should not.

Re:Well...

[snowgirl]

Restraining orders are also supposed to bar harassment as well. I'm personally troubled by this order as it tramples all over his 1st amendment rights and if this isn't over turned it represents a serious threat to freedom.

As noted below, he consented to the restraining order. Thus, the 1st amendment "violations" are just as enforceable as any NDA, because he consented to the limitation of his rights.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since people seem to know all about slandering and libel, I'd like to point out false light, which is about privacy rather than truthiness, and I believe (as a nonlawyer) that it applies to this situation.

I was going to make some witty comment about being anon and not being a "fucking idiot", but I gave up and resorted to this metajoke.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is this trampling on free speech? It is clearly speech that is NOT covered as political or in the public interest

I take it you're not American or are just very ignorant of the Bill of Rights.

The concept of "public interest" or "political" has no bearing. The First Amendment makes no such distinctions. While the courts have upheld some restrictions of free speech (time/place/manner restrictions, clear and present danger tests, harassment, libel, and etc.) a blog saying something unflattering is protected speech (unless it's libel, in which case that's a matter for a civil court).

Re:Well...

[hedwards]

And precisely what were the options if he didn't consent? That's the crux, it might not be literally duress, but threatening sanctions if he didn't sign is hardly the same thing as signing an NDA to get a job.

Re:Well...

[hedwards]

There's no such requirement to have freedom of speech. The point of freedom of speech is that the government doesn't always know what speech should be allowed and as such doesn't regulate it except under specific circumstances.

This wouldn't typically be excluded as the information was apparently factually correct.

Re:Well...

[cheekyjohnson]

How is it not trampling on free speech? Was what he said speech? Well, yes.

Now, it might not have trampled on protected speech (not mentioned in the constitution, but ignore that). But if you just say "free speech," then that, to me, refers to all speech.

Re:Well...

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

It doesn't have no bearing--the Supreme Court has held that political speech is that speech which is most protected by the First Amendment. While other speech is still protected, and protected in a major way, the protection of political speech is a fundamental and core purpose of the First Amendment--and courts are more protective of political speech for this reason.

Re:Well...

[bzipitidoo]

Was he really ordered to delete his blog? More likely the reporter got the facts wrong. The story makes much more sense if the court merely ordered him to take it down. Once it has gone public, deleting information can be near impossible. Either the story is inaccurate, or both the judge and the blogger are stupid. The judge, for thinking that deleting public information is within anyone's power, and that such an order is not hugely overreaching and unlawful censorship, and the blogger for not having a local copy.

Re:Well...

[Adrian Lopez]

How the fuck is this trampling on free speech? It is clearly speech that is NOT covered as political or in the public interest

How the hell did you get modded "insightful"? Speech need not be "political" or "in the public interest" to be worthy of protection under the First Amendment.

Re:Well...

[Adrian Lopez]

Carefully toeing the line of what your restraining order will let you do is a good way to get a 500 page restraining order where you have to ask the permission of the court to fart.

By "carefully toeing the line" I presume you mean "not actually violating the restraining order"?

The man should be punished for harassing his ex-girlfriend. Depriving him of his First Amendment rights, however, should not be part of that punishment.

Re:Well...

[cheekyjohnson]

the Supreme Court has held that political speech is that speech which is most protected by the First Amendment.

I guess my question for the supreme court is: where does the first amendment mention anything like that?

The supreme court likely has interpreted it as you say, but I don't think their interpretations are valid (but they do have more power than me).

Re:Well...

[snowgirl]

And precisely what were the options if he didn't consent? That's the crux, it might not be literally duress, but threatening sanctions if he didn't sign is hardly the same thing as signing an NDA to get a job.

He could have contested the restraining order, and fought it in court. Possibly, he also consented to the restraining order in order to settle a criminal charge.

Settlements hand out confidentiality clauses like they're candy, and this usually is detrimental to the individual receiving the settlement, yet no matter how horrible the confidentiality agreement sucks for the person later on in life, the clause is still enforceable.

Shit sucks, he was informed of the consequences, and he consented. Now, he has to live with it. Life sucks, quite often in fact. However, in general it is not the duty of the court to let a person out of obligations that they gave informed consent to, just because they didn't realize how much the obligation would suck ass at the time.

Re:Well...

[Gaygirlie]

I think you're taking it too literally. I just assumed the judge ordered him to remove the blog on his Blogspot account and it seems that's what he did. I cba to read the actual court files even if I could find them, this is simply not an interesting enough a case for that, so you'll only have to do with how I interpreted the story or disagree with me.

Re:Well...

[brainboyz]

Given all it takes is someone to claim "my former significant other scares me and is a threat to my well being" for a judge to issue one and they instantly restrict one's freedom of speech, freedom of travel, and the right to keep and bear arms until otherwise contested (which may be days) they are already a serious threat to freedom. In some locations all it takes is a verbal argument and for one participant to call the cops, regardless of who started it or the facts of the case; only claims made matter.

Re:Well...

[khallow]

By "carefully toeing the line" I presume you mean "not actually violating the restraining order"?

Looks to me like the guy just found new ways to harass her in the legal sense that didn't violate existing restraining orders. So the Ex took out a new restraining order that covered the new form of harassment.

The man should be punished for harassing his ex-girlfriend. Depriving him of his First Amendment rights, however, should not be part of that punishment.

Why not? The whole point of a restraining order is to prohibit harassing behavior without tossing the culprit in jail. I think it more noteworthy that the judge made the restraining order for 50 years. From googling around, I gather such orders generally aren't longer than a year before they're reviewed. In that light, this one seems unusually onerous.

More googling indicates the ruling was appealed and mostly upheld though the length of the restraining order was cut from 51 years to 50 years, which is apparently the legal maximum for a restraining order in Minnesota. They seemed to think the terms of the original restraining order were otherwise legal and constitutional.

Re:Well...

[Adrian Lopez]

The whole point of a restraining order is to prohibit harassing behavior without tossing the culprit in jail.

I have no problem with an order that prohibits harassing behavior, but a blog post is not by itself a form of harassment. Given the First Amendment protects the content of people's speech, the restraining order against this man should only address his behavior.

Re:Well...

[localman]

It seems that revealing compromising personal to the public and promoting it to family members is pretty straightforward harassment. I hear there's precedent that unless you're a public figure your right to privacy can trump someone's right to free speech.

Re:Well...

[localman]

By "carefully toeing the line" I presume you mean "not actually violating the restraining order"?

In my limited experience judges don't find it clever if you violate the spirit of the law without violating the letter. If the restraining order specified no harassment, for example, and he was going to argue that forwarding upsetting posts to family members doesn't precisely meet the definition of harassment set forth on paper, the judge will most likely (and justly, in my opinion) hand him his ass.

Re:Well...

[tsa]

And rightly so. Freedom of speech does come with responsibilities. Many people seem to want to forget that these days and interpret 'freedom of speech' as 'freedom to insult, harass, annoy and otherwise bother people.'

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well its perfectly legal for me to park my car on the side of the street and sit in my car all day. But if I park outside my ex-gf's house all day and she has a restraining order against me... well I'm not allowed to do that am I?

So if I have a restraining order against me, I'm free to go where I want as long as where I want to go isn't too close to that one person. Similarly this man is free to blog about any subject he wants, as long as that subject isn't his ex-gf.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you just say "free speech," then that, to me, refers to

Your own pet definition for the phrase is irrelevant.

Re:Well...

[cheekyjohnson]

And yours is to me, as well.

"Free speech." What free speech? What speech are you talking about? Oh, you actually meant protected speech?

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that revealing compromising personal to the public and promoting it to family members is pretty straightforward harassment.

Revealing information to the public is not harassment: that's pull-type information, which people have to specifically request (in this case, by visiting a webpage) in order to receive it. Promoting it to family members is harassment: it's push-type information, which they receive whether or not they intended to do so.

Re:Well...

[AmiMoJo]

It depends on the context of the free speech. What if he had been exposing a corrupt politician? The court has to decide on the merits of the speech while the US constitution guarantees it, hence the problem. I'm not a US citizen or constitutional expert BTW.

Re:Well...

[xenobyte]

The freedom of speech should be inviolate not matter what. You can ban public speaking that violates laws on the same level, i.e. anti-discrimination laws etc. but banning someone from expressing his opinion about an ex-girlfriend is wrong on every level.

A restraining order should be limited to "contact of any form directly between parties", i.e. physical contact, phone calls, emails, instant messages and so on. But writing about someone on a blog should not be covered. It is covered by anti-discrimination laws and anti-defamation laws so if you make allegations you better be able to document what you claim. But writing about your experiences (subjective facts) and your conclusions based on that ("she must be insane" etc.) is pure freedom of speech.

A secondary restraining order banning this guy from emailing related third parties (parents, work colleagues etc.) might be necessary and that works just like the first one, i.e. banning him from contacting these people directly, physically or electronically.

That should be it. Freedom of speech preserved and the victim should be free of the communications. Any public libel is handled through normal channels.

Re:Well...

[a whoabot]

And rightly so. Freedom of speech does come with responsibilities. Many people seem to want to forget that these days and interpret 'freedom of speech' as 'freedom to insult, harass, annoy and otherwise bother people.'

So, as long as King George was insulted and harassed and annoyed and bothered that people publically called and tried to convince others that he was a tyrant, then he would have just grounds for having these people prevented from saying so? I personally would be much more careful in formulating exceptions to freedom of speech.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see anyone arguing that sending those messages to her family isn't harassment.

Sending it to her family clearly falls under harassment. Being allowed to write it, however, is a freedom of speech issue.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bothering people is pretty critical to free speech. The question is who should be inconvenienced enough to listen, and for it to work, the government can't decide.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

interpret 'freedom of speech' as 'freedom to insult, harass, annoy and otherwise bother people.'

That's exactly what it means. It's a very simple phrase: *freedom* *of* *speech*. Not "freedom of speech which doesn't insult or bother anyone". You can argue that freedom of speech is undesirable, but please don't try to argue that it means something that it doesn't mean.

Re:Well...

[rohan972]

Just two posts up:

I hear there's precedent that unless you're a public figure your right to privacy can trump someone's right to free speech.

I think the case could be made that King George was a public figure.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Every potential employer will probably care when they google her.

Re:Well...

[xaxa]

The whole point of a restraining order is to prohibit harassing behavior without tossing the culprit in jail.

I have no problem with an order that prohibits harassing behavior, but a blog post is not by itself a form of harassment. Given the First Amendment protects the content of people's speech, the restraining order against this man should only address his behavior.

I'm sure something in your constitution protects the freedom to walk around, but you still put some criminals in jail. The whole point of a punishment is to take away some rights -- in this case, his right to communicate with certain people, about a certain person, or to travel near that person.

Even rehabilitation takes away rights, assuming attending it is compulsory.

Re:Well...

[rohan972]

Sending it to her family clearly falls under harassment. Being allowed to write it, however, is a freedom of speech issue.

Well he did harass her and now he's lost some of his free speech rights. It's not a total disaster, he is still allowed to criticize the government, including this judge.

Most people agree that some actions can cause your 2nd amendment rights to be restricted, well apparently that applies to 1st amendment rights as well.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

exGF is not a public figure so the free speech standards are different than they would be for a pol. I have mixed feelings on this one: he isn't libeling her, but its definitely harassment and it also interferes with the recovery of whatever mental health issues she has.

50 years of no public commentary of any kind does seem a bit extreme though. I'd rather see a review every 5 years. On the other hand, fool douchebag couldn't even hold out for the original 6 months before starting the blog, so let him suffer. Stupidity is its own reward.

Re:Well...

[cowboy76Spain]

The judges are NOT part of the government

Re:Well...

[CountBrass]

I thought, could be wrong, that the US Constitution gave the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the Constitution.

Which means, surely, that by definition their interpretations arethe only valid ones?

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

He basically started this blog for the express purpose of getting related third parties to read it, and went through trouble to try to get them to read it. Sure, you could *say* that your revengeblog that you linked to all your ex's family isn't intended to harass your ex, but, well, you'll have a hard time getting me to believe that.

Re:Well...

[cheekyjohnson]

Interpreting the constitution doesn't imply changing its original meaning.

I'd say there are incorrect interpretations. Would you say that "freedom of political speech" could mean "the government is allowed to censor political speech"? I'd say not. If the supreme court says otherwise, then I'd say they're wrong. That was just an example, though.

Which means, surely, that by definition their interpretations arethe only valid ones?

No. It means that their interpretation is the only one that really counts. That doesn't mean that it's valid. It just means that they're the ones making the decisions.

Re:Well...

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Sure they are, just not of either the legislative or executive branches.

Re:Well...

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

So now all we need is a statement by a court that facebook makes everyone a public figure to make a quick buck.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

People are just having major trouble with the fact that almost nobody measures up to the publicly accepted moral standards. Pointing this out is generally called racism.

E.g. how about this one : every religion, including Christianity, demands that their adherents support slavery to some measure (Christianity only demands that Christians do not take slaves, and rejects doing anything other than providing nonviolent assistance to prevent others from having slaves, that's what canon law states). Some religions have other names for forced labourers, like for example Hinduism's "dalits" or buddhism's many forms of forced labourers, like "vasala", who should be forced to work by the point of a sword. Some religions and value systems ask quite a bit more. Islam for example, demands muslims not only support slavery, but support the freedom of the owner to kill, rape, starve, and so on his slaves (a woman cannot own anything, the only right sharia gives a woman is to hold rights to property. Is that equivalent ? No, as a woman is not free to use property as she pleases like a man is. The position of a rich woman is akin to the position of an underage inheritor in western law). Why is killing/raping/... slaves allowed ? Because muhammad did that to his slaves, "on the orders of allah" (he did the most absurd things on orders of allah according to the hadith. He quite literally hammers in his tent poles on places pointed out by allah, who is totally invisible to everyone standing around. Allah even changes his mind about which shoes he should wear in one verse), pointing out the disgusting immorality of that is considered equivalent to calling islam disgusting and immoral (which of course it is, at least on this point).

You cannot have a single moral standard, free speech and illusions. Amongst those illusions is the "all religions, and atheism uphold the same equivalent standard of morality" illusion that we currently find so very popular.

Re:Well...

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That is not the standard in the law. You are perfectly at liberty to distribute pamphlets with any text you wish on it.

And as long as this text can reasonably be argued to be the truth, it cannot constitute slander (it doesn't have to *be* the truth, you must simply be able to legally argue that you believe it to be the truth, basically that you're not lying explicitly to destroy the other person's social standing. This has been sometimes understood to imply that you're willing to retract wrong statements, but not always). You are perfectly at liberty to claim whatever another person's sexual habits are, as long as you're not just lying to damage that person. You are perfectly at liberty to tell the truth ... and damage that person.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

"judges don't find it clever when [non-members of the bar] violate the spirit of the law without violating the letter."

FTFY. It's a game that only members of the club are supposed to know how to play and they don't take kindly to suggestions that the law can be understood without their help.

Re:Well...

[xenobyte]

restraining orders usually cover things like physical distance and direct communication. writing about her doesn't seem like a problem unless it was specified in the restraining order. he should be in the clear if he isn't slandering.

From TFA:

On December 22, Arlotta consented to entry of a six-month HRO that prohibited him from (1) committing any acts “intended to adversely affect [Johnson's] safety, security, or privacy,” [emph mine]

He started the blog the day after.

it wouldn't shock me if this judge was some neo-feminist windbag. a lot of them are.

It wouldn't shock me if you were a fucking idiot. A lot of anons are.

A lot of non-anons here are idiots too. Just saying...

Anyway, this verdict must be appealed all the way to the Human Rights Court. Not only is the time frame obscenely ridiculous, it takes away Arlottas freedom of speech and makes it impossible for him to argue his case. You can ban him from direct contact but that's it.

But here's an idea. How about a group of people get together and create a blog where they can post anonymously. located on a server outside the USA where US law doesn't apply. Then Arlotta can email them what he wants to have posted and someone posts it. Arlotta isn't banned from talking about the case privately, and the anonymous blog author isn't banned from relaying it, not from posting it. And good luck getting a restraining order against someone anonymous. Logging should be turned off naturally to prevent attempts at naming the anonymous posters.

I'm not saying that Arlotta is right, nor that what he writes isn't hurtful or downright false. I am however saying that Arlotta has the freedom of speech and if stupid judges abuse their power to prevent him from using this right, their verdict must be circumvented to make it null and void. Sure, prosecute him for libel and slander if applicable but don't take away his freedom of speech in general.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

way to take the high ground.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

"In my limited experience judges don't find it clever if INDIVIDUALS violate the spirit of the law without violating the letter."

fixed that for you - if you're a bank industrialized forgery, perjury & fraud are perfectly acceptable...

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

defamation - noun. The act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny: She sued the magazine for defamation of character.

Breaking up with someone is not a justifiable reason for spreading rumors about them, true or not. It is also not a reason to break a restraining order. The man is a tool and deserves this punishment.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't shock me if you were a fucking idiot. A lot of anons are.

*clap*-*clap*-*clap*

Thank you for that.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and slavery was lawful too, until that changed.

Re:Well...

[CrimsonAvenger]

I thought, could be wrong, that the US Constitution gave the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the Constitution.

Actually, an early Supreme Court Justice gave itself that power....

Re:Well...

[Daetrin]

It's the theory of constitutional interpretation referred to as "originalism" or "original intent", ie trying to figure out what the founders originally intended.

Given that the US had just finished rebelling against its original government, and in the lead up to that the leaders of that rebellion had to publish their written protests and criticisms of the government pseudonymously in order to avoid persecution by that government, it seems pretty clear to a lot of people that the primary intent of the first amendment was to protect political speech.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you act 'clever' (and remember these guys are smart about the law in the way we are about computers), they will boot stomp you. Many judges do not like their authority questioned.

Apparently this dudes lawyer didnt explain this to him 'leave her alone, in *all* ways, is what this restraining order means. Do not contact her directly or indirectly except thru me and only for things that mater or I will charge you 1000 an hour for it.'

Re:Well...

[khallow]

So, as long as King George was insulted and harassed and annoyed and bothered that people publically called and tried to convince others that he was a tyrant, then he would have just grounds for having these people prevented from saying so?

We don't have to guess.

After Bute's fall, [John] Wilkes decided to let The North Briton lapse, and for a time no issues appeared. But polite silence was not for him. On April 13 he wondered in the press, "The SCOTTISH minister has indeed retired. Is HIS influence at an end?" When he saw a draft of the king's speech to Parliament, he wrote his most vicious essay yet. The North Briton No. 45 appeared April 23, 1763. To modern eyes, it doesn't appear especially incendiaryâ"no more rough-and-tumble than most political pamphlets of the day. But Wilkes had crossed a line. It was a strict rule that the king was above reproach, and that only his ministers could be criticized. In No. 45 Wilkes began by playing this game, insisting, "The King's Speech has always been considered . . . as the Speech of the Minister." But with passages like this, Wilkes left little doubt that the king himself was the target:

[...]

George III was furious, and ordered the arrest of the author of No. 45. The attorney general and the solicitor general were asked whether the paper warranted prosecution. April 27 they announced their opinionâ"it was seditious libel, designed to turn public opinion against the kingâ"and drew up a warrant for his arrest.

The king had a fair case (being likened to a prostitute, for example) and stronger laws than the restraining order example of the article. What's interesting is that Wilkes was able to turn this into victory through shrewd propaganda and legal maneuvering even to the point of serving a nominal prison sentence and getting reelected to Parliament when the vote (in his favor) was rejected three times in a row by the Powers that Be.

Bottom line is that even having a restraining order as some sort of catchall for suppressing free speech isn't enough to empower a tyranny.

Re:Well...

[betterunixthanunix]

Freedom of speech does come with responsibilities. Many people seem to want to forget that these days and interpret 'freedom of speech' as 'freedom to insult, harass, annoy and otherwise bother people.'

Freedom of speech does include the freedom to insult or annoy people, and certainly the freedom to bother them. Advertisers routinely annoy and bother people, yet their activities are covered by freedom of speech. I have been insulted many times in my life, both personally and by people who are insulting my ethnic group, but I cannot go to a judge and demand that those people be deprived of their rights.

You might argue that harassment is a threat to a person, and people are entitled to defend themselves or be defended against threats to their health or safety. Yet even then, why does a person's speech need to be restrained, as opposed to simply forbidding them from coming to close to the target of their threats?

Re:Well...

[Hatta]

Giving the general public the freedom to insult, harass, annoy, and otherwise bother people is far less dangerous than giving the state the right to shut people up. I will take a war of words with my neighbors over a censorship regime any time.

Re:Well...

[sociocapitalist]

Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. It's binary.

The whole point of free speech is that people can say what they want, no matter who it bothers.

I don't like this guy, and I don't like what he did but I like the idea of restrictions on free speech even less.

Concerning privacy laws of the United States, privacy is not guaranteed per se by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In the United States, the right of freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment has limited the effects of lawsuits for breach of privacy. Privacy is regulated in the U.S. by the Privacy Act of 1974, and various state laws. Certain privacy rights have been established in the United States via legislation such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA),[31] the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy#The_right_to_privacy

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I see this as a parallel.

A guy putting harassing stickers and signs on their house or on the houses around them when the one being harassed is away at work. Having the judge order the removal of the signs and stickers would not be a violation of free speech.

If you really wanted to push it, you can consider the internet a public space (like a park), so he has to pick up his trash or be fined so that someone else can do it.

Re:Well...

[cowboy76Spain]

Ok my bad, I mixed the meanings of "government" and "executive" since in Spanish "Gobierno" is broadly used as "Ejecutivo".

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, great, how are you going to keep him from harassing her?

Don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with you. I don't like the idea of a court telling a person that they can't write about another on the internet. Having said that, domestic stuff is ugly in the first place. I've actually heard cops lament that they can't break abusive guys' elbows anymore because the current law can rarely help the abused. So yeah, we can't even draw from existing law to build off of. I mean, this is pretty petty but I wonder how many have done worse online and really sabotaged the lives of their exes?

Plus, this could cover a variety of other areas too, like witness/jury protection. It's not terrible hard to ID someone if you only even have a picture. You think guys on trial for some serious stuff haven't done things like have family/friends post private info about the witnesses' or juries online?

Of course, then there's the free speech aspect of it. It's not really the government's place to tell people they can't rant about others. You could convict most people who have ever been teenagers with internet access for doing stuff like that.

So yeah, this kind of has widespread consequences. Having said all that, this guy deserves to get slapped like the whiny brat he is. The family and friends thing is bad enough, but targeting her job is low, especially in these times.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech DOES come with responsibilities but you seem to include "insult, harass, annoy and otherwise bother people" as part of those responsibilities.

So, when Bill O'rielly says that I am a pinhead because I am a liberal, should he be restrained?

When Fred Phelps protests "thank God for IEDs" should I be able to restrain him because I an ex Army ? (my home is three blocks from his compound),

When Republicans in the House claim that tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves, may I restrain them because this annoys me?

When survey folks at the mall approach me to take a survey, may I restrain them because they bother me?

Freedom of speech isn't about you not liking what I'm saying, it's about you and I being able to speak our minds about what ever we want, however we want and in what form we want. If her friends and family don't want to hear what he says, they can blacklist his email address. Employers may do the same. She is free to say what she likes about him. If he utters falsehoods about her, she may sue, and him her.

To the parent: You suck. Sue me but don't ban this speech. You may (and perhaps should) say I suck.

The bottom like? More freedom is better than less freedom. The question is are we adult enough to handle this level of freedom?

Re:Well...

[omnichad]

Well, he had the choice of being arrested and jailed for harassment. He chose what I would say is the easier option of deleting the blog. Is this really speech he thinks is worth standing for? Obviously not.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually yes, that is exactly what it is for. Its prevents the "bothered" people from silencing things they do not wish to hear.

Re:Well...

[omnichad]

Exactly - our freedom of speech in the U.S. is lax to an extreme level for a good reason, and it beats the alternative. Still, there's no way not to construe what he did as not harassment (regardless of what words were said).

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to Occupy Wall Street.

Re:Well...

[omnichad]

When did we get our dream judges that uphold the spirit of the law and not the letter? The only incidents of that I've seen lately are judges that say the "spirit of the law" is somehow different than what it would have been when written (in the case of older laws). The spirit of the law shouldn't change over time. That's what new legislation is for. If only our legislative system were efficient enough that small edits to existing law were reasonably possible.

Re:Well...

[omnichad]

Although I'm sure they did that by interpreting that the constitution says they had that power - and circular logic in a closed loop can't be broken.

Re:Well...

[nitehawk214]

Given all it takes is someone to claim "my former significant other scares me and is a threat to my well being" for a judge to issue one and they instantly restrict one's freedom of speech, freedom of travel, and the right to keep and bear arms until otherwise contested (which may be days) they are already a serious threat to freedom. In some locations all it takes is a verbal argument and for one participant to call the cops, regardless of who started it or the facts of the case; only claims made matter.

Or you could leave your ex the fuck alone. If they try to get a restraining order on you and there is no evidence you have had contact... I doubt anyone would buy into it. Notable exceptions are rubber-stamp approvals (I have no idea how scrutinized these things are) and custody battles (ugly, knock down drag out fights).

Re:Well...

[Dhalka226]

Potential employers will care about her sexual problems? That's a major issue, but nothing at all to do with this person's blog.

Beyond that, yes, things on the Internet about you can be found and bitter exes may well write nasty things; it is part of the risk of opening oneself up to a relationship. That doesn't mean that anything written about you that you do not like is illegal and unprotected speech. As I said before, if it's harassment arrest him for harassment; if it's a restraining order issue violate him for the restraining order; and I'll add if it's libel, sue him for libel and you will have your recourse there to have the blog removed. If it is none of those things, it is an unfortunate consequence of free speech that sometimes people use it to be assholes. I bust this quote out a lot, it's one of my favorites, and I think it is relevant again here:

The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty.

(I had the citation recorded as "Lord Chief Justice Hailsham" but am not sure it is accurate anymore; it may be Quintin Hogg, who served as Lord Chancellor and an MP in Britain. In any event I see great wisdom in the words.)

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he violate it, though? Abuse prevention and stalking laws work different in every state but typically he wouldn't be able to contact her and perhaps their children (if they had any). He didn't, he contacted her family and put up a blog that apparently didn't have any threats on it. There is usually no restriction on speaking to family members or friends. What he did may have been mean-spirited but there's nothing to say he wasn't well within his rights to do so, as well as very motivated (any family law attorney will tell you over 50% of restraining orders are abusive and without cause).

Now, does she have the "right" to be free of abuse? Probably, but I'm having a hard time seeing this as being abuse. I know my ex lies and says nasty things about me, that's fine, in fact it's nearly universal. So long as she doesn't say those things to our child (which is alienating and harmful to the child) then she's well within her rights to do so, even if she's being nasty.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even rehabilitation takes away rights, assuming attending it is compulsory.

Oh it's compulsory. I love the monster trucks and the flame throwers. But we don't have time for Starbucks so get your mind out of the gutter.

Re:Well...

[StikyPad]

They also don't tend to have much sympathy if you violate the letter of the law without violating the spirit. So basically you're damned if you do...

Re:Well...

[Just Some Guy]

You can go even further in that political speech is the root of all other freedoms. Without the right to complain about legislation or suggest actions, citizens are completely powerless.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably, but I have to admit there's a point where someone becomes such an asshole that I just can't muster the gumption support the useless little sack of shit's rights to pick his nose, lofty ideals and angelic/patriotic music be damned. I just can't be infinitely tolerant, and anyone who claims to be simply hasn't had the right real world experience yet.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

What this asshole really needs is some sort of psychiatric evaluation and treatment to move on with his sorry life.

*Your* problem is that you are comparing general rudeness, which every single person on the planet deals with, to a focused effort and emotional assault by one person on another, to ruin that person's life and financial status. You don't have to be physically near someone anymore to hurt them. You may have heard of this whole "internets" thing.

This is why we have courts- to judge the individual cases. Criminals are regularly subjected to punishments that would be considered violation of basic rights in the absence of the conviction.

If you can't see the difference between that and your pissy little sob story, you are an emotionally vacant and intellectually bankrupt low wattage bulb.

Oh, sorry, was I insulting? :-P

Re:Well...

[fuzznutz]

I'm sure something in your constitution protects the freedom to walk around, but you still put some criminals in jail.

No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Emphasis mine. The question is whether or not the defined freedom of speech, which is arguably one of the most important as it is enumerated only after freedom of religion in the bill of rights, is trumped by someone's right to not be "harassed" by someone saying something she doesn't like to her friends, family, and coworkers.

Re:Well...

[JustSomeProgrammer]

I don't think you would want to live in a country where libel and harassment were legal. It leads to things like lies being accepted as truth and you have to defend yourself from being fired because someone says you told company secrets and you have no legal recourse to go through. Harassment has often led too suicide. Maybe you are completely well balanced and can handle mob harassment or someone constantly being derogatory to you because of some small thing they don't like, but that's not everyone.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

And if the genders were flipped around? Would the results and the decision by the judge be exactly the same? Or would the male be instructed to stop being a pansy and take it like a man?

Re:Well...

[JustSomeProgrammer]

So a total rewrite of laws whenever a new technology causes some societal change instead of understanding when the writers wrote something like "Making copies of copyrighted works and distributing them is illegal" they meant the copyright holder should be able to control distribution?

And how about words that are no longer common parlance? Should we write all our laws in Latin so that the meaning doesn't change over time with respect to language evolution?

A lot of the questions about how laws are intended to be interpreted are decided by the courts and that was part of the system of checks and balances originally thought of by the founders

Re:Well...

[suutar]

and how do you define 'too close' on the web?

Re:Well...

[suutar]

always has, since the 1st covers freedom of assembly as well. Hard to assemble with your friends while you're in a cell.

Re:Well...

[omnichad]

No. Freedom of speech - the spirit of that doesn't depend on technology. The letter of it does. But communication becoming more pervasive due to that technology might cause the spirit of the law to come into question. That need for clarification wouldn't hit the whole of the law at once - and honestly would be rather rare. But could congress pass a 2-sentence amendment without including a 1 billion dollar highway project, a new statue built in some other constituent state, and other random riders?

Re:Well...

[gfreeman]

Published text isn't slander, it's libel.

Re:Well...

[Mr. Slippery]

Christianity only demands that Christians do not take slaves...

Where in the Bible is that? The Old Testament explicitly okays slavery, and I don't think Jesus ever condemned it.

Some religions have other names for forced labourers, like for example Hinduism's "dalits" or buddhism's many forms of forced labourers, like "vasala", who should be forced to work by the point of a sword.

Dalits have been the targets of hideous discrimination, but I don't know that they've ever been forced laborers, and reform movements within Hinduism have been trying to purge the caste system for centuries.

"Vasala" just means "outcast". In Buddhism, what makes a person an outcast is one's misdeeds -- "Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman."

If you can cite any sutra where the Buddha tells people to force these outcasts at swordpoint to work -- indeed, if you can cite a sutra where the Buddha tells people to point a sword at anyone -- I'd appreciate the information.

Islam for example, demands muslims not only support slavery...

No more so than Christians or Jews, whose holy books also speak positively of slavery.

There are of course also atheists who have defended slavery -- Mao, for example, effectively enslaved millions.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true. And the psychos who make the false accusations to the police/court hold a lot of power over the accused. The system is rotten and sorely abused by crazy, manipulative people on a regular basis.

Re:Well...

[Hatta]

Being harassed by an individual is still better than being persecuted by your government.

Re:Well...

[oldmac31310]

How can one leave the 'ex the fuck alone' when seeing her is unavoidable? Picking up and dropping off the kids for example. You obviously haven't had any real experience of this so you might as well just keep your comments to yourself.

Re:Well...

[bckrispi]

Ok then. Say I type up and distribute a very friendly pamphlet that contains only factual information: The names of your kids, pictures of them, where they go to school, and what route they take on the way home.

Re:Well...

[gottabeme]

What kind of Christianity are you talking about? It doesn't sound like you know the Bible very well. (Don't equate Catholicism with Christianity.)

Re:Well...

[cheekyjohnson]

If they didn't want it to mean what it does, then they shouldn't have wrote it that way. As I said many times, I'm not willing to play guessing games about "original intent." I believe that leads to things judges trying to come up with what a "reasonable" person's intent would be, and ultimately, much more corruption than otherwise.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's absolutely not a binary. Not in any reasonable sense.

And that is not and has never been the point of free speech. The point of free speech is that the government isn't going to put you in jail for criticising said government, or the government's lackeys. It is *not* and has never been about you being able to say whatever you want, and it is not and has never been "no matter who it bothers".

To go to the realm of ridiculous examples, you won't get away with hiring a hitman verbally because you were just expressing free speech and only the hitman was committing murder. Even if you refuse to pay the hitman when the job is done.

Absolute human rights given to all humans are inherently contradictory. Human rights have boundaries, and those boundaries are other human rights.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

The freedom of speech should be inviolate not matter what.

So you should be free to stake out crowded public places and do your level best to panic the crowd into a stampede, using nothing more than your lungs? (The classic example given in debates about the limits of free speech was yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.) If you were to do that, you'd find out pretty quick that an idealistic, absolutist free speech argument would be laughed out of court. Assuming you're in the US (as I am), this legal point was resolved in a way not aligned with your views all the way back at the founding of the nation.

I see people claiming over and over in this thread that freedom of speech in the US must be an absolute right, without limits, or we risk tyranny. No. Not so. It never has been an absolute right, historically, and it should not be in the future, and hopefully it never will be. The ideal at the beginning and throughout our history was to protect citizens from political repression by the government or other parties, not to enable anyone to say anything no matter how damaging. The founders of the nation saw, correctly, that absolute personal freedom enables citizens to damage both the freedoms and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness of other citizens. This is why they didn't want to create an anarchy.

The proper balance between conflicting rights is difficult and slippery, almost impossible to codify in rigid "if A then B" laws. However, I would assert that the speech involved in this story, assuming the reported facts are true, is obviously the kind which can safely be suppressed without violating the spirit or the letter of the nation's free speech laws. We have decided that creepy stalking is not something which should be protected under the aegis of free speech, and you don't get to be a creepy stalker even if you're a bitter ex. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

You can ban public speaking that violates laws on the same level, i.e. anti-discrimination laws etc. but banning someone from expressing his opinion about an ex-girlfriend is wrong on every level.

Nonsense! Anti-discrimination laws restrict some forms of speech, things which we as a society have decided are so harmful to the welfare of a minority group of our fellow citizens that they must not be allowed. Same thing applies to restraining orders, except they're protection of an individual from a direct, individual, and immediate threat.

Think about it. You're saying it's OK to restrict free speech when that speech causes broad, diffuse harm to society, but not when it causes acute harm to an individual (one who isn't even a public figure). That makes no sense at all.

Re:Well...

[srussell]

In my limited experience judges don't find it clever if you violate the spirit of the law without violating the letter.

So, what you're saying is that we don't have rule of law in the US, just rule of judge's opinion? It's one thing for a judge to interpret in the case of ambiguity, but you can't convict somebody of violating the spirit of the law. That's why suspects "get off on technicalities."

The law must be a strict definition, or it is subject to being applied differently to different people, based usually on one person's personal biases. Historically, this is Not A Good Thing(tm), and you see evidence of bias abuse in sentencing.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'd raise a stink about that one.........

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was a violation of his restraining order, he should be violated and locked up.

I thought his being violated would normally happen *after* he gets locked up. (:-P)

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

And rightly so. Freedom of speech does come with responsibilities. Many people seem to want to forget that these days and interpret 'freedom of speech' as 'freedom to insult, harass, annoy and otherwise bother people.'

If my words insult , harass or annoy you? or the Ex-Girlfriend, then she should turn her computer off, or surf to another page. I liken this to the man setting up a soap box in town square...and yelling insults about his ex-girlfriend. Now a judge has disallowed and charged this individual with a crime...because she walked up and started listening.

This_is_SCARY, an Obvious violation of this mans constitutional right to express himself with his words. Unless of course he sent the post/s directly to her...this is Bravo Sierra my friends ( and enemies ) :oP

Cap'n Chris

Re:Well...

[localman]

So, what you're saying is that we don't have rule of law in the US, just rule of judge's opinion?

Not at all. I'm saying that laws are an attempt to document an intent, and that is an inherently imperfect process. A judge's opinion is a necessary complement to the rule of law. And you can rarely sway a judge's opinion with loopholes.

There's a great diversity of judges and situations, and there are limits to their power in a trial. But my point stands: it's not a good strategy to piss off the judge by being clever.

Cheers.

Re:Well...

[localman]

IANAL, but there are limitations on free speech as it pertains to publishing defamatory information, particularly about private individuals. The judge apparently feels this is one of those cases, and I'm inclined to agree.

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

So where is his blog? If it was taken down was it cached or copied to some other location?

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

He was sending links to the blog to her family and friends... do you really think ignoring it until it stopped was really the best solution?

Sounds familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to revenge blog, until I took an arrow to the knee.

Welcome to MN

[DWMorse]

Lived here all my life. There's no point in trying to warn anyone that a specific Minnesotan woman is crazy. Welcome to the norm for all Minnesotan women. ;)

Re:Welcome to MN

[DWMorse]

And it makes our women AWESOME.

Re:Welcome to MN

[lucm]

But what about Cindy Walsh? Don't tell me she was crazy!

(yeah, I know way too much about the Walsh family)

Re:Welcome to MN

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the norm in Minnesota? Heh...are you ever kidding yourself and others.

Re:Welcome to MN

[Anonymous Coward]

Crazy is more fun.. For the beginning at least..

Re:Welcome to MN

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to break it to you.... all woman are crazy. It doesn't matter if they are Chinese, Canadian, Minnesotan, Russian, European, Jersian

Re:Welcome to MN

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have sufficient christian louboutin on sale time to veste dolce&gabbana prepare for marriage, and that the marriage pick their favorite two-high heels, dressed in a few months time to practice it consciously, to the wedding day naturally solved the problem.

Re:Welcome to MN

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to break it to you.... all woman are crazy. It doesn't matter if they are Chinese, Canadian, Minnesotan, Russian, European, Jersian

Unfortunately they're the only ones with vaginas..

Re:Welcome to MN

[Biff Stu]

And it makes our women AWESOME.

Not sure about awesome, but definitely scary. Case in point, Michele Bachmann.

Re:Welcome to MN

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice split of the post.

Re:Welcome to MN

[operagost]

Only if they stay below the Stinson Hotness-Craziness line.

Re:Welcome to MN

[Anonymous Coward]

Not 'awesome', merely crazy.

Re:Welcome to MN

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded -1? Seems like a statement of fact to me. Prudish?

Re:Welcome to MN

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the word you are looking for is "SHAREABLE".

Sounds like the judge...

[slackware 3.6]

wants to set a precedent in case someone wants to blog about his sexual issues in the future. But seriously if someone has a restraining order on you and you umm be the asshole people will think your the asshole whatever the case may be.

Re:Sounds like the judge...

[epyT-R]

huh? well I agree the target of the restraining order will always be assumed to be the asshole by the public. doubly so if the target's a man.

Re:Sounds like the judge...

[Anonymous Coward]

And most of the the time they will be right.

Re:Sounds like the judge...

[epyT-R]

only if argumentum ad populum is applied by misandric cunts like yourself to the situation.

Re:Sounds like the judge...

[Anonymous Coward]

I see, so you hate the vagina ...
Tell me about your mother.

Re:Sounds like the judge...

[Anonymous Coward]

my mother doesn't like you

Blame the victim

[Anonymous Coward]

So, telling other people the truth about someone is harassment? Obviously, sheep deserve to be killed; they speak up and make noise when they sense a wolve in the flock! If someone treats you bad, it is harassment to warn others of that persons behavior. Right? I THINK that is what the judge was saying... Who needs free speech anyway.

Re:Blame the victim

[epyT-R]

dont worry so much.. if a woman ever does this you can be sure her free speech will be protected. that's all that matters..

Re:Blame the victim

[moozey]

Sexuality is a touchy (and usually extremely private) subject and not one most people are comfortable talking about. Regardless of whether the man is publishing truths or not shouldn't matter, the woman has a right to her privacy and if the male in question wants to be so immature in the way he deals with his emotions then he deserves whatever reasonable punishment that gets thrown his way.

Re:Blame the victim

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope that is not what the judge is saying at all. What we have here is someone who wrote about his ex. OK. But ALSO sent links to her friends, family, and co-workers, despite a restraining enjoining him from "committing any acts 'intended to adversely affect [Johnson's] safety, security, or privacy'". He was already behaving badly enough that she got a restraining order, then knowingly violating the restraining order. He then tried to say that technically the restraining order prohibited contacting *her*, and he was merely contacting everyone she knows. I am a true libertarian and a defender of free speech, but it really sounds like this guy was unhinged about this breakup and this really needed to be done.

Re:Blame the victim

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of whether the man is publishing truths or not shouldn't matter

Fortunately for the rest of us, we live in a society that enshrines specific rights; one of them being Freedom of Speech.

the woman has a right to her privacy

While the concept of a right to privacy exists in the minds of the judges, it does not exist as a concept that prevents an individual from freely discussing the proclivities of another person. Gossip is not a crime.

Re:Blame the victim

[mvdwege]

Yes.

Let's say I spot you in a gay bar, and I start reporting that publicly. That can, and quite probably will materially harm you (imagine this happening to a military officer before DADT was repealed), even though it is the truth.

Mart

Re:Blame the victim

[Anonymous Coward]

truths or not shouldn't matter

i loled

Re:Blame the victim

[rrossman2]

You obviously didnt read the article.

First, how do we know what he said was true? You, nor I, do now do we?
Just like with Joe Paterno and people calling for his job... none of those people knew/know what Joe Paterno was told or knew.

Secondly, the guy also made fake email accounts and what not and sent the address of the blog to her friends, family, employer(s), etc while already having a restraining order.

Re:Blame the victim

[moozey]

He was spreading the information to cause some kind of harm to the woman. He obviously knew that she would be insulted by his actions and it would have a detrimental effect on her emotionally. That's not gossiping; that's harassment.

I want to know who this man is.

[Lord Kano]

I'll get him to relay messages to me and I'll post them anonymously to a blog. They judge is going to have to order him to not speak to anyone about his ex to shut it down. Let's see how well that goes over with the ACLU.

LK

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bring up the ACLU? Any American who values the Constitution would be concerned.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Lord Kano]

Why bring up the ACLU? Any American who values the Constitution would be concerned.

Because they'll take the fight to court on their own dime.

LK

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[epyT-R]

all 5 of them?

a sad state of affairs indeed. most americans will knee jerk to the woman's defense, twisting wahtever laws are needed to justify their emotional justification.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[TemperedAlchemist]

He violated a restraining order. The only sad state of affairs is how little you managed to read of the article.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[snowgirl]

Why bring up the ACLU? Any American who values the Constitution would be concerned.

Except that the guy consented to the restriction not to adversely affect her privacy.

He already willingly forfeited his right to free speech in this case, the court is simply enforcing his word. If this punishment were overturned, then it would be precedent to make NDAs unenforceable as well.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have fun fighting that contempt of court charge.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure it's a purely emotional justification. Your average person enjoys a little bit of privacy protection, assuming they don't opt to become celebrities. He crossed the line, they slapped a restraining order on him, then he broke it. The dude is more than a douche, he intentionally acted against the legal protections of another's privacy and freedom from harassment.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[ohnocitizen]

Great, and you'd be helping him post intrusive and abusive messages about his ex. Is it because this is a blog that makes it so unique, or is it a gender thing? Let's reverse the genders. Say it was an woman who wrote a blog about how her ex-boyfriend had a tiny penis, never got her off during sex, and was super into dressing up like a fat goat during sex. Now say she sent a link to all of that to the man's parents, brother, friends, co-workers... That's textbook harassment whether or not he is in fact a poorly endowed selfish goat enthusiast. The man in this article is an idiot, who taunted the judge and harassed this woman's family, friends, and co-workers. He deserved - at a minimum - to lose the blog.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[spintriae]

And here I thought /. cared about a person's right to privacy. I guess it's completely evil and deplorable for Google and Facebook to invade your privacy, but perfectly legitimate for some asshole with a grudge to do it. In fact, we should encourage him and help him and undermine the law to do so.

Stay classy, /.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[RobinEggs]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

I disapprove of what you say, but I will conspire with you in ruining an innocent woman's life just to prove a point about free speech.

- LK

I think I like the original version better...

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

With the genders reversed, if there was a court order against the woman to stop blogging about her ex ... yes, I think that (for example) mirroring her blog in another jurisdiction would be the right thing to do.

I'm happy with a restraining order restricting "push"-type communications (threatening phone calls at 1am, harassing emails to friends and family, etc). That's just a specialised application of the concept of anti-spam. When they try to restrict "pull"-type communications (there is a webserver: if you send a request, it will return a copy of a webpage), I think they've gone too far.

I wonder if the man in question could simply forget/delete the password to his blogging account. Then it's no longer under his control.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

With the genders reversed? It wouldn't even go near a courthouse. This sort of proceeding is well-known to be biased in favor of women.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[LordLucless]

Let's see how well that goes over with the ACLU

Any American who values the Constitution

That's what he said.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[stephanruby]

During the restraining order, he already crossed the line by making up fake personas on facebook to get close to her friends, family, and her Goldman Sachs coworkers, just so he could send them the link to his blog.

Do you really want to help that guy? Teach him to stop picking rescue projects as girlfriends. Make him think about something else. Fueling his righteousness and helping him maintain this kind of obsession over this woman would not be helping him in the least.

And if you still want to make yourself useful by relaying electronic messages anonymously, find a way to help wikileaks. Wikileaks is doing more for our freedom than this guy ever will.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Goldman Sachs

That explains her issues. Who but people with severe mental issues would work for the likes of Goldman Sachs?

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[stephanruby]

I agree with your main argument, but I just have some questions about your last point. Did this guy give consent to the restraining order? Or in other words, did he ever have the option to refuse the restraining order?

Your point doesn't make sense to me. I would expect many stalkers to refuse to even show up for restraining order hearings in the first place. And I wouldn't expect this to nullify a restraining order just because the guy/gall refuses to show up. That would just be too easy.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Chrisq]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will conspire with you in ruining an innocent woman's life just to prove a point about free speech.

You'd make a great lawyer.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[N1AK]

That's a pretty stupid line to draw. If the guy had set up a blog and never, ever, told anyone the address, listed it on search sits etc the site would effectively be invisible and no one would ever know about it to care. There is no point in setting up a website unless you are going to, in some way, bring traffic to it.

A webserver isn't fundamentally different from handing out leaflets about them on the street. It is the kind of narrow minded thinking that allows the government to clone your phone by pretending that is somehow ok when laws specifically stop them from copying paper documents.

Some people are abusive cunts. If you allow rights to automatically, and without exception, justify abusive behaviour there are people who will intentionally ruin the lives of others. This is why we have harassment laws. It has been accepted that some rights can be restricted in specific circumstances. If the court couldn't order this kind of restraining order then they'd end up putting him in prison, which might just happen to restrict his rights further.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove beyond any reasonable doubt that she is innocent.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[makomk]

Let's reverse the genders. Say it was an woman who wrote a blog about how her ex-boyfriend had a tiny penis, never got her off during sex, and was super into dressing up like a fat goat during sex. Now say she sent a link to all of that to the man's parents, brother, friends, co-workers...

Then we probably wouldn't have had a court ruling stopping her, because women aren't seen as dangerous by the courts in the same way as men...

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

> precedent to make NDAs unenforceable as well.

GOOD! Most NDA's are over-reaching anyway.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

That might actually be a good thing, but we'd have to compensate the woman somehow for her sacrifice for the good of all (destroying NDAs).

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes more than words to ruin someone's life.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Innocent until proven guilty, dickhead.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet a phone call to your employer will do it.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Lord Kano]

Let's see how well that goes over with the ACLU

Any American who values the Constitution

That's what he said.

I happen to think that the ACLU is made up of a bunch of hypocritical douches, but they can be useful.

LK

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Jason Levine]

I would think that, if you are informed of a hearing and refuse to show up, your absence is taken into account by the judge. Perhaps he might rule that the hearing should be postponed to give you adequate time to attend or, if you have shown that you just are refusing to attend, perhaps you will be tried in absentia. The latter case is a good way to get a legal ruling very one-sidedly against you, but you would have nobody to blame but yourself for not showing up.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Lord Kano]

Have fun fighting that contempt of court charge.

I can't be in contempt of a court with no jurisdiction over me.

LK

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Hatta]

Except that the guy consented to the restriction not to adversely affect her privacy.

Was he free to refuse consent?

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[mark-t]

Talking about her to other people should not constitute adversely affecting her privacy. He crossed the line when he deliberately communicated the information to her friends and family, but not by simply writing about her in the first place, and I believe that the court has overstepped its authority in ordering him to never write about her online again.

NDA's are something you sign so that you can receive a benefit that you would not otherwise get, and you are free to refuse to sign one without any legal consequence. That's somewhat different from a restraining order, where the restrained person has no choice in the matter unless they are willing to also go to jail.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[omnichad]

OK - so if I order pizza delivered to her home every night it's the pizza guy that's harassing her and not me. That makes me OK, right? If someone's acting as your agent, it might as well be you. Oh I just hired a hit man, I didn't commit murder.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Tastecicles]

See, you'd make a great family panel solicitor. Or social worker. Or family proceedings judge.

There's not much in the way of work for you in criminal law, I'm afraid.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[kiwimate]

I'll get him to relay messages to me and I'll post them anonymously to a blog.

This sounds very much like a sociopath who seeks to deliberately harass a complete stranger for no reason other than a misguided thought process of "anyone should be able to say anything any time with absolutely no consequences, regardless of impact to someone else, just because they want to".

My advice to the subject of the story is to move on. There's no way this can end well. Sometimes it really is best (cheaper, better for your mental health, whatever) to just say "this battle isn't worth fighting".

As for you - please remember that this isn't just a story you're reading on a page. Real people's lives are being devastated here. You're thinking of him. I'm thinking of her and her family.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[sexconker]

Why bring up the ACLU? Any American who values the Constitution would be concerned.

Except that the guy consented to the restriction not to adversely affect her privacy.

He already willingly forfeited his right to free speech in this case, the court is simply enforcing his word. If this punishment were overturned, then it would be precedent to make NDAs unenforceable as well.

It is impossible to forfeit your right to free speech in the United States of America. It is an inalienable right.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Prune]

Who said she's innocent?

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Cederic]

You can, they just can't easily do anything about it.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Lord Kano]

I'm thinking about this man who has had his ability to express his frustration about a failed relationship stripped away from him by an overreaching bully.

Of course, forced silence is the best way to purge someone of their hurt feelings and anger. It always ends well when people bottle up their emotions.

LK

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[snowgirl]

I agree with your main argument, but I just have some questions about your last point. Did this guy give consent to the restraining order? Or in other words, did he ever have the option to refuse the restraining order?

Yes, he did. Also, yes, he could have fought the restraining order in a hearing. If he won, the restraining order would have not been granted, and if he lost, then due process would have placed the restraining order on him.

Since due process allows us to imprison people, and even sometimes take their lives, then arguing that due process shouldn't be able to take a narrow band out of one's free speech is kind of silly.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[snowgirl]

It is impossible to forfeit your right to free speech in the United States of America. It is an inalienable right.

You are wrong, according to modern US legal theory. The fact that NDAs exist, and confidentiality clauses exist, and that they are regularly enforced supports my position that one can willingly forfeit their right to free speech.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[snowgirl]

NDA's are something you sign so that you can receive a benefit that you would not otherwise get, and you are free to refuse to sign one without any legal consequence. That's somewhat different from a restraining order, where the restrained person has no choice in the matter unless they are willing to also go to jail.

A respondent to a restraining order always has to the option to oppose the restraining order in a hearing, wherein the court will hear arguments as to if the restraining order should be granted or not. If at the end of it, the court finds that the restraining order is just, he may end up granting it, which is a proper following of due process. (As I note above, due process can take away your life and liberty already, so why shouldn't it be capable of restricting one's free speech?)

Take it this way. We have a right to be free, and conduct our actions as we see fit. However, arrest abridges this freedom. Does that mean that all arrest is illegal? No, because arrest and imprisonment are granted by due process.

All of this is moot however, because the guy consented to the restraining order. The guy himself agreed to not harass her, or adversely affect her privacy. (Posting information about her online most certainly adversely affects her privacy, no matter what argument you attempt to present. It is prima facie divulging of private details.)

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[mark-t]

Posting information about her online most certainly adversely affects her privacy, no matter what argument you attempt to present. It is prima facie divulging of private details.

So is talking about her to anybody else. Are you suggesting that he should be forbidden from doing that as well? If not, why not? What is the difference between telling other people and blogging? What if he wrote a book and published it? Would that constitute a breach of the restraining order as well?

Bear in mind that I have absolutely no sympathy for the guy on the point that he deliberately communicated with this girl's friends and family... I only defend his right to speak his mind to others.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

If he were smart, he'd keep another copy of the blog's content. Then find-replace his wife's name and pertinent information with some pseudonym and false info and release his rants as a fiction ebook for $1.99 at Amazon or something. At least then he might get something useful out of such rants which might even pay off. For that price who wouldn't be curious about some book titled "My Crazy Minnesotan Ex-wife is a Raving Bitch!"? To him it may still be serious, but others just might see it as comedy gold.

Alternately there are torrents. Release to that as a free epub or such. Some people are curious downloaders and may even seed. Good luck getting rid of it after that point.

The guy doesn't need to have a blog or anybody's help if he considers other options.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[sexconker]

It is impossible to forfeit your right to free speech in the United States of America. It is an inalienable right.

You are wrong, according to modern US legal theory. The fact that NDAs exist, and confidentiality clauses exist, and that they are regularly enforced supports my position that one can willingly forfeit their right to free speech.

No, you are wrong.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The fact that the government shits on your rights doesn't mean you are correct. It just means that the government is shit.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[snowgirl]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This is a quote from the Declaration of Independence. It has no legal force of law. Also, none of the rights listed in the Declaration are "the right to free speech".

Oddly, these "inalienable" rights are regularly infringed upon by every government:
Life: some governments do not practice capital punishment. However, if they do, they're violating your "inalienable" right to life.
Liberty: all governments maintain arrest, and imprisonment. These would be a prima facie violation of your "inalienable" right to liberty.
Pursuit of Happiness: "Happiness" as used here is actually synonymous with "Fortune". We needn't list all the ways that governments interfere with the ability of people to earn money. (The Slaughterhouse Cases specifically noted that the government has no duty to protect a person's ability to make an income.)

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[snowgirl]

So is talking about her to anybody else. Are you suggesting that he should be forbidden from doing that as well? If not, why not? What is the difference between telling other people and blogging? What if he wrote a book and published it? Would that constitute a breach of the restraining order as well?

Yes. Question not applicable. Nothing relevant to this case. Yes, writing a book would adversely affect her privacy as well. Yes, adversely affecting her privacy is obviously a breach of the restraining order.

Bear in mind that I have absolutely no sympathy for the guy on the point that he deliberately communicated with this girl's friends and family... I only defend his right to speak his mind to others.

He voluntarily forfeited his right to speak his mind to others.

Let's take a different example. Say that Alice is being discriminated against by her employer ACME. Alice takes ACME to court, and they eventually decide to settle the case. Alice agrees within the settlement not to talk about the settlement, or the details of the case. Would Alice be in breach of the settlement if she talked about the case? Yes, indeed she would, no matter who she talked to. (There are typically exceptions in these settlements for immediate family, and then confidentiality typically ensures that speaking about it with a lawyer, or to a spiritual adviser to obtain spiritual absolution will not endanger breach of contract.) She could speak to Bob, who lives in a remote village of a small Polynesian island, and she would still be in breach of contract.

The man willingly consented to a restriction against sharing any of her private details with ANYONE, not just her friends, family, or people who know her.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[kiwimate]

Serious question - did you read the story?

Man and woman date, break up. He harasses her for several months until she finally gets a restraining order. He agrees to it. This, by the way, was a six month order.

He then two days later starts this harassing blog. He posts links to it on a number of other web sites. He creates false Facebook profiles (brave, isn't he) and posts the blog to other Facebook users.

It gets worse. Under false names - yes, more than one...he's serious about this - he contacts the father of her child and says child & family services is involved. He does this nine times in the space of a month.

Still under false names, he contacts her grandmother and says the woman must've been sexually molested as a kid, and other equally charming comments.

Again under false names, he sends messages to her high school graduating class about this blog. And a local television news anchor. As well as various other organizations who have nothing to do with the woman. Totally random companies. For no reason other than...well, who knows? Because he's unhinged, mentally?

Still under false names - because, you know, free speech is all well and good but not if you might have to face consequences - he contacts her employer and says she's involved with hardened criminals and is a serious risk to the company.

The 50 year restraining order got put in place after all of this.

This is not someone expressing his frustration. People express their frustration by going over to their friend's place and complaining about "what a horrible person she is, she did this, that, and the other". People express their frustration by having one or two angry yelling phone calls if it's a bad breakup. Maybe they write a nasty e-mail.

And then a normal person moves on.

This is someone going way beyond reason and trying to destroy this person's personal life & career. I'm thinking he's the one who best fits the label "overreaching bully" at this point. He goes on and on, for almost a year, uses multiple false names, contacts her family, her old school mates, her work, a local news reporter. If he was legitimately concerned that she posed a danger to her child or to other people, he should have contacted the police or child services, like he claimed to have done. I didn't read anywhere that said he did this.

Do you want to rethink your position?

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking about this man who has had his ability to express his frustration about a failed relationship stripped away from him by an overreaching bully.

Bullshit. You're trying to support his quest to ruin her life, which is bullying if I ever heard of it. The state is intervening to stop bullying.

Worse, you're saying you'll do this without so much as knowing who's in the right -- it appears that you've just chosen to blindly side with the guy.

Even worse than that, who cares which one of them has a more just reason to be in pain than the other? It isn't a mature, sane reaction to try to ruin someone's life when a relationship ends. Nor is it something which should be protected as free speech. If you were actually trying to be a friend to this guy, you'd be trying to, you know, befriend him and support him in some way which would help him recover. Instead you're just plotting to help him with his petty revenge fantasy, which won't help anyone. Not you, not him, not her.

Of course, forced silence is the best way to purge someone of their hurt feelings and anger. It always ends well when people bottle up their emotions.

And it ends up so much better when random misogynists on the internet decide that the Dude Is Always Right, and the System Is Always Wrong when it supports the Gal, so Righteous Dude should be allowed to punish the bitch. Do I have that right, asshole?

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Lord Kano]

Yes, I did read it and no, I do not wish to rethink my position.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[sexconker]

Again, the fact that the government shits on your rights doesn't mean you are correct. It just means that the government is shit.

Re:I want to know who this man is.

[Lord Kano]

No, you fucktard. I would sat the same thing if she had created a "My ex has a tiny penis" blog and some asshole judge ordered her to take it down.

LK

This is likely setting a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

prohibiting criticisms political, of corporate rule, regulations and the rule of law in general. Dare not speak out against the beast lest you be placed in the dungeon or worse. Where there was once freedom of speech in a country that literally invited everyone in the world to come and live, work, raise a family, now there is only a remnant few who can even remember those days. It is reminiscent of the budweiser commercial of Frankie and Louie. "Enjoy it why you can, Hotshot, your days are numbered.." "Quiet, they'll hear you." "Oh Yeah? I did the tongue thing. This could have been huge. This was [America].."

Re:This is likely setting a precedent

[AK Marc]

He lost his rights after due process. Much like you'll lose your right to travel if you use it almost exclusively to walk up to an ex and hit her. If you use your right to speech to endlessly harass someone, you'll be banned from harassing them, when you continue to do so after the first restraining order, it'll only get worse for you.

Re:Streisand Effect

[TapeCutter]

BadAnalogyGuy posting as AC?

I call bullshit

[Charliemopps]

There are some major assholes out there... and it would be great if they couldn't talk. But this is total bullshit. You should be able to rant and rave about your ex-wife/girlfriend on the internet or where-ever else you want. Her family could easily have blocked his emails. They didn't have to visit the site. They could have even complained to his ISP and the ISP could have terminated his account... something I've actually seen happen (I've worked for many ISPs over the years)

The government baring you from mentioning a person for 50 years? That's just a tad too distopian for my tastes... even if the guy deserved it.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's okay to spam people with obscene messages as long as they aren't commercial?

Re:I call bullshit

[wonderboss]

I call bullshit on your bullshit.
"A Minnesota man violated a restraining order obtained by his ex-girlfriend ..."
A restraining order can stop someone from approaching, harassing, intimidating,
threatening, etc.

He did something to deserve that restraining order. Then he violated it.

People vent on their ex'es all the time. Show me someone that has
a restraining order just for that, and I'll agree to call bullshit on it.

Re:I call bullshit

[cheekyjohnson]

Sure is (in my opinion).

Re:I call bullshit

[ohnocitizen]

Ok, so if your ex want to send your parents, siblings, cousins, aunt and uncles emails saying you can't get off unless there is a dog in the room watching, you'd be ok with that? Because your family could easily block her emails. They wouldn't have to visit the site where she describes your long sessions watching sex scenes on animal planet whilst gorging on pizza covered in peanut butter. They could even complain to her ISP to get her account canceled (ok this part is where it gets silly. You are for free speech to the point of allowing a man to abusively harass his ex-girlfriend, but support cutting off his internet access entirely? Hey at least he'd have a blog he can't access).

Re:I call bullshit

[Lisias]

He did something to deserve that restraining order.

Yep.. He dated her.

Re:I call bullshit

[Silver Surfer 1]

To get a restraining order in most states you see a magistrate and fill out some paper work. The restraining order is issued de facto and is a civil order. A person does not have to do anything to "deserve" a restraing order. No proof of anything is required to get one. Just say you fear the other person and get a restraining order.
Restraining orders are a wonderful tool to do an illegal eviction and steal the other persons possesions and keep any rent and security depost.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

He did something to deserve that restraining order. Then he violated it.

People vent on their ex'es all the time. Show me someone that has
a restraining order just for that, and I'll agree to call bullshit on it.

A restraining order requires absolutely no proof of wrongdoing whatsoever. It simply requires an affidavit from the "victim" giving some justification for why they are "afraid" of the "abuser". Technically the affidavit is made under penalty of perjury, but that is never enforced. Moreover, given the nature of the accusations in said affidavit, it is usually impossible to prove they are false.

To give a personal experience, my ex-wife got a restraining order against me. I had multiple eyewitnesses ready to testify under oath that many of the things that my ex-wife claimed were blatantly false. The judge told my lawyer not to bother even bringing them forward since he was going to extend the order no matter what evidence was brought forward. I ultimately ended up spending a night in jail and thousands of dollars defending myself against felony charges because my phone pocket-called her several months later.

Re:I call bullshit

[haapi]

I'm with you, wonderboss. I read the decision, and the judges found plenty of precedent and demonstrated careful awareness of the Constitutional issues.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever been in a contentious break up? All you need to get a restraining order is to lie.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ok, so if your ex want to send your parents, siblings, cousins, aunt and uncles emails saying you can't get off unless there is a dog in the room watching, you'd be ok with that?"

Purely argumentative. Regardless, it is not an assault, it does not make contact as it is not directed explicitly towards the woman, such as a face-2-face encounter, phone call, or direct email. There is no contact.

The judge did overstep his boundary, he had no right to demand the blog site be terminated.

Whats next? Give judges the power to bring down any site just because they(or anyone) speculate on any implications of 'harassing' material?

Re:I call bullshit

[sexconker]

To get a restraining order in most states you see a magistrate and fill out some paper work. The restraining order is issued de facto and is a civil order. A person does not have to do anything to "deserve" a restraing order. No proof of anything is required to get one. Just say you fear the other person and get a restraining order.
Restraining orders are a wonderful tool to do an illegal eviction and steal the other persons possesions and keep any rent and security depost.

Restraining orders are also a wonderful tool to keep the cops away from your meth lab / crack house.
Just have your drugged up girlfriend file a restraining order against Barnaby Jones.
Then call the cops when Barnaby Jones comes around again.

Courts don't care or even check to see that Barnaby Jones is in fact the cop investigating your house.
You call the cops on the cop and they haul him away and he gets taken off the case. While someone else gets put on it, you have plenty of time to move your operation while they get up to speed.

The only tricky parts are noticing your being scoped out, and finding out who it is. Of course, if you're just a pusher and not a user, it's brain dead simple.

Re:I call bullshit

[oldmac31310]

Hey, much of what you say sounds familiar!

Nonissue

[Anonymous Coward]

In some places a restraining order can force the abuser to give up their firearms.

If you can do that without raising 2nd amendment issues, I think it's safe to say there's no 1st amendment issue either.

Arlotta e-mailed links to the blog to Johnson’s family, friends, and Morgan Stanley co-workers, and sent it to them on Facebook using fake identities

Restraining orders can also be used to force the abuser to cease contact with friends, employers, family members, etc. No contact means NO CONTACT.

If he wanted to vent anonymously, he should have done that, gone to therapy, what have you. Anything else is just the continued abuse of the victim.. That's the whole point of restraining orders, to force the person to get out of the victim's life. He has to cease all activities which causes harm, mental or physical, to the victim.

His actions could be interpreted as a type of defamation, or even a privacy issue. IANAL but I'd say false light might apply. There's more to defamation than slander/libel, which requires truth.

Re:Nonissue

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's the whole point of restraining orders, to force the person to get out of the victim's life".

Exactly. Your right to swing your fists wildly in the air ceases at my face. That's the difference between you being a bit silly-looking, and you being guilty of battery.

Actually it probably ceases some distance from my face, in terms of assault.

Re:Nonissue

[Hatta]

In some places a restraining order can force the abuser to give up their firearms.

If you can do that without raising 2nd amendment issues, I think it's safe to say there's no 1st amendment issue either.

You can't do that without 2nd amendment issues. You can only do that if you ignore the obvious 2nd amendment issues. The fact that they refuse to adhere to one amendment isn't a green light for them to ignore another amendment. It's just proof that this government is illegitimate.

I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[GeneralEmergency]

Unpopular, despicable and even odious speech is protected constitutionally and this fellow is entitled to write whatever he cares to and publish it in whatever manner he sees fit, be it internet blog, book or clay tablets.

Now where the Judge -does- has specific powers to help this woman out is in limiting this fellows -contact actions- that are specifically targeted at this woman and her friends, family and co-workers. He does not publish the blog -at- anyone. He publishes it for everyone. Emails, notes and letters sent to specific individuals is not publishing, it is direct communication which he can be ordered to cease without violating his fundamental constitutional right to free speech.

.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[dbc]

Well, you need to look into constitutional law a little more. First amendment rights vary according to the type of speech and the subject.

Political speech gets very broad protection -- your political rants and screeds, no matter how odious, pretty much are protected. When you start advocating violence against a particular person or group, however, you have reached the boundary. You are not protected from the consequences of said speech, either.

Commercial speech (ie: advertisements) get much less protection. Like the FTC might come down on you for truth in advertising issues. The FDA prohibits certain forms of advertising for prescription drugs.

If you direct attacks at a particular person, who that person is has impact on your protection. Is the person a politician either in or running for office? Fire away, pretty much. Does the person live in the public eye? Famous actors have to put up with a lot of crap. Is the person just a normal Joe trying to get by? The court tolerates much less crap aimed at them.

Libelous and slanderous speech is always subject to remedy.

Anyway, the d-bag in question clearly wasn't making a political point, and the victim certainly wasn't a politician or movie star. This was a private person trying to have some privacy, and some d-bag being a d-bag in a very public way. It is a fact that the truth is always an absolute defense against libel, so maybe if what he said was true you can't shut him down for libel. But hurtful speech directed against a private person is not going to get very much first amendment protection. And I'm OK with that. That's a very different thing from a political rant.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[SecurityGuy]

I'm really not that bothered. I've long been on the "free speech, period!" bandwagon, but realistically all our rights have limits, and those limits generally start about where someone else's rights begin. You have religious freedom, so long as your religion doesn't involve deflowering underage girls, for example. We put you in jail for that. This guy isn't saying anything of value. He's just being a dick. At some point his right to be a dick has to give way to her right not to be harassed for the rest of her life.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, there are still laws to protect other people's privacy. What he did is still illegal. Whether or not his statements were true doesn't matter. Even if he wrote only the truth, he was still disclosing private facts about an individual to the public. Yes, this happens all the time, almost entirely to celebrities, but what makes it illegal is that the information is highly offensive to whoever the info is about (assuming that person is of reasonable disposition) and that it's not of legitimate concern to the public.

It's the second one that separates this guy from tabloid reporters and the like.

And if he was lying, well, that's libel and is definitely illegal.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[wvmarle]

According to TFS, he was sending links to posts on the blog to her family, friends, and co-workers.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, you need to look into constitutional law a little more. First amendment rights vary according to the type of speech and the subject.

Well, if you want me to read the first amendment, then I'm not finding anything about that.

If you want me to look at the invisible exceptions that judges have 'interpreted' into the constitution, then I guess you're right.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

This guy isn't saying anything of value.

Subjective.

I've long been on the "free speech, period!" bandwagon

Are you certain? That implies to me that you're in favor of absolute freedom of speech.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge is full of shit, there is no such 'right to be free from harassment' anywhere in the constitution but there is a right to free speech. If this order is allowed to stand as precedent, it might be used by wealthy people to stop the media from revealing their dirty laundry by just by complaining they are being harassed.

The only thing this girl can do about this is sue for libel and get some money out of him if found guilty.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. Also, as an aside, to prove libel you really have to prove

1) that he said it which should not hard to do if he had a blog
2) that it's NOT true, which sounds pretty difficult and would probably embarrass her even more in court
3) that there were damages, again hard to do unless she is some sort of public figure that I don't know about (which also means that the bar is much higher since criticism is much more protected)

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[dbc]

Well, you need to look into constitutional law a little more. First amendment rights vary according to the type of speech and the subject.

Well, if you want me to read the first amendment, then I'm not finding anything about that.

If you want me to look at the invisible exceptions that judges have 'interpreted' into the constitution, then I guess you're right.

Certainly, I never said otherwise.

But you didn't say: "Well, my reading of the constitution is...", you said: "... is constitutionally protected.." -- well, not to coin a phrase or anything, but that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. If "is" means "because GeneralEmergency say so", well, you are right. But if "is" means "the law of the land in a practical sense as implemented in every federal district court circuit" then I think I'm closer to the mark.

In addition to reading the constitution, did you read the Federalist Papers, and the so-call Anti-Federalist Papers? And study the history of the time? Not that I have, but they are among my goals for 2012. The founders were political activists. They were concerned about the suppression of political speech. The constitution leaves much unsaid. The law in the early United States drew from English law, so it seems to me it would have been understood that protections against libel and slander that come from English common law were precedent. Early decisions about how to implement the first amendment would have been made against the background of inherited English common law. Where the constitution seems vague by today's standards, I think we need to look at the common thought of the time -- a certain amount of things left out probably would fall in the category of: "Well, duh! That's obvious."(*) to Jefferson and Madison.

(*) Citation needed. It's not clear either Jefferson or Madison ever said "duh".

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

But you didn't say

Actually, I'm not the one you first replied to.

And I only really care about what is actually in the constitution. I try to interpret everything exactly as it says.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[stephanruby]

Emails, notes and letters sent to specific individuals is not publishing, it is direct communication which he can be ordered to cease without violating his fundamental constitutional right to free speech.

He was already told to stop doing that, but he made up some fake personas on facebook, used those fake personas to get close to her friends, her family, and her Goldman Sachs coworkers, for the sole purpose of sending them the link to his blog.

He does not publish the blog -at- anyone. He publishes it for everyone.

Like I said from this guy's actions, it's pretty clear that his purpose was a very specific target audience. If I were the judge, I'd just throw him in jail by now. It's pretty clear to me this guy is going to use any means necessary to get around the instructions written in the restraining order.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[ColdWetDog]

I try to interpret everything exactly as it says.

This has to be one of the most nonsensical statements in the entire thread..
Congrats. You should win a couple of Internets.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

Care to explain why? In regards to the constitution (Perhaps that's what you meant?), I try to interpret everything exactly as it says. I prefer not to play guessing games by trying to guess what the people were thinking while making it (and I feel that doing so would open it up to even more corruption).

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Kjella]

Well, if you want me to read the first amendment, then I'm not finding anything about that. If you want me to look at the invisible exceptions that judges have 'interpreted' into the constitution, then I guess you're right.

I think this Supreme Court quote from Robertson v. Baldwin (1897) pretty much sums it up:

The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels (...)

From your post it sounds like we first discovered this "unconstitutionality" now or that it's been retcon'd in by judges later. Reality is that these exceptions have been implicitly understood to be there since the beginning and have mostly gone unchallenged for centuries. Sure, if you want to go into an over-literal reading of the first amendment, then I will remind you that what you're writing now is not constitutionally protected since only speech is protected. That text or other forms of expression are protected is just something judges have 'interpreted' into the constitution, and we can have none of that.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

From your post it sounds like we first discovered this "unconstitutionality" now or that it's been retcon'd in by judges later. Reality is that these exceptions have been implicitly understood to be there since the beginning and have mostly gone unchallenged for centuries.

I don't care how long it has been happening. The practice makes no sense to me.

since only speech is protected

And expression (which applies to text).

That text or other forms of expression are protected is just something judges have 'interpreted' into the constitution, and we can have none of that.

I never said that I was against interpretation of all forms (How would you even read it, then?). Just that only things that are actually there can really be interpreted. As an example, I don't believe you can just read the first amendment and say, "Freedom of speech? That must mean that all speech is protected except speech that I personally find offensive! It's in there because I said so!"

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Kjella]

I never said that I was against interpretation of all forms (How would you even read it, then?). Just that only things that are actually there can really be interpreted. As an example, I don't believe you can just read the first amendment and say, "Freedom of speech? That must mean that all speech is protected except speech that I personally find offensive! It's in there because I said so!"

Funny that, since:

since only speech is protected

And expression (which applies to text).

Actual text:

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

Nope. There's no "freedom of expression" listed, are you saying it's in there because you say so? >:-)

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

I don't believe that "speech" refers only to talking, but also to multiple forms of expression (such as writing). But perhaps I'm wrong.

But even if you're right, and that interpretation is wrong, how do you think I'll respond? I'll just say that I think a constitutional amendment is necessary, then.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[GeneralEmergency]

"But hurtful speech directed against a private person is not going to get very much first amendment protection."

A "your speech was hurtful to me" standard for gutting another's First Amendment rights is as absurd as it is dangerous. Do I get to decide which published statements about me are "hurtful"? Can I seek a court order against you once I have deemed your opinions, written here in opposition to mine, are "Hurtful" to me?

Nowhere in TFA was it asserted that Libelous statements or direct threats of bodily harm had ever been published on the blog. There are no "Privacy" laws that make it a crime for one person to publish factual information about another (with the rather curious exception of "Loathsome Diseases" under Libel law). You have no legal right to absolute privacy.

It does not matter what the venue or media used is. WWW Blog or soapbox in the park, divulging information about another person that is non-libelous and lacks threats of bodily harm is simply not against the law and is well away from the First Amendment's slippery slope of censorship. Claims that the published speech constituted an "endangerment threat" are obviously overblown, threadbare and translate directly to hic et nunc liability for the pre-crime actions of unknown third parties in the future.

Yes, this guy is very likely a vindictive asshole, but that's never been against the law, has it?

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

Political speech gets very broad protection -- your political rants and screeds, no matter how odious, pretty much are protected.

Do they still, though? It should be obviously to any fool with an IQ of at least 105 that this is a slippery slope... and it's seemingly well-intended bullshit like this that's sending us rapidly downhill.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a religious text, dude. It was written by humans, for humans. Think about it - context matters. :p

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

I don't see what that has to do with interpreting things that aren't there. I only (or at least try to) interpret things that are actually present in the constitution.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Zenzilla]

So I can't say the truth as long as it hurts your feelings, careful there.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

Include in your studies the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed, and enforced, by some of those self-same founding fathers when they put down the pamphlets of political activism, and picked up the mantle of authority.

It's not pleasant.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you interpret everything exactly as it says, then under 'freedom of the press', newspapers would be perfectly free to publish military secrets with the intent of helping 'the enemy' during wartime. If you interpret everything exactly as it says, then

So clearly, interpreting everything exactly as it says is a bad idea, since it leads to self-contradictory results.

EVERY written word must be 'interpreted' by someone. There is no such thing as writing that is so clear as to be totally unambiguous to everyone, no matter what their background or prejudices.

This is why the 'rule of law' is a myth. A USEFUL myth, but a myth. Just like 'liberty and justice for all'.

See more on this at: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Well, if you want me to read the first amendment, then I'm not finding anything about that.
If you want me to look at the invisible exceptions that judges have 'interpreted' into the constitution, then I guess you're right.

The first amendment with emphasis on the relevant part:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I believe the interpretation of this amendment is that we have the right to criticize our government no matter if it is vocal, written, or in the form of a peaceful protest. I don't think the writers of the constitution had ex-girlfriends in mind when they wrote this.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Hatta]

But you didn't say: "Well, my reading of the constitution is...", you said: "... is constitutionally protected.." -- well, not to coin a phrase or anything, but that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. If "is" means "because GeneralEmergency say so", well, you are right. But if "is" means "the law of the land in a practical sense as implemented in every federal district court circuit" then I think I'm closer to the mark.

Constitutionally protected refers to what is actually in the constitution, not how law is practiced. If there is a difference, the constitution is right and the practice of "law" (thuggery really) is illegitimate.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Hatta]

There are 4 clauses there. Only one of them mentions political activity in any way.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[David Chappell]

Well, you need to look into constitutional law a little more. First amendment rights vary according to the type of speech and the subject.

Well, if you want me to read the first amendment, then I'm not finding anything about that.

If you want me to look at the invisible exceptions that judges have 'interpreted' into the constitution, then I guess you're right.

Everyone who reads the Constitution interprets it, even those who claim that they are not interpreting it because they take "exactly what it says". Let us take the First Amendment as an example:

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

If we insist on perverse literalism, then the statement "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" means that anyone can say anything at any time. That would make it ok to shout Fire! in a crowded theater, file false reports with the police, grosely misrepresent one's wares, and slander everyone in sight.

At the other end of the interpretation spectrum, the contextual references to "the press" and "petition for redress of grievences" means that freedom of speech applies only to statements about the conduct of government officials and other matters of clear public interest.

I do not think it is unreasonable for judges to hew a path down the middle and decide that speach which presents a "real and present danger" is least protected and speech about public affairs enjoys the most protection. This man's speech is somewhere in that middle ground.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[dcollins]

"Where the constitution seems vague by today's standards..."

I don't think the constitution seems vague at all. It's written in very clear language. It's only vague when all the later doublethink is applied to it.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, 90% of Americans don't even know what the Federalist Papers are! DUH!

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[David Chappell]

Care to explain why? In regards to the constitution (Perhaps that's what you meant?), I try to interpret everything exactly as it says. I prefer not to play guessing games by trying to guess what the people were thinking while making it (and I feel that doing so would open it up to even more corruption).

I imagine he considers your statement that "I try to interpret everything exactly as it says" to be nonsensical because there has never been a text written that can be interpreted without knowing at least some context. Even computer programs, though famed for their precision, can only be properly interpreted correctly if one has sufficient information about how the runtime system operates.

One can either interpret a text in the context of what one knowns about the writer's state of mind, or one can interpret it in the context of one's own beliefs and prejudices.

The second method is what leads to the conclusions such as that violating the terms of service of a website makes one's access unauthorized and hence a computer crime. In other words, it leads to the corruption which you are trying to avoid.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[dbc]

Where in the constitution does it say how many supreme court justices we should have? And that they alone have the power to decide constitutionality of laws passed by congress?

After you answer those questions fully, you can take up the commerce clause.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[dcollins]

(a) It doesn't. (b) It doesn't. I'd call that pretty clear.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[CountBrass]

English isn't a precise language. The position of something as small a comma can completely change the whole meaning of a sentence. Also the world moves on, it has to be reinterpreted in the light of modern thinking and morales not to mention technology.

In any case doesn't the Constitution give the SCoTUS the authority to interpret it (and not just any random internet wonk)?

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[JustSomeProgrammer]

This is one of the most insightful posts I have ever read.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

English isn't a precise language.

Irrelevant. I'll interpret it exactly as it is written.

In any case doesn't the Constitution give the SCoTUS the authority to interpret it (and not just any random internet wonk)?

As I said in another post, their interpretations can be wrong. They have the authority to do it, and I never once claimed that I did.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

Everyone who reads the Constitution interprets it, even those who claim that they are not interpreting it because they take "exactly what it says".

I never said otherwise. It simply isn't (as far as I know) possible to interpret things in the constitution that aren't there (like "protected speech").

If we insist on perverse literalism, then the statement "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" means that anyone can say anything at any time.

Indeed! And I support absolute freedom of speech. Don't like that? Amend the constitution. Don't just ignore it and play guessing games about its original intent (no one can know, with 100% accuracy, exactly what they were thinking at the time, and even if they could, only what was written is relevant).

That would make it ok to shout Fire! in a crowded theater, file false reports with the police, grosely misrepresent one's wares, and slander everyone in sight.

Right. I believe the problem with all of these is that people react to speech in idiotic ways. "A fire!? Even though I notice absolutely nothing, I'm going to trample all over everyone else to get out! What a nice and intelligent person I am!" That and they seem to believe everything they hear/read.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

I imagine he considers your statement that "I try to interpret everything exactly as it says" to be nonsensical because there has never been a text written that can be interpreted without knowing at least some context.

"Freedom of speech" obviously means "freedom of all speech except speech that I don't like." I 'interpreted' it there. I mean, what 'reasonable' person would want people to say things that they don't like?

I didn't say I was against all interpretation. Just that I would only interpret what was there.

One can either interpret a text in the context of what one knowns about the writer's state of mind

Guessing games. As I said, it would be difficult to accurately guess exactly what they were thinking at that specific point in time (even if you had some of their writing). I'd say the most accurate way of doing it is just to interpret what was actually written (and if they didn't intend for it to mean that, then they shouldn't have wrote it that way).

or one can interpret it in the context of one's own beliefs and prejudices.

I believe the first will lead to the second.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[ChrisMaple]

Writing can be considered protected by both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. "Freedom of expression" is much too broad, as it could easily be considered to include masturbating in front of a crowd of children. The founders chose their words very carefully according to their meanings circa 1790, and arbitrarily substituting what you think is roughly equivalent is unwise.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[ChrisMaple]

All 4 are important politically, and the last (which you seem to think is the only political one) is in fact the least important. It's only been a few months since a federal court decided that although the government can be petitioned, the government has no responsibility to reply or consider that petition in any manner whatsoever.
Freedom of speech and the press are vitally important to spreading political ideas, and freedom of assembly is important for that reason also. To effectively oppose bad government policies the best approach is to get a great number of people informed and active, and to have those people communicate with their legislators (or replace them if necessary.)
The point is, if you look beyond the tip of your nose, all 4 involve politics. In fact, all 4 are protected for the purpose of preventing political oppression.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[ChrisMaple]

Freedom of speech, even taken literally, means that you cannot be prohibited from speaking. It does not mean that you cannot be punished for the damage that your speech causes.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

and arbitrarily substituting what you think is roughly equivalent is unwise.

No, no. Judges are the ones doing that.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

So clearly, interpreting everything exactly as it says is a bad idea, since it leads to self-contradictory results.

How is that self-contradictory? Who says that I'm against newspapers publishing secrets? The "enemy" is obviously 'evil'!

And I don't agree that it's a "bad idea." That was your opinion stated as a fact.

If you do not like the fact that the press are able to publish secrets, then support an amendment to the constitution.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

I see nothing in the first amendment indicating that any of them are more or less important (subjective) than the others. Judges may have interpreted that way, but that doesn't mean it's in the constitution.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

Putting people in jail doesn't restrict their freedom to speak (or lessen it)?

damage that your speech causes.

I don't believe that exists. If I say "hello" to someone and that makes them go on a bloodthirsty rampage for some reason, would you say that my speech caused any damage? It's the people that actually commit the crimes and hurt others that are doing the damage.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see what that has to do with interpreting things that aren't there. I only (or at least try to) interpret things that are actually present in the constitution.

Bully for you. Mind informing us why anyone should care about your obsession with trying to read the Constitution with robotic literalness when it's clearly a document which was written within a context? A modicum of historical investigation should reveal to you that the people who wrote the Constitution probably thought it should be left relatively vague and flexible. It was designed to be a check on federal and local legislators, something which would serve as a general guideline rather than detailed minutiae.

Have you ever read a technical standards document? Like, say, the spec for PCI Express. Or networking protocols such as TCP/IP. Those are documents intended to work the way you think the Constitution does. They're hundreds or thousands of pages of "shall" and "must" and "may". Precise, nitpicky language, leaving little wiggle room (or carefully defined amounts of it) to ensure that different implementors build things which can successfully talk to each other. You can read them literally and robotically because they're supposed to be read that way.

You can't make that case for the Constitution. It's brief, very vague in many places, and lots of it is nonsense without outside context. Some of it's irrelevant because 200+ years have passed. (For example, have you ever been worried that the government would bunk troops in your house at your expense? Didn't think so. That was a hot button issue for the ex-colonists. Not so much since.)

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

Mind informing us why anyone should care about your obsession

I didn't say that anyone "should" care. And I don't care about your opinions, either. I'll keep advocating for what I believe in.

A modicum of historical investigation should reveal to you that the people who wrote the Constitution probably thought it should be left relatively vague and flexible.

Then they should have written it that way. "Freedom of speech" isn't vague to me. It's perfectly clear what it means to me. Absolute freedom of speech. No exceptions were listed.

As I said, I don't care for guessing games. Trying to predict exactly what they (all of them) were thinking at the exact time that the constitution was written is, in my opinion, near impossible (documents or not). What made it into the constitution made it into the constitution. If you think it needs to be changed, then there is a process for that. Constitutional amendments. Good luck with that.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[dbc]

Explain the limits, if any, to rights granted under the second amendment.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any given right comes with the obligation of respecting the rights of ''the others''. In case you haven't noticed there are some other poor bastards around you who have the same rights as you. If your free speech impairs their right to live and pursue happiness for example your right to ''BS'' becomes secondary.
No one is granted any right on the detriment of others! this is the key issue which applies on many so called ''free speech'' cases.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[dcollins]

It's the only amendment with a lead-in indicating intent of use: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[dbc]

Which is a total non-answer to my question, and doesn't exactly make your case. That clause only serves to muddy the waters.

If you think the second amendment is crystal clear, then explain the limits, if any, to the rights guaranteed by it.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mind informing us why anyone should care about your obsession

I didn't say that anyone "should" care. And I don't care about your opinions, either. I'll keep advocating for what I believe in.

Advocating effectively requires informing people why it's important for them to share your obsession. Unlike you, some of us have noticed that an obsessive and false literalism often causes negative outcomes when it comes to the nation living up to that whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ideal we know the Founders were shooting for. What do you have to say to convince us that you're right and we're wrong?

A modicum of historical investigation should reveal to you that the people who wrote the Constitution probably thought it should be left relatively vague and flexible.

Then they should have written it that way.

Er, they kinda did. We're talking about a perfect example. They were concerned with including the principle, not an enumerated list of permissible common-law exceptions which could never be complete. As you've been told several times over now. Your only response is robotic "blah blah blah Constitution must be interpreted EXACTLY, and I know what it means, EXACTLY".

"Freedom of speech" isn't vague to me. It's perfectly clear what it means to me. Absolute freedom of speech. No exceptions were listed.

As I said, I don't care for guessing games. Trying to predict exactly what they (all of them) were thinking at the exact time that the constitution was written is, in my opinion, near impossible (documents or not).

Then you're dumb. This isn't "prediction", it's history, and the participants in that history wrote an awful lot of stuff other than the Constitution. It's not hard to find out what they thought.

For example, all the retarded "social conservative" assholes deny up and down that the language in that very same amendment establishes a barrier between church and state. They're playing the same nitpicky game you are, and refuse to listen when it's proven with unimpeachable historical documents ranging from private letters to official state communications that the very people who wrote it made it 100% clear, in other contexts, that they did in fact intend it to establish separation of church and state. They didn't think it needed to be spelled out that literally because to them, the language they were writing was clear.

They weren't perfect people. They didn't anticipate that overly literal idiots would need to have every i dotted and every t crossed to understand the intent. Nor did they anticipate how the evolution of the English language might cause the meaning of the words they were writing to shift (how could they?). And don't come at me with this stupidity:

What made it into the constitution made it into the constitution. If you think it needs to be changed, then there is a process for that. Constitutional amendments. Good luck with that.

because amending just to clarify language would never fly. Imagine trying to revise the First Amendment to even more explicitly say that the state shouldn't spend one thin dime on promoting religion in the current political climate. We're awash in a sea of Republican assholes trying to rewrite the history of the country as if the government was all religion all the time (their religion, of course, even though their variant of christianity didn't exist at the founding of the nation), and they'd scream to high heaven if you tried to clarify the language.

Your are a naive fool who thinks that law should work like a computer program. Except you aren't even a very good geek, because you think you should be able to blindly accept the results of running old code unchanged on modern computers despite literally centuries worth of hardware and language changes.

Good Luck With That.

Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional.

[cheekyjohnson]

What do you have to say to convince us that you're right and we're wrong?

I didn't know those words even applied to subjective matters.

As I said, believe me or don't. But as long as it is written properly, there will likely be no more 'harm' in interpreting it literally than we inflict by interpreting it the way we do now (it's totally ignored right now).

They were concerned with including the principle, not an enumerated list of permissible common-law exceptions which could never be complete.

I don't expect them to write a list of common laws. I expect them to, for example, write that freedom of speech as limitations if that is what they were intending. I don't expect them to just list no exceptions (or at least write what type of speech is more valuable to them) and then ignore the constitution that they just wrote. If you intended it a certain way, then write it that way.

Common law has nothing to do with this. If you meant for it to be flexible, then make it that way. "Freedom of speech" doesn't sound flexible. What does that even mean?

As you've been told several times over now. Your only response is robotic "blah blah blah Constitution must be interpreted EXACTLY, and I know what it means, EXACTLY".

Well, of course. That's my belief. Should I be restating yours?

Then you're dumb. This isn't "prediction", it's history, and the participants in that history wrote an awful lot of stuff other than the Constitution. It's not hard to find out what they thought.

Even if you have all of their writing, finding out, with 100% accuracy, what they thought while writing the constitution (all of them) as well as the final agreements (which could include compromises) that they came up with is likely extremely difficult. What made it into the constitution is what made it in.

For example, all the retarded "social conservative" assholes deny up and down that the language in that very same amendment establishes a barrier between church and state.

It looks to me like it does.

They didn't think it needed to be spelled out that literally because to them, the language they were writing was clear.

Well, if some of the amendments stand for something other than what they wrote in it, then I have to wonder about their definition of "clear."

Actually, some of the amendments are pretty clear (the 'literal' interpretation is close to what you would see if you played guessing games with the founding fathers' thoughts at the time). Ambiguous and flexible, even. That wasn't so difficult.

They weren't perfect people.

Not necessary. As I said, interpretation is fine. Just take into account only things that are actually there and interpret it using the language when it was written.

because amending just to clarify language would never fly.

It's to clarify the final meaning. And it's supposed to be difficult to amend it. It's simply too bad if the original writers failed to write what they actually meant.

As I said, writing every possible law in the constitution isn't necessary. But state what you actually mean (in the constitution).

Your are a naive fool

Yes, yes. You're 100% correct and I'm 100% wrong. I've heard it before. Seemingly not accounting for any chance that you could be wrong is quite common, in my experience (and, in my opinion, quite arrogant).

Besides, this is a subjective matter. I'm saying what I think "should" be done. And you're doing the same.

who thinks that law should work like a computer program

I don't mind a bit of ambiguity or flexibility. But if that's what you intended, write it that way.

Except you aren't even a very good geek, because you think you should be able to blindly

Remedy matches violation

[DragonWriter]

Well, according to law professor Eric Goldman, ordering someone to delete their blog IS rare and perhaps unprecedented.

Probably because someone establishing a blog for the sole purposes of harassing someone they are already under a restraining order not to harrss, and then setting up sock-puppet accounts on social networking sites to relay the harassing blog posts to the family and friends of the victim isn't the kind of violation of a restraining order that has come up all that much in the past.

(Then again, I could swear I've seen several news stories over the year on Slashdot of cases when harassing or threatening webages were ordered to be taken down by courts -- perhaps not in cases involving a pre-existing restraining order -- so the only thing here that would seem to be potentially unprecedented is that the webpage used for harassment happened to be a blog rather than some other style of page, or perhaps the particular context of the harassment which resulted in the order. This would seem to be lowering the bar on "unprecedented" quite a bit.)

Re:Remedy matches violation

[phantomfive]

so the only thing here that would seem to be potentially unprecedented is that the webpage used for harassment happened to be a blog rather than some other style of page

lol that's a good point. This kind of stuff is FAR from infrequent.

Like hell you do.

[westlake]

I'll get him to relay messages to me and I'll post them anonymously to a blog.

A word of advice:

Don't step into someone else's shit until you know how deep it is.

Conspiracy to violate a court order is not going to end well for you or for some nutcase revenge blogger ---- and maybe a stalker ---- who now has a new target in his sights.

Re:Like hell you do.

[KiloByte]

Don't worry, some of us live outside the US.

And some of those also believe there is nothing that can excuse censorship, ever. Is a speech libel? Is a speech spam (ie, forcing someone else to listen -- like telemarketer victims, or here, the guy's ex's family)? No? So you have no right to muzzle that person. You USians have this wonderful "just a goddamn piece of paper" which is pretty clear on this matter.

A restraining order that orders the bastard to keep his distance, including electronic means? Sure, that's fine with me. Banning him to write about his ex as long as he doesn't force this onto her or her family? Strictly forbidden by the supreme law of your land.

He did force his speech onto his ex, and should be slapped for that. But that doesn't allow the court to violate the consistution.

Re:Like hell you do.

[Anonymous Coward]

A revenge blog, linked by sock puppets to relatives, pretty much exists only to violate the spirit of the restraining order law. It's just trying to get away with it by pretending it isn't directly targetted, even though in practice it is. Judges aren't too impressed by that sort of behavior.

Re:Like hell you do.

[rrossman2]

You didnt read the article did you... where he made fake email accounts and sent the blog address to her family, friends, co-workers/employer(s).....

Re:Like hell you do.

[KiloByte]

I did, and I admit this bozo really crossed the line and deserves to be punished, harshly. Still doesn't give the court the right to take away the right to free speech, which is protected by the consitution, unconditionally.

Re:Like hell you do.

[Zeromous]

His Right to Free Speech is only with regards to the Government.

As far as I know you do not have the right to say whatever you want anywhere in the world.

Re:Like hell you do.

[Anonymous Coward]

I did, and I admit this bozo really crossed the line and deserves to be punished, harshly. Still doesn't give the court the right to take away the right to free speech, which is protected by the consitution, unconditionally.

You're right. He should be in jail with no free speech at all and no right to vote, etc. The judge should never have let him off by giving him the option for less.

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

If the family and friends do not wish to communicate with this man, there are existing harassment laws that cover that type of situation.

He sounds like he was a horrible person.

[AtomicAdam]

Well I wonder how graphic the stuff he wrote actually was. I mean that would determine if the judge is being far to swift with the judgement.

However, just to throw down some perspective, this girl probably has some other boy friend/husband(eventually I'm sure) now. We can piss and moan about this guy and his freedom to speech blah blah but I'm all for the old days when someone talks bad about your girl/wife... We'll I'm sure there are many people here who would in a /ragefist type of way want to exact sweet revenge and drink his tears...

--

It's late and I have finals please don't hold me responsible for any rants

What he should have done...

[MrEricSir]

What he should have done was turn it into a religious issue.

Let's say I stand outside a gay person's house (could be any minority group, gay is an example) with a sign that says I hate them and I'm going to burn them. I'd be arrested for threatening that person.

Now if I stand outside that same person's house with a sign that says God hates them and God will burn them in Hell, that's perfectly fine for some reason.

Re:What he should have done...

[LordLucless]

Now if I stand outside that same person's house with a sign that says God hates them and God will burn them in Hell, that's perfectly fine for some reason.

Well, yes - you're no longer threatening them. You're stating that you believe a third party is threatening them. You likewise wouldn't be arrested if you held up signs saying "Joe Blogs down the road hates gays and is going to burn them" - except, probably, to stop you libeling Joe Blogs. Sadly, I don't think God sues for libel.

Re:What he should have done...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an implicit addendum always with the religious of spirit. They have faith, ergo they believe in God and believe his teachings.

So though the sign may only read, "God hates them and God will burn them in Hell" what it really says is, "God hates them and God will burn them in Hell (and I'm with God - I hate them too, I would like to see them burn in hell)"

If I were gay and was picketed in that way, it'd be awfully big hearted of me to shrug it off. Most would feel harassed and what about the younger people who are coming to terms with their sexuality, how traumatic would it be? Religious beliefs should never be a free ticket to cause harm, suffering or misery.

Re:What he should have done...

[LordLucless]

and I'm with God - I hate them too, I would like to see them burn in hell

Even so, there's no threat in there. Not unless it becomes "I hate them too, and if God doesn't do the burning, I'll take it into my own hands.

Religious beliefs should never be a free ticket to cause harm, suffering or misery.

Luckily, they're not. If the sign read "I hate gays", with no mention of religion, you'd be home free too. Religion's a red herring - if you threaten someone's life, whether there's religious overtones or not, then that's a crime. If you express your dislike, religious overtones or not, then it ain't.

Re:What he should have done...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because, as has been historically, painfully obvious, God appears to always take a 'wait and see' position on things. All things.

Re:What he should have done...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because we can tell the difference between you and God. When you say you're gonna do such-and-such, it's a threat; when you say God's gonna do such-and-such, it's massive presumption, but not a threat.

Re:What he should have done...

[Kajukenbo]

Well said sir.

Re:What he should have done...

[orthicviper]

I see your point. Like, it's offensive to talk about Nazism and how Jews are bad. But if you're a Muslim it's okay to praise Mohammad who also hated Jews. If Nazis wanted to be accepted in modern society, they'd have to say Hitler was a prophet of God, like Mohammad. Then they could claim religious freedom and say anyone who mocked Nazism was a bigot.

Re:What he should have done...

[SvnLyrBrto]

If you're invoking christianity, though, to "justify" your hatred of gays; you ARE, in fact, threatening immediate harm yourself. Immediately after calling gays abominations, the bible calls for them to be put to death ("their blood be upon them").

That escalates the matter from some vague metaphysical claim about what may or may not happen after death to an immediate temporal threat of physical harm from the faithful.

The command to take it into your own hands is explicit in your "faith"; and by invoking it you are making that threat yourself. And you deserve to be dealt with accordingly.

Re:Streisand Effect

[cheekyjohnson]

do you really think ignoring it until it stopped was really the best solution?

Yeah. Unless he was holding them hostage and forcing them to view the content, yeah. Sending links? Really? Just don't click on them.

Just move on, dude...

[Anonymous Coward]

that's all I have to say.

Unprecedented? Probably. Unreasonable? No.

[skine]

I'll grant that it may be an unprecedented move to delete the entire blog. However, it appears that the ONLY use for it was to get revenge on his ex.

If it contained a reasonable number of posts unrelated to his ex, the judge may have simply ordered that the violating posts be deleted.

But since all of the posts were violations, it seems reasonable for him to delete the entire thing.

Re:Unprecedented? Probably. Unreasonable? No.

[romanm]

This truly is an American problem. In EU it is quite common to respect other people's privacy, unless they are some kind of public persons (politicians, musicians, celebrities, banksters etc.).

Stick it on Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to future self: Post all revenge blogs directly to facebook. That way the burden of deleting and proving that it has been deleted can fall on them!

Delete Slashdot

[nickdc]

Some poster called me a crazy conservative, foxnews lovin, right wing republican. I have a right to be free from harassment so that's grounds for deletion. Expect to hear from my lawyers soon Slashdot. Have a nice day.

Re:Delete Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a restraining order against "some poster"? Furthermore, if all the poster did was identify you as belonging to a particular group, and you do in fact belong to that group, it seems like protected speech even if they use epithets to describe said group. OTOH, if they said "you and your party are all nazis and I'm going to track them all down and kill them", that's a horse of a different color.

Yes... and no.

[mark-t]

"the judge said the ex-girlfriend's 'right to be free from harassment' outweighed the guy's 'right to free speech.' "

I would agree that this is true, but only to the extent that the speech is actually part of a harassing communication, such as being sent to the girl's friends or family.

If, however, he is simply speaking about his own experiences on his own website, and does not bother the girl's friends or family with invitations to read it, then I can see absolutely no compelling reason why he should be denied the right to express his opinions on whomever he desires to talk about.

Re:Yes... and no.

[jklovanc]

The guy signed an six-month HRO that prohibited him from (1) committing any acts “intended to adversely affect [Johnson's] safety, security, or privacy,” (2) having “any contact” with Johnson “in person, by work or home e-mail, by telephone, or by other means or persons,” and (3) visiting Johnson's Morgan Stanley “worksite.”

I would say blogging personal information, publicizing it and directly contacting family friends and co-workers are acts intended to adversely affect Johnson's privacy. As punishment he is now being given a stronger/longer HRO. He lost his right to free speech when he signed the HRO.

Re:Yes... and no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Restraining orders are imposed, not agreed to on negotiated terms. That's like when an officer asks you to sign a speeding ticket; it does not indicate you agree or accept the charge, it just merely means you acknowledge receipt.

Re:Yes... and no.

[nstlgc]

Did you read the part where it says "and sending links to posts on the blog to her family, friends, and co-workers." ?

Your comment kind of reads like "I would agree that 1+1=2 but only to the extent that 1=1. However, if 1=2 then 1+1 is not 2."

Re:Yes... and no.

[hypergreatthing]

hmm... i could of sworn that you can't sign away constitutional rights via contract. If you can, anyone want to sign up for my slavery contract?

Re:Yes... and no.

[mark-t]

Of course I did... and he definitely crossed the line in that regard.

What I think is absurd is that the punishment is extending to restrict his freedom of speech where it would *NOT* constitute harrassment.

Ordering him not to ever write on the internet about her again is, afaics, equivalent to telling him to not talk to ANYONE about her.

Re:Yes... and no.

[Haxagon]

I think the only part that really directly violated the Restraining Order was his stupid decision to send blog links to her friends and family. That -was- directly violating the HRO, and he should be punished. I don't, however, think the blog itself was an infringing piece.

Re:Yes... and no.

[jklovanc]

You can sign away free speech rights in a contract. It happens all the time with non-disclosure agreements. For example, disclosing trade secrets from a company one works for, disclosing the contents of an injury settlement, etc. There are restrictions to Free Speach and contracts are one of them.

Re:Yes... and no.

[jklovanc]

Posting intimate details about someone's sex life and mental state is deffinitly intended to adversly effect her privacy. The blog itself broke the HRO.

Re:Yes... and no.

[jklovanc]

Read the judgement: "On December 22, Arlotta consented to entry of a six-month HRO that prohibited him from (1) committing any acts “intended to adversely affect [Johnson's] safety, security, or privacy,” (2) having “any contact” with Johnson “in person, by work or home e-mail, by telephone, or by other means or persons,” and (3) visiting Johnson's Morgan Stanley “worksite.” By its terms, the HRO expired on June 22, 2010." Notice it says "consented to" and not "acknowledged". One does not "consent to" a speeding ticket by signing it.

Re:Yes... and no.

[mark-t]

NDA's are an agreed trade... you agree not to disclose information in exchange for some benefit (such as a job, or whatever). They do not limit your free speech because you consent to those terms, and you are free to refuse to consent to those terms, but then you may not receive the benefit. Freedom of speech is not curtailed by NDA's one iota because of their voluntary nature.

Afaics, the law has absolutely no authority to tell somebody that they aren't allowed to talk to anybody else about their relationship with someone.

Of course, the guy was being a complete idiot sending links to his blog to the girl's friends and family... that communication would definitely constitute harassment and I think it's quite reasonable that he should be punished for that act. I do, however, think that limiting his rights to express his own views on a forum of his own choosing and in the manner he so wishes, to the extent that he does not willfully communicate anything to people who are directly affiliated with the girl, is going more than a little too far. I would liken it in severity to cutting out a person's tongue for being caught telling a lie while under oath in court.

Re:Yes... and no.

[yurtinus]

If you are found guilty of a crime (harrassment in this case) you have already lost constitutional rights. Look at it like getting arrested - being arrested tromps on all sorts of your constitutional rights. Posting bail (or probation, or whatever) is an agreement which grants you back some of those rights on the conditions of your bail or probation. The HRO works in the same way: He already lost his rights through his original harrassment.

Re:Yes... and no.

[jklovanc]

The "agreed trade" in this case was "I don't breach the conditions of the HRO and you don't impose other penalties on me". Since he breached the HRO he no longer gets the benefit of lesser penalties. As it states in the judgment he voluntarily signed the HRO. Here is the quote from the judgement "On December 22, Arlotta consented to entry of a six-month HRO..." He didn't fight it and it was not imposed on him by the court. It probably would have been longer if he had not agreed to sign it.

The law can restrict speech if the sole intent of that speech is to harass someone. He has proven that buy the means and content of his speech about her so far. The main point in this whole proceeding is that harassing speech is not protected speech under the First Amendment.

I would liken it in severity to cutting out a person's tongue for being caught telling a lie while under oath in court.

That is a bad analogy. He can still talk to and about anyone he wants to except the person he has harassed. In no way is he completely muzzled about everything as he would be if his tongue was cut out. A better analogy is being banned from a particular store because he shoplifts every time he goes there. He can still go to other stores; just not the one where he breaks the law.

.

Archive ?

[Jeremy Kister]

http://helpherandchild.blogspot.com/ seems to be the blog in question. doesnt seem archive.org has it.

ehem

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay very close attention to where the judge told HIM to delete the blog, not the blog to delete his content. Those are two very different things.

thats how to lose custody

[dutchwhizzman]

If the father would be able to build a convincing case she abused her restraining order, it would be retracted and she'd be declared unfit to be a parent. Way to go mom...

Re:thats how to lose custody

[erroneus]

That is a NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE case to build and successfully present. Sure, it sounds reasonable and logical and that tactic often applies and works against male parents. But to get a judge to rule against a mother is ... I want to use the word asymptote here when it comes to expressing how probable that is you know? It's 3am here though and the brain wants sleep.

In my life experience, I got the kids but only through fortunate circumstances and even then the judge was reluctant and I was denied child support! (not that it mattered financially, but it certainly sent a message morally and practically)

I dig the idealism but there isn't often "justice" in family justice. Men are second-class-citizens when it comes to family law.

Re:thats how to lose custody

[rohan972]

Men are second-class-citizens when it comes to family law.

You think men have so high a status in family law that they hold any form of citizenship? I would have thought more along the lines of a scapegoat to absolve others of all wrongdoing or a resource to be exploited.

Re:thats how to lose custody

[Hognoxious]

I want to use the word asymptote here when it comes to expressing how probable that is you know?

Why do you want to use the wrong word?

Re:thats how to lose custody

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, we're assholes. And, if we aren't assholes, then we are abnormal. ...damned either way.

Re:thats how to lose custody

[Tastecicles]

I had to chuckle a bit there. It was that or throw a little sick in my mouth.

In the UK, there is a line in the Children Act 1989 that makes it quite clear that fathers have NO RIGHTS in family proceedings. It's right near the beginning. It reads like this:

Section 2, Para.(4): The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.

In most public and private family proceedings, the father is portrayed as not only the "absent parent", more often than not he is portrayed as a clear and present danger to his child.

I can tell you from personal experience: the only people to whom a father presents a danger are those who DARE play God with his family!

Lesser of two evils

[Mathinker]

When I look at the laws I am familiar with, which explicitly do not rely on intent, it seems to me that the problem you raise with using intent is the lesser of two evils. The two laws being: copyright infringement (you can pay less damages for "innocent infringement", but lack of intent is not a possible defense --- problematic in my eyes because only the rightsholder can know what licenses he has actually granted, nor, in many cases, is it even possible to identify the rightsholder), and possession of child pornography (which is really scary because (1) practically any digital file can indiscernibly contain child pornography which is concealed using steganography, (2) the definition of what is child pornography varies between various jurisdictions (so something perfectly legal in one country might suddenly get you arrested in another), (3) in many jurisdictions there is no clear criterion which defines what is child pornography, because some materials (usually textual in nature) may or may not be, ironically depending upon how the court rules about the intent of the creator and whether the material has artistic value or not, and (4) society is so polarized with respect to this issue that even being wrongly accused, no matter how wrongly, will totally turn your life upside-down).

Re:Lesser of two evils

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a few suggestions: get rid of copyright and legalize the mere distribution (but not creation) of child pornography.

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

And those existing harassment laws are exactly what this article is about.

that's the beauty ...

[tobiah]

of the first amendment: simple clear language. Who's going to remember the legislation written today in a hundred years? The actual words?

Re:no blanket right to free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see the word POLITICAL in this:

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

One "entire blog" was deleted!?!?!?

[drb226]

Oh my! That's almost as bad as killing a fly! They might become endangered!

what about the vids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the judge order him to delete all the videos of her he had uploaded on youporn?

Judge Knows Nothing About the Internet

[Froggels]

Hasn't this judge ever heard of the Streisand Effect? By requiring this guy to delete his blog the judge probably made the woman's problems even worse. When will the legal establishment ever learn?

Telling the truth is unlawful if it makes her mad?

[mykos]

If he's lying, we have laws that cover that. If he's harassing her, we have laws that cover that. If he's telling it like it is on his blog, we have laws that cover that...in the first amendment of the constitution.

Why should hurting someone be illegal?

[Dr. Spork]

I'm serious here. I don't think it's the state's business to protect the feelings of people. The state should protect their rights, and there is no such thing as a right to not have your feelings hurt. Just think of how horribly you can fuck someone up, and scar them for life, by telling them that never loved them and that you are disgusted by their various inadequacies. You can do all this for transparently vicious reasons, and doing it might well be deeply immoral, but never in a million years would I want that sort of immorality to be illegal. Can you imagine if we had to police people's feelings? What I'm saying is that in every state that I would ever want to live in, there is such a thing as the right to be a jerk - even a very cruel jerk. Of course the state must guarantee certain rights, like the right to bodily integrity, property, and some extent of protection from harassment and wrongful slander. These, however, leave lots of room for hurt feelings - and that's as it should be.

Re:Why should hurting someone be illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do rights come from? Think about that. They don't really come from anywhere.

I realize you probably won't buy in to this, but actually, from a Consequentialist perspective, emotions (including preferences) are the only reason anything else matters.

Anyhow, this was harassment, so there's that.

Re:Why should hurting someone be illegal?

[delinear]

If you can't see the potential for physical consequences of mentally harassing someone who has mental health issues then I'm afraid you're not looking hard enough.

Re:Why should hurting someone be illegal?

[Tastecicles]

UK: Section 4A Para. 1 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Yes, it's a civil offence to swear at a police officer (although by standing order they merely issue citations now rather than try and arrest you).
It's also a civil offence to do any of the things you just described.

Stupid judge

[gavron]

The judge is a stupid son of a bitch.

He is not only an idiot, but doesn't understand prior restraint, freedom of speech, and thinks his shit shouldn't stink for 50 years.

E

"right to be free from harassment"

[gmhowell]

Is that the new zeroeth amendment? Nice fucking pussy pass from a white-knighting judge.

Epic

[gd2shoe]

If you [...] without being prepared for the possibility of a kid coming out nine months later, I think you're kinda irresponsible.

What? The most important decision in the lives of those to whom you owe your most fundamental moral duty?

I really hope that's dry wit. It's not "kinda irresponsible". It's epic irresponsible.

(And for those who would argue the point: epics have been written with that as a fundamental plot element.)

Cultural differences

[Max Romantschuk]

In most of Europe, removing a blog like this is a no-brainer. Europe is more concerned with freedom of expression and freedom of the press than the US notion of "free speech". For Europeans free speech as a concept is to be able to express one's ideas and thoughts without harrasment or fear of political oppression.

A blog designed to harrass a single person with no political agenda? "Censoring" that is the sane thing to do if you ask me. Society doesn't exist to protect one person's ability to make another one's life miserable.

Re:Cultural differences

[Anonymous Coward]

European Logic: People can't be trusted to use a right like the freedom in speech in a responsible and productive manner; therefore, we must cede the decision as to whether some speech is appropriate to our democratically elected government, so that the worth and utility of the speech in question can be judged by... people.

Re:Cultural differences

[ffflala]

In most of Europe, removing a blog like this is a no-brainer. Europe is more concerned with freedom of expression and freedom of the press than the US notion of "free speech". For Europeans free speech as a concept is to be able to express one's ideas and thoughts without harassment or fear of political oppression.
A blog designed to harass a single person with no political agenda? "Censoring" that is the sane thing to do if you ask me. Society doesn't exist to protect one person's ability to make another one's life miserable.

This is accurate AND sane because the constitutions of most European countries have something that the US Constitution does not: the human "right to dignity". These countries also enshrine the right to freedom of expression (and unlike the US they guarantee it to their citizens, rather than simply prohibiting their government from abridging it.)

Remedies are fashioned when one constitutional right interferes with another --for example when one douchebag's right to freedom of expression interferes with another's right to dignity, or for example when a group of douchebags wants to march through ethnic neighborhood X loudly proclaiming anti-ethnicity-X signs, slogans, and speech.

We Americans could do well to consider whether we should give ourselves a right to dignity. We do not have a right to dignity. Well, why shouldn't we?

Is it really more important to protect harassment, hate speech, and false defamation (in fact, if not in law)? Our current limited set of constitutional rights protects liars and frauds at the expense of others.

'Free Speech' In Brazil...

[chrisreichel]

Here in Brazil even comments in blogs could cause an entirely shutdown. Really. If an user make a comment that could offend someone or be a political propaganda in election times, a judge can ask to remove the content and also there's a possibility to shutdown the website. Another example: In 2007 Daniela Cicarelli (former model and actress) was filmed in a soft porn performance in Spain (http://mashable.com/2007/01/09/daniela-cicarelli/), the video was released public in youtube. What happened? A judge ordered to block youtube. The ban was eventually removed, but the modus operandi of our legal system still the same.

Re:'Free Speech' In Brazil...

[Lisias]

And it goes further.

We have the notion of the "Crimes against honor". While two of them makes sense (injury and slandering), another one is total crap : defamation.

By Brazilian law, anythings said about someone that makes him looks bad to society can be a crime - even if it's plain true.

I could be processed if I expose some facts about corrupt politicians on my personal blog even by presenting proofs - as theses facts will, definitively, makes them looks bad to society.

Press is risky business in Brazil, you must have enough money to retaliate if you plans to say the true about someone around here. Money, or a good political influence on the "defamed" guy's enemies.

And you're a twat

[Anonymous Coward]

And so if I say so on punblic TV and get 100% airtime coverage (I am really rather wealthy and connected), you'll actually fight to the death to make sure I'm heard, right?

Or are you being a twat?

Nostalgic

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the day this kind of thing was settled when the gal's brothers, friends etc would go beat the ex up, make sure he took the blog down, then make sure he never did it again. No courts involved.

Re:Streisand Effect

[zachie]

Right, just like death threats over traditional mail. Nobody is forced to even open the envelope, let alone read the letter, so why bother? Makes sense!

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Your recommendation is that instead of one order to have his action stopped, every single member of her family and her friends have to each individually go to court to request that he doesn't contact them (after the damage has already been done)? That's just insane.

Rights cannot be forfeited.

[Anonymous Coward]

i was always under the impression, right's are right's they are not something you can consent to forfeit, if you could then logically they where not rights in the first place. i can forfeit a claim on an asset for example , but how can i consent to forfeit free speech, or the right to bear arms for example, i might decide not to bear arm's but i would still have the right to bear arms.

If it were me I'd...

[couchslug]

...ask /b/ to back it up first. :)

What if the alleged victim was...

[Anonymous Coward]

A local politician and the man in question was blogging about his or her mental health and how he or she is unfit for office? What if the guy was blogging about a former employer's treatment of his employees? If you switch the roles a little bit, I'm sure most of Slashdot would be up in arms over this decision as an unprecedented assault on free speech.

Don't get me wrong - the sending of unsolicited communications to friends and family should definitely be put a stop to, and the judge who issued this decision would be wise to do so. But restricting freedom of speech because it has the potential to hurt someone's feelings is misguided and dangerous. How long before this decision is used as precedent by someone to silence political or economic opposition? Justice is supposed to be blind - either it's always okay to censor someone so that others may not have their feelings hurt, or it never is. Just because the court decided to help out an "innocent" woman in this case with making sure no one would say anything bad about her, doesn't mean the next time it's not going to be policeman or a legislator using this same reasoning to suppress the truth.

Free speech must be absolute or else it is worth nothing.

Re:What if the alleged victim was...

[Miamicanes]

> Free speech must be absolute or else it is worth nothing.

Er, I suppose you're unaware of something called "Common Law", which is every bit as established and valid in the US as Constitutional Law. If you're writing/speaking about a political cause or politician, you have a very strong (in fact, a nearly-absolute) affirmative defense. If you're writing/speaking about a celebrity or corporation, you have a slightly weaker affirmative defense that's still pretty strong. If you're writing/speaking about a private citizen who's done nothing to merit public scrutiny, you're going to get your ass sued... and sued into oblivion if what you wrote/said is demonstrably slanderous/libelous on top of constituting harassment.

Re:What if the alleged victim was...

[Tastecicles]

The US Constitution is based on the British Constitution which predates it by 91 years. In turn this is predated by Magna Carta (1215) and the Code of Alfred (870), all of which guarantee inalienable rights including the right to address grievances without fear of reprisal.

Unfortunately, civil courts operate on what is called commercial code. This is exactly as it sounds: two sides of an argument scrap it out in polite company of a third, uninvolved and uninterested party: a commercial tribunal. The protocols surrounding said tribunals all revolve around contract law, rather than common or constitutional law. It boils down to agreement of terms of a contract, and if there is a deadlock, the tribunal usually sides with the party with the most money (such is the nature of these tribunals, the little guy always loses). There is no finding of law in these tribunals, merely the interpretation of statutory instruments to suit the circumstances. Criminal code is where you'll find juries who are tasked with the finding of fact, and in the cases involving damages, the award and amount of damages. Guideline penalties are codified in statutory instruments, which the judge may or may not capitalise on to maximise the effect.

Family proceedings are not courts. They are administrative tribunals - basically meetings presided over by a judge or magistrate to give the colour of law, wherein unitary authorities (in public law) or the complainant (in private law) bash out their case and it is on the respondent to prove his/her (mosttimes his) innocence.

Re:What if the alleged victim was...

[Lisias]

Free speech must be absolute or else it is worth nothing.

Shout "FIRE" on a crowded movie hall and prove your point. ;-)

You "CAN" say anything about anything. But this will not make you unaccountable for the consequences of your sayings.

If only he used Facebook instead

[Anonymous Coward]

It would never be deleted

Now wait just a goddamn minute! (Re:Well...)

[Anonymous Coward]

So when do politicians start getting restraining orders against bloggers and other press-types? This had laid the groundwork for using the legal system to silence people who publicize one's dirty secrets.

I agree with you, to an extent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Supposedly the real violation was when he sent the links to her friends and family, which was prohibited in the HRO. He shouldn't be punished for the blog itself.

Re:I agree with you, to an extent.

[DeadCatX2]

Her friends and family are on the HRO? I thought it was just her.

What the judge SHOULD have done was expand the HRO to apply to all of her family and friends.

If he wants to blog some stupid shit that's not false, I believe he should be allowed. The problem is him forwarding this blog to other people as a form of harassment.

He should appeal the length to federal courts

[davidwr]

A 50 year restraining order under such circumstances is either cruel and unusual punishment for criminal activity (i.e. violating a restraining order) or, absent a reason to believe that posting such then-historical information 10 or 20 years from now would be harmful, an illegal infringement on free speech.

Any federal judge would limit the initial order to a few years but allow renewals for material that would be reasonably considered harassing at the time of their posting. As time goes on less and less material dating from 2010 or earlier would be eligible for protection.

I'm afraid it's not that rare

[Tastecicles]

...for a court to order deletion of a blog. I've been at the receiving end of takedowns, and I know several other people who have had the same treatment, when I posted evidence of systemic corruption and child abuse on my blog - the judge asked whether I would be prepared to voluntarily take down the blog, to which I replied no, then he ordered it taken down and the US-based host complied like a lapdog.

The blogs that I've seen taken down contain live evidence of systemic child abuse, forced adoption, trafficking in children between the UK and the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria, Somalia, Romania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Poland - all having been passed through the "child protection" process in the UK. One very recent example concerns a family of six children, all born to married parents one of whom is an ordained church minister, who were taken for adoption - the youngest of which the parents have never had sole care of yet they're both in jail without trial in Pentonville and Holloway for apparently poisoning the little girl. Incidentally, that little girl was taken soon after birth by a gang of police officers and social workers from a London hospital and has not been seen in over a year. You won't see this information in mainstream press because it is all done in *secret*.

I say for the record now that I will continue to post evidence of corruption and systemic child abuse wherever I can to make the public aware that unitary authorities in the UK are nothing more than a bunch of child traffickers and the largest, most secretive pedophile ring this world has ever seen.

All these makes me depressed...

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean you went out with that girl. Once you loved her... I know love can be tough when breaking up, it hurts. I can say the same about the girl. I dont know why she was awarded a restraining order in the first place. But people... is this really necessary... you are not together anymore... move on... find someone else. I feel humanity is loosing it big time... how did we ended up needing these things in the first place (restraining orders, revenge blogs....). Join me in a quest to revamp humanity and it starts now and it starts by being good to one another. Have your feelings in check and think before you act. This would be a BIG step in solving all our sociological problems.

Where do you live?

[fuzznutz]

Jesus! In my state, when you file for divorce, it is required that both parties submit a statement of expenses, income, and net worth. Child support is calculated objectively based upon that. There is even a state minimum mandate.

When I filed on my ex (who ran off and left me with the kids) I negotiated down to the state minimum in exchange for keeping her hooks out of my retirement savings. She admitted to me when she got the numbers from the court that she would never pay a penny if I pressed the issue. For me it was a win, because I knew she would have disappeared afterwards. With the state minimum, she pays $50 per month per kid and she keeps her state nursing license and stays employed. The real benefit will come in a few years when I can start collecting my pension and I won't have to divide it with her. I will be young enough to move on to another job and I should be financially secure for the rest of my life.

Re:Where do you live?

[erroneus]

You would have been better off letting her run away. Eventually, they will catch up with her and she would face jail time... at least in theory. Maybe jail for failure to pay is reserved just for men.

Re:no blanket right to free speech

[Tastecicles]

heh... first I''ve seen someone post the actual text on this thread...

Re:Telling the truth is unlawful if it makes her m

[darkmeridian]

Hahahaha. You say that as if telling the truth makes it all right. There was a gay kid who was outed by his roommate, who tape recorded his sexual congress with another man. The gay kid jumped off a bridge. You have a right to privacy, especially to the facts that are true. If you out the gay kid trying to cause him mental anguish, then you should be punished because there was no value to your actions.

Pretend that there's an abortion doctor. You hate abortions. You start posting the doctor's personal information. You post the time she drops her kid off at school. You post pictures of her house, her car, and her family. You post the kind of security system that she has. You post that she wears a bulletproof vest so you should aim for the head.

Legal?

OT: Stop dating people you're attracted to

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop dating people you're attracted to?

That - or never starting to date people you are attracted to - is actually good advice for some people:

If Sandusky had followed this advice his obituary would read "Penn State Football Coach who succeeded Paterno" instead of child molester.

Explain

[wurp]

Explain where in the constitution freedom of speech is limited. I'm not sure how libel and slander laws are even defensible under the US Constitution. Not that I disagree with them, I'd be happy to see a reasonable amendment to the constitution that disallowed slander & libel.

I am NOT happy with how so many people (including entire government institutions) treat the constitution as meaningless.

Strawman alert

[Anonymous Coward]

And while we're at it, it's a rape victim's fault for wearing a skimpy dress and a collateral damage victim's fault for being too close to where a bomb fell.

Strawman!

Re:Strawman alert

[Rei]

Direct analogy.

Re:Strawman alert

[Anonymous Coward]

For an experiment, try wearing a white robe and hood and walking through Harlem. I'd wager you will be treated differently than if you had worn your everyday clothes. Then tell me that clothing can't be provocative.

The right of non-harassment

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did anyone have a right to not be harassed??? If that's the case, they need to start enforcing it on police who pull you over for speeding. I'd think the freedom of speech outweighs the law of speeding...so logic dictates that the right to not be harassed by police outweighs their enforcement of the speed laws, no?

In addition, I want all of the telemarketers and email spammers arrested for violating my rights.

The 'net is Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet Relay Chat, where men are men, women are bots, kids are cops, and sheep are ops.

I want to know

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont care about the amendments. I just wanna know about her sexual issues. I'm interested now lol

Does anyone have his blog archived?

[Anonymous Coward]

Streisand Effect, here we come!

Re:For All Of YOU Who Agree With This Decision..

[Anonymous Coward]

I went away to see an old friend of mine
his sister came over she was out of her mind
she said Jesus had a twin who knew nothing about sin
she was laughing like crazy at the trouble i'm in
her light eyes were dancing she is insane
her brother says she's just a bitch with a golden chain
she keeps coming closer saying 'i can feel it in my bones
schizophrenia is taking me home'

my future is static
it's already had it
i could tuck you in
and we can talk about it
i had a dream
and it split the scene
but i got a hunch
it's coming back to me

- Sonic Youth, "Schizophrenia", from their album Sister

There is no Boogey Man here. Please move on.

[Lashat]

Sorry, I don't buy the arguement that the judge is overstepping his bounds on this issue. Or that this is a Free Speech issue. Arlotta (the man) seems to have targetted Johnson (the woman, his ex) with a revenge smear compaign. Pretty much harassment by any definition.

(Disclaimer: I am about to make a couple of paragraphs of assumptions based on some previous work experience in the office of a California defense attorney. *Pay attention to these*. I am not looking for a flamewar just providing food for thought.)
I feel some sympathy for Arlotta. Being the subject of a restaining order probably had significant impact on his life and he felt his reputation damaged. I have seen many job applications and California gun permits ask "Have you ever been or are you currently the subject of a restaining order?". *Presumably*, this original restraining order was from a domestic violence incident between the two. *Perhaps* he was arrested and did some jail time. That could have led to him losing his job and having to borrow money for bail, legal fees, or basic living expenses. All of these legal problems and their root cause (the domestic violence arrest/restraining order) would have been exposed to his family, his employer and potential employers. In *most* cases it takes two to tango and he may have felt unjustly burdended with the consequences of BOTH of their actions.

Arlotta gets through the court system with, at the very least, a restaining order. This guys is clever, but not that smart. He figures out how to get revenge or "satisfy his moral outrage", but fails to assertain that judges CAN and should be able to place specific requirements into protective/restaining orders. *Most* restraining/protective orders are written with two main components. "Do not come within XXX yards of person, person's residence, person's business." and "DO not make contact with person in any way including written, oral, electronically, or through a 3rd party."

Arlotta sets up a blog with *his side* of the story bringing up all the negative parts of Johnson's past and personality that *he feels* was responsible for the domestic violence and break-up, etc. Then proceeds to directly target co-workers and family of Johnson to *help ann johnson". What a !great guy. Wanting to help her so much that he figured out how to do so while not *technically* violating the restraining/protective order.

The judge/court gets another request from Johnson to order Arlotta to cease and desist. The judge (a woman) is not in awe of Johnson's clever tiptoeing on the letter of the restraining/protective order. TFA states “The record amply demonstrates that Arlotta’s repeated electronic messages and promotion of his blog were not ‘merely attempt [s] to publish his thoughts and ideas to an audience,’ . The record would include all previous court/arrest records pertaining to the case of Johnson and Arlotta. So, the judge takes away the tools that Arlotta was using to directly target Johnson for *help* she (Johnson) doesn't want.

The judge simply countered Arlotta's cleverness with a precise removal of his method of targetted harrasment/*revenge*/*satisfaction of moral outrage*.

In the end, I am very happy that we are watching these judges and courts closely and keeping them from blanket removals of our personal freedoms in the interest of public good or whatever.

If you made it to the end of this rant. Thank You for your time.

Actually, this is genocide - a war crime

[Anonymous Coward]

The man posted true accounts. He was then accused of doing so for "revenge", which is intent to do UNLAWFUL harm. It is unlawful in the fact he engaged in unsolicited communications, with the intent to intimidate, and thereby cause commercial damage without provocation or solicitation of his communication.

We've been following a case just like this in Texas, which removes children systematically from their parents, and attacks their mental health and right to contact with their children to steal a portion of $500,000,000 USD annually from Federal Programs under fraud (18 USC 1001) and threat (18 USC 242, 872) in violation of a number of Federal laws (15 USC 1673, 28 USC 1738A) and in context in the specific case to commercial securities sabotage and commercial competition (racketeering, 18 USC 1951) using a child kidnapping and fraud to execute this abuse (18 USC 1201, 1202) in context to registration of the victim's name from 2002-2004 by the abductors to damage or destroy the victim and his client (Nortel Networks, NT - recently bankrupt) and for benefit of another major firm (competitor of Nortel Networks, a foreign corporate entity). This case included armed assault at gunpoint, vehicular sabotage, murder of former police informants, and denial of all due process on similar grounds of "silence the defense and defame them for publication in self defense of violence".

Ultimately the State plead Sovereign Immunity to avoid class action, and by doing so invoked "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1988, US Treaty)" Article II b and e, and Article III and IV. This case is just another example of the policies of the United States in suppression of legal speech to conceal criminal activity and collapse of the U.S. Justice System and education system.

The violation - if any - was to transmit the abusive material to the subject's employer AFTER a CEASE AND DESIST by that (3rd) party.

Banning the party from the Internet publication for 50 years, in a specific subject, irrespective of the actual CRIMINAL ACT, is a violation of the due process required to deprive them of a civil right broadly. I cannot disagree with the power to do so, having seen similar malicious and criminal abuse in other cases, citing recent 75 year bans for simple "movie piracy" in Oklahoma, but must cite 76 O.S. and 43A O.S. civil rights and criminal protections of defamation that (per USC Article IV) apply to all U.S. Citizens as defined and fundamental rights on the books since 1901 and effective today.

To say a person should suffer "corruption of blood" (loss of custody, contact, or protection in visitation - known also as Genocide per Article II e CPPCG) which is reserved only for the war crime "treason" in our Constitution, is itself the war crime "Genocide". That we can all attest to it that our family court system would apply the test and punishment to that degree, an indictment of the failure and collapse of the United States of America and its open embrace of war crimes to defend the integrity of the court and court officers even in the express (prior stated) case of report of a TRUE AND LAWFUL FACT or bona fide testimony.

Both of which are protected legal RIGHTS of all U.S. Citizens per USC Article IV, and enumerated under the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma Article II Section II-3 and similar right to be acquitted upon judgement of a jury that the claims therein are true, regardless of any negative impact or consequence in report.

The man should sue for $1 million USD in civil rights damages (1st Amendment) per year of this order (50 years) against the county that passed the order. He should do it now. And we should support him. He can face charges for menacing if they want to apply those, but on the civil grounds of communicating his complaint, his legal right to do so to others is very likely NOT COVERED under the language of the original restraining order. And the judge is just angry and clearly not very competent, suggesting he should be remov

Re:Telling the truth is unlawful if it makes her m

[DeadCatX2]

Pretend that there's an abortion doctor. You hate abortions. You start posting the doctor's personal information. You post the time she drops her kid off at school. You post pictures of her house, her car, and her family. You post the kind of security system that she has.

Creepy. Potentially deserving a restraining order of some sort. But on its face this is not necessarily illegal, especially if the information is all public or can be obtained publicly.

You post that she wears a bulletproof vest so you should aim for the head.

I believe this is illegal. Now you are suggesting specific violent acts against a specific person.

Lesson: Make it hard to delete!

[Anonymous Coward]

So the court orders you to delete your blog. Fine.

Make sure it was already on Usenet. Post it on Usenet 3 ways (anonymously):

First: As is, straight text (and attachments, if any).
Second: ROT13 Encoded
Third: PGP/GPG encrypted. If ordered to delete your blog, release a decryption key. Better yet, have it set up to automatically post the decryption key if your blog is deleted.

Make sure when Slashdot posts about the court decision, someone posts a link in the comments to the version(s) on Usenet.

Then let the Streisand Effect preserve it for eternity. Many people download and archive such things to preserve them against censorship. Someone may actually even restore your blog on a Tor onion site, for example, where it could then be indexed, searched for, and found again on Google, which is out of your hands, and there for cannot be deleted. Oh well, too bad Mr. Judge.

Be aware Mr. Judge won't like that you've done this, and will likely nail you for it. That's why you ask others to do it for you from the beginning. So you can honestly say on the stand, "I didn't do it. I don't know how to do those things, someone smarter than me must have done it."

I may not like what you had on that blog, but since I can't read it, I'll never know. Had you taken steps to preserve it, I could then read it, and decide for myself what kind of scum you might be (or not be). I don't care to have a court hide that information from me, keeping me from making up my own mind on the matter.

Argh

[Anonymous Coward]

It kinda drives me nuts when people who know nothing about the law, about the common-law powers of judges and courts and the traditional system underpinning our courts, start bloviating about constitutional issues in a place where it's not really relevant. Courts have had the power to remedy harassment in exactly this way for a very, very long time. There isn't really any free-speech issue raised here, at least legally. The man here committed at least intentional infliction of emotional distress, and it is within the court's longstanding, fully constitutional power to enjoin him from continuing to do so. Whenever a court imposes an equitable remedy, it always limits someone's legal rights, because the person/party is ordered to do or refrain from doing something which they would otherwise be within their rights to do/not do. This happens all the time, every day, in common-law courts all over the world. I'm not saying don't raise constitutional questions when appropriate, but please please please know something about the legal system before you start getting all indignant.

I am not a lawyer

[wonderboss]

Nor do I pretend to play one on TV.

I don't know what you have to do in most states to get a restraining order. I can site two cases involving friends
in my state.

1. Lunatic ex-girlfriend is calling the police reporting that my friend is repeatedly breaking into her house, stealing things, etc.
They broke up over ten years ago. She never provides any evidence, can't say what was stolen and is incoherent in her dealings with the police. Police
recommend he get a restraining order against her. He has to present the dozens of police incident reports to a judge showing
a repeated pattern of her behavior including threats she made against hem. He gets the order.

2. Ex-boyfriend files for a restraining order requiring another friend of mine to stay a minimum of 100 yards away. This would require
her to quit her job because they both work at the same location. They both appeared before a judge. He presents nothing to show
that she is a threat. No history of violence, No erratic behavior. No threats. Judge tells him to grow up.

Apparently, this guy has serious issues...

[Anonymous Coward]

He set out to destroy a reputation online, and now he has destroyed his own. Andrew John Arlotta, good luck finding any work in the foreseeable future. Any future employer that Google's your name will see how unstable you are.
Seriously - what kind of guy holds on for that long and just. won't. let. go...?
Apparently, the blog was found at:
helpherandchild.blogspot.com

And here he is, with yet another identity, trying to get the blog back:
http://www.google.st/support/forum/p/blogger/thread?tid=183bd660f1392633&hl=en

Here is the text of that entry:

My blog account has been broken into and account deleted. PLEAS HELP!!!! Report abuse

christianitywins
Level 1
8/27/11
Short description of problem:
I was on my account Monday and when I tried to get back on it Thursday it said this account had been deleted. I have since opened the account again using the same e-mail but they will not let me use the same URL. I have lost 2 years of work and I need to get this back. My blogs and account had been deleted and I have sent google many requests but I am not getting any help. I have been praying that I could get in touch withsomeone at google to help me but I am not gettng anywhere. Please Help!!
I can also be reached by e-mail @
iowahawksxomega@aol.com

Thank you for all your help in advance.
my url was
helpherandchild.blogspot.com

Re:Apparently, this guy has serious issues...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what the asshat wrote:
http://pl-pl.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2208828735&topic=200541

Re:Streisand Effect

[cheekyjohnson]

Exactly. No matter what examples you come up with, I support absolute freedom of speech.

And although the situation is similar, this was far from a death threat. At most, it would be speech that offended them.

That can be protected speech

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

It may constitute a threat, which would fall under "conspiracy to commit kidnapping/rape/murder/...".

However, "in general", this is perfectly allowed, and protected speech. I seem to recall an article about a bridge being demolished, where a paper did just that, stating that without the bridge, the kids' route would need to get 25 miles longer. This is perfectly acceptable, even without agreement from the kid (/his parents).

Jurisdiction?

[Meski]

The judge has jurisdiction on the whole Internet? IANAL, but can he really stop this guy posting on a blog hosted in a different country?

The Subject in Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Andrew J Arlotta
(651) 414-9093
1327 Riverside Ln
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1746

His favorite alias, Pekin Ilanis, on Facebook, rallying support for First Amendment rights " to be able to blog about your relationship and the person init at the time" while referring to himself in 3rd person.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=152887344765729&id=69504400403

Not Really

[fuzznutz]

As much as I would have liked to hurt her for the pain she caused me and our children, it was not the smart thing to do. I am much better off financially with the path I chose. When you do an objective cost analysis, I came out way ahead. I am also not spending more money on lawyers trying to get the dissolution amended when she refused to pay support. Besides, she is the mother of my kids and they have been through enough. I would rather them not hate their dad for grinding her into the ground even though I would have liked to.

As for failure to pay, I was on the grand jury a couple years ago and we regularly heard cases for it. It only takes six months of no attempt to pay. They were serious about enforcement. We saw no women indicted, but situations like mine are pretty rare.