Slashdot Mirror
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."
no he is not a health organization.
He violated a restraining order. The first amendment issue isn't novel just because he happens to be talking about her on a computer.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
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?
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"?
And it makes our women AWESOME.
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
Usually that line is drawn at whatever the criteria are for getting a restraining order. What those are varies by jurisdiction, I bet.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
more cowbell
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?
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.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
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.
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.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
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.
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.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
He's obviously a Motie!
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
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...
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?
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.
Misandry is not an acceptable substitute for misogyny.
FC Closer
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.
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".
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.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
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.
Perhaps not, but you can stop acting on the impulse.
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
"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.)
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".
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.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
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.
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.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
The only time a woman isn't going after a fucktard on impulse is when she is doing it a warp speed!
FRA: STFU GTFO
Perhaps having a little more respect for women than a place to "stick your eleventh finger" might be a good start for you.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
At that point, however, he could still face prosecution for libel if he couldn't prove what he'd said was true.
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.
.: Max Romantschuk
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.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
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.
I am officially gone from
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.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
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.
Why?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.