Man Ordered To Apologize To Wife On Facebook

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Ordered To Apologize To Wife On Facebook

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @03:36AM from the play-nice-children dept.

New submitter Marillion writes "Photographer Mark Byron was so bothered by his pending divorce and child visitation issues that he blasted his soon-to-be ex-wife on his personal Facebook page. That touched off a battle that resulted in a Hamilton County judge ordering Byron jailed for his Facebook rant — and to post on his page an apology to his wife and all of his Facebook friends, something free speech experts found troubling."

24 of 400 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The lesson here isn't about free speech by elrous0 · 2012-02-22 03:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's about how men are shit on in pretty much any divorce case.
Wife alleges you hit her? Off to jail, guilty until proven innocent buddy.
Wife alleges you molested the kids? Say goodbye to your kids forever, pal. Maybe if you're lucky we'll let you see them for a few hours once a month with a supervisor present.
Wife wants child support? We don't care that she's spending all the money on her new ex-con boyfriend's meth lab, you'll pay it or it's jail for you, sparky!
Wife is a drug addict who neglects the kids? Tough luck pal, she's still getting full custody over you. That's what you get for showing up to court with a penis.
Wife won't let YOU have the kids during your court-appointed custody days? File this paperwork. We'll look into it in about a year, if you're lucky.
You won't let HER have the kids during her court-appointed custody days? Freeze, motherfucker! Get you're hands on your head NOW! ON THE GROUND, ASSHOLE! DON'T MAKE ME SHOOT YOU!
Welcome to the world of divorce court, Mark.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by Toe,+The · 2012-02-22 03:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, it's also about free speech.
  Someone being required by law to post an apology is rather frightening.
  You can't even force a kid to say a prayer, but you can force a guy to pretend he is apologetic?
2. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by Xacid · 2012-02-22 03:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No mod points but I'll applaud you. I suspect this whole story will be riddled with various anecdotes of how the man shafted a man over the same issues.
  My most immediate frustration with the system is the insane imbalance of child support and how it's geared so the father pays 100% of what they say is required to support a kid. Even if prior to the divorce the wife worked and paid half into such expenses. It's completely unrealistic.
  However, this is from my experience as a third party witness. Once of the premarital discussions I had w/ my wife was to agree that we'd settle shit like adults if things went sour. Life's too short to be worrying about making the other miserable. There's no need to drag kids through that crap either. The more disagreements you can resolve outside of the court amicably the better, IMO. Now we'll see if things actually pan out that way if I ever have the cross that bridge...
  As my dad said in regards to getting married "Boy, choose wisely."
3. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by BlastfireRS · 2012-02-22 03:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I can't disagree with the fact that men usually get the short end of the stick regarding divorce and child-related proceedings. Still, the issue here IS about free speech; how can a judge reasonably order someone to issue an apology online like this, while the man was (presumably) writing within Facebook's Terms of Service and directing his thoughts to his friends and family? Facebook pages may be public, but so what; it's still a medium for personal thought, much like a blog. This is actually quite disturbing, and something we need to be proactive against whenever possible.
4. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 03:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A forced apology is not an apology.
5. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-02-22 03:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  However, this is from my experience as a third party witness. Once of the premarital discussions I had w/ my wife was to agree that we'd settle shit like adults if things went sour. Life's too short to be worrying about making the other miserable. There's no need to drag kids through that crap either. The more disagreements you can resolve outside of the court amicably the better, IMO. Now we'll see if things actually pan out that way if I ever have the cross that bridge...
  Speaking as a third party witness to several divorces. You underestimated the influence of your wife's potential attorney. He will strongly encourage your wife to ask for what's more than "rightfully" hers in order to have an advantage during negotiations. Remember the attorney is looking out for himself while he represents your wife. Being fair is not his objective. Getting the most for his client so that he himself will make more is his primary concern. Also the more contentious the divorce the more legal fees he is allowed to charge.
  I have seen amicable divorces but it's a rare thing.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
6. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by liquiddark · 2012-02-22 03:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There's no "even" to forcing a kid to say a prayer. Using a diminishing modifier is wholly inappropriate. I'm a lot more comfortable forcing someone to apologize than forcing them to recite religious text of any sort.
7. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 04:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  More true than you'd know, buddy.
  Consider:
  - Women are almost never arrested, arraigned, prosecuted, or convicted of filing false police reports - BUT
  - A false police report = an arrest record, which can be used against the man in the divorce proceedings.
  True story: my best friend was going out with a waitress, knocked her up... his own fault for failing to use a condom. But he manned up, did the right thing when they split up a year and a half later, filed for custody.
  Judge basically told him he had NO legal rights to his kid other than visitation. He got weekends at first; then the bitch ran two states away to prevent him from even having that after he filed another motion for more rights, followed 2 months later by her filing paperwork about how, from 800 miles away, he had supposedly "not arrived for his visitation once in the past two months." Meanwhile he's got 5 motions in asking the judge to order her to return and stop interfering with his visitation rights.
  Judge THEN ordered... that she move back to the city and not leave without informing the court (a) where she was going and (b) that her travel must not impact his visitation rights. She got back into town, filed a false police report, claimed he had come over and "beaten" her. Police actually did their job, examined her for bruises, took her to the ER to get checked up... not a fucking scratch or bump on her or the kid. She admitted to their faces she was lying to get him in trouble when confronted... but they couldn't haul her in ("because it would leave the kid with nobody to look after her") and the local DA refused to prosecute ("not enough evidence and we'll never get all 12 members of a jury to convict her"). So, there's a record of her CALLING IN a false police report, but no arrest and no arraignment and no conviction on her record... meanwhile my buddy spent an overnight in jail because "standard procedure" said he had to be held in a cell till they could release him after morning paperwork.
  She ran off again a few months later.. and the judge REFUSED to hold her in contempt of court for violating his orders, just filed another "return or else" order.
  Eventually the judge ruled to give her sole custody and my friend only "visitation rights" on a permanent basis, because the now 3-year-old kid had "a mother-child bond." Despite the fact that my friend had been fighting tooth and nail for the right to be a parent to his daughter. The only reason my buddy has custody now is that she turned over custody when she moved in with her "boyfriend" a year later, because the boyfriend didn't want to have kids in his house.
8. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by El+Torico · 2012-02-22 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Remember to record everything on video; just ask Salvatore Miglino
  The Evil Bitch of a Mother-In-Law called 911 and lied immediately after she shot him three times in a planned ambush. Fortunately for him, she's as stupid as she is evil and used a crap ass .22 caliber automatic that jammed. If he didn't have the recording, he would be the one in jail.
  
  --
  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
9. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 04:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Absolutely agree. Having recently gone through a divorce and custody battle myself it amazed me how blatantly biased the family court system is against men that have done no wrong and only want to continue to be a part of their children's lives.
10. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by kelemvor4 · 2012-02-22 04:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's about how men are shit on in pretty much any divorce case.
  Wife alleges you hit her? Off to jail, guilty until proven innocent buddy.
  Wife alleges you molested the kids? Say goodbye to your kids forever, pal. Maybe if you're lucky we'll let you see them for a few hours once a month with a supervisor present.
  Wife wants child support? We don't care that she's spending all the money on her new ex-con boyfriend's meth lab, you'll pay it or it's jail for you, sparky!
  Wife is a drug addict who neglects the kids? Tough luck pal, she's still getting full custody over you. That's what you get for showing up to court with a penis.
  Wife won't let YOU have the kids during your court-appointed custody days? File this paperwork. We'll look into it in about a year, if you're lucky.
  You won't let HER have the kids during her court-appointed custody days? Freeze, motherfucker! Get you're hands on your head NOW! ON THE GROUND, ASSHOLE! DON'T MAKE ME SHOOT YOU!
  Welcome to the world of divorce court, Mark.
  I bet those that have never been divorced think you're exaggerating. When I got divorced, the first time I saw my lawyer he pretty much laid it out exactly as you did. He did mention there were some fairly reasonable reasons for most of that stuff.. but I have forgotten what they were.
11. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by liquiddark · 2012-02-22 04:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "even", in context, is a *diminishing* term. That is to say, it indicates that the lesser evil is forcing a kid to recite religious text. It does not indicate that the two are equal. You're welcome. And there is a huge difference between forcing public apologies (grounded in social traditions and legal liability) versus forcing kids to participate in belief systems (grounded in oppression of alternate belief systems). That you aren't aware of that is a little scary.
12. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by Moryath · 2012-02-22 04:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wish I had modpoints to give - I've two friends who've gone through similar shit. Custody battles turn into more sorts of ugly, and the whole system is predisposed to believe the father is "the bad guy" even in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise.
13. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by Reverand+Dave · 2012-02-22 04:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm 17k into lawyers at this point due to a psychotic ex. I've had to fight tooth and nail just to have 50/50. My kids counselor even thinks that mom is a sociopath but there is fuck all I can do about it. I just hope that one day the kids realize what a crazy bitch she is, but they may never and I just have to be the best dad I can be in the interim even if she is constantly trying to convince them I'm and abusive lunatic. The best revenge is living well.
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
14. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by Tharsman · 2012-02-22 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's pretty fucked up. What bearing does the sex life of the parent have on the fitness of the parent?
  Sex life has every bearing when it comes to marriage. That’s... sort of what marriage is about. It's... you know.... a legally backed monogamous institution.
  In the state in question (my understanding) it's not just the kid’s custody that is lost, but any properties and wealth is not even split in half. The party that was infidel (if only one was) loses every right to everything the law can grant.
  It’s a bit like an insured warehouse. If it catches fire because someone set fire on it, you can claim insurance and that other party may suffer legal consequences. If you set it on fire yourself not only do you get to claim no insurance but you may be subject to legal consequences yourself (i.e.: you lost everything.)
  Note everywhere it may be possible to prove that drug usage, alcoholism or domestic violence from the other party are evidence enough that he can’t have custody, but should the divorce be specifically because of infidelity, well... why on earth is the other stuff not part of the divorce process? And why not just divorce before sleeping with others? In the end, it's not fucked up. You are not happy with the marriage, do the right thing and do a proper divorce before you go sleeping around with others.
15. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by residieu · 2012-02-22 05:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The only reason my buddy has custody now is that she turned over custody when she moved in with her "boyfriend" a year later, because the boyfriend didn't want to have kids in his house.
  Wow. Anyone who would give up custody of her child because her boyfriend didn't like children doesn't deserve to be a mother. I'm glad the kid is in better hands now.
16. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 05:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A good parent is, above all, a role model.
  A bad husband is a bad father.
  A bad wife is a bad mother.
  In more general terms, anyone who breaks a close trust has no place in a position of responsibility.
  A failing marriage can be ended amicably. The partners are free to hump others after this.
17. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by sjames · 2012-02-22 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Having to be 10k poorer just to get what should be the obvious decision actually made is hardly justice.
18. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2012-02-22 06:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I have seen amicable divorces but it's a rare thing.
  My best friend (we went to college together) is an attorney. Back when he was first starting up his own practice he took a few (less than 5 I think) divorce cases just to make some money. The last one he did really shook him up. It's a long story, but to simplify it, his client (a woman) was devastated by the divorce and refused to listen to his advice to protect herself from the actions of her estranged husband and his attorney. He was really close to dropping her as a client when her estranged husband killed himself (he had his own issues) and thus ended the case. He told me "NOBODY wins in a divorce. NOBODY." and he has never taken another one. He simply refuses and refers them to other attorneys. He told me that he doesn't care how much money he is offered, he no longer has the desire to participate in divorces.
19. Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-02-22 10:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  As someone who is both divorced and a child of divorce, I've seen both sides. I'll leave my detailed anecdotal evidence out, and instead say this: I'm absolutely convinced that dissolving a marriage (or perhaps better put, a relationship that was "all-in") leads to some of the worst pain and loss a person can feel, no matter if it's the "right" move, or even if the initial decision is mutual and easy.
  
  In a divorce, a person has to grieve for the loss of the relationship (NOT the same as the loss of the spouse) and the loss of an entire way of life, while, at the same time, dealing with all the underlying bullshit of a divorce. Stuff like paperwork, custody, divvying of stuff and debts, finding a new place to live, a new bed to sleep on, maybe a car, who keeps the turtle and who gets the dog, plus stuff like figuring out alimony, child support, who claims who on taxes, and about a billion other minutiae. While dealing with this, they *should* be attempting to suppress all emotional outbursts and backstabbing behavior (especially with regards to the kids). Failing at this last bit is where all the negative anecdotal stories comes from. Accomplishing a smooth divorce with all this shit going at the same time requires a near super-human amount of effort from BOTH parties, and if there are kids, it's an ongoing, never-ending self-discipline that must be learned and practiced at all times. Believe it or not, it doesn't help the kids (like, not even a little) to know that Mommy's a cheating whore, or that Daddy puts crushed smarties in his nose before work. Also, sometimes, one party should just decide to give up on a lot of things they want - things like the LCD, or being "right", or sole legal custody - in order to get what they need - which are things like joint physical and legal custody. (pop quiz: Guess which one I was, as a male father in Utah? I digress).
  
  Of course, it gets much, much easier with time, and as various milestones are reached. Many people can end up being friends later on (my ex and I are, actually, though we still piss each other off sometimes; there are reasons we split). This friendship actually concerns my girlfriend (I think that concern is absolutely hilarious, but I do try to be sensitive). But we, as I'm sure most divorced parents learn to do at some point, still put a lot of work in to put that happy smile on things. I think the best possible way to teach people how to negotiate is to force people to go through a divorce involving kids amicably.
  
  Anyway, my point is: If you do it right, over time, your kids won't see how difficult the divorce was; it'll just seem like a "meh" type thing to them. I know that's how my folks' divorce seemed, until I got to chatting with my mom during my own (my dad died many years prior). I feel pretty safe declaring no divorce is peachy-keen with peppermint hugs and rainbow butterflies in the beginning.
Remind me again how Facebook is beneficial by gatkinso · 2012-02-22 03:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

All I seem to read about is how governments/stalkers/employers/ex spouses/what-have-you use your profile against you.

--
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
1. Re:Remind me again how Facebook is beneficial by dreemernj · 2012-02-22 04:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It is beneficial the same way The Matrix was beneficial to the machines. You plug into it. You accept the programming because you do have a choice. But, since so many of your friends and family are on it and they are planning their events and spreading information through it, you might only be aware of the choice at a subconscious level since, in the right situation, choosing to disconnect can feel like giving up the world you know and the people you've met in it.
  
  Once you are plugged into it, Facebook begins harvesting demographics and interaction data the way the Machines harvested BTUs and processing power.
  
  And, much like Agent Smith assimilated the virus-like behavior that he had once disdained in humanity, Facebook has assimilated human behavior into its process for expansion, ensuring an ever growing net of data capture.
  
  --
  1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Re:So... by Lashat · 2012-02-22 05:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Agreed.
Wear a bag on your mule when you are hammering strange vag.
I voluntarily apologize for the obviously chauvinist choice of words while making my point. I could have made the same point to more or less effect by writing. "Apply a prophylactic to your gentails prior to consenusal intercourse with partners unkown sexual history and/or psychological profile. "

--
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
It is called a restraining order. by jklovanc · 2012-02-22 06:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

This sounds very familliar to another case a few months back. The thing to remember is that the guy has a restraining order in effect that he is restrained from doing anything to cause his wife “to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance, or bodily injury.” His wife does not have to directly read the posts on the site to be harrassed or annoyed. They probably have mutual friend who could forward the posts; indirect harassment and or annoyance.
As for requiring to post an apology, there are many cases where people and companies have been ordered to publically apologize for their conduct. Such apologies need to be done in the same venue as the damage. In this case the issue was caused on Facebook and needs to be addresses on Facebook.
"Freedom of speech" has never been completely free. There have always been limits including, as in this case, court orders. The main thing to remember is that when under a restraing order follow it and shut up.