Mark and Elizabeth Byron had a son in July 2010, but their marriage soon became troubled. She accused him of verbally abusing her, threatening her with his fist and threatening to “end” her life.

While Mark Byron, an Over-the-Rhine photographer who has worked freelance assignments for The Enquirer, was exonerated of criminal allegations, a civil protective order was issued instructing him to stay away from his wife.

Mark Byron also argued the same court prevented him from seeing his son. In a Nov. 23, 2011, Facebook posting, he blasted the situation and the judicial system he believed wronged him.

“...if you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husbands life and take your son’s father away from him completely – all you need to do is say that you're scared of your husband or domestic partner...” he wrote on Facebook.

Elizabeth Byron learned of it – even though her husband blocked her from viewing his page – and believed it violated a previous protective order by Domestic Relations Court Magistrate Paul Meyers that prevented Mark Byron from doing anything to cause his wife “to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance, or bodily injury.”

Elizabeth Byron believed her husband’s Facebook rant violated the court order, and the comments about it made by Mark Byron’s Facebook friends made her “afraid,” court documents note.

That, she said, violated the previous order from harassing her – even though the post wasn’t addressed to her and she was blocked from viewing it.

“She wasn’t harassed,” Fakhoury said, “because she deliberately sought this out.”

Meyers found Mark Byron in contempt and ordered him jailed for 60 days beginning March 19 – and to post for 30 days on his Facebook an apology to his wife, written by Meyers, if he wanted to avoid jail.

AzureTyger posted:

---

That, she said, violated the previous order from harassing her – even though the post wasn’t addressed to her and she was blocked from viewing it.

---

Manegarm posted:

---

Idiotic.

---

Manegarm posted:

---

I think getting rid of everyone 50+ out of any position of power would do the world a shitload of good.

---

Manegarm posted:

---

I think getting rid of everyone 50+ out of any position of power would do the world a shitload of good.

---

Manegarm posted:

---

Idiotic.

---

Ptilk posted:

---

This would be my facebook post if I was that guy..

"I'm sorry my wife is a hyperbolic, vindictive, insane bitch. I in no way wish any mental or physical harm to come to her, even though she is doing her best to ruin my god damn life. God will sort her out and I sincerely hope that he doesn't send her immortal soul to hell for eternity for evilly, and without thought to her own childs welfare, separating him from the love and companionship of his father. I wrote this because not only do I fully and, under oath, swear that it is true, but some judge told me he would send me to jail if I didn't".

Then I would kidnap the kid and move to Brazil.

---

Taliesihne posted:

---

This will be upheld, though I don't really agree with it.

It's no different then making someone wear an 'I stole' sign.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

Some are missing the point. He never mentioned his wife in anyway with his statement. It was a generalized statement about the judicial system and what can happen.

If that is the burden for violating the court order she can say she was harassed by anything he posts about anything.

I would appeal on first amendment rights.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

I would appeal on first amendment rights.

---

Taliesihne posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

I would appeal on first amendment rights.

---

You would lose.

No laws have been passed.

---

Taliesihne posted:

---

The precedent for this is already set. As I noted earlier, judges require defendants to appear in public and make apologies\admit to wrong doing all the time.

As the legislature has not passed any new law, I doubt this would be overturned on first amendment grounds. "Congress shall pass no law..."

What it could be overturned on is the harassment\annoyance ruling initially issued. I don't think it will be, but admit that's a viable legal argument.

---

Taliesihne posted:

---

The contempt ruling will not be overturned on first amendment grounds.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

If I tell all your friends you like my wang but I never tell you I haven't done anything to you?

Some of you are really stupid. And yes this is addressed to you.

---

Allstarslacker posted:

---

Manegarm posted:

---

I think getting rid of everyone 50+ out of any position of power would do the world a shitload of good.

---

I doubt it. Everyone who would replace them was raised by them or the people who elected them.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Western society hasn't quite hit the bottom yet, and the climb back up will take a long time. Our biggest problems are societal, and those take multiple generations to change.

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Manegarm posted:

---

Idiotic.

---

This. Who cares what FB says. I never even look at my account. The punishment is akin to being forced to say the word blue.

---

Manegarm posted:

---

as they grow old and we replace them with new people this problem with become less and less apparent with time, the conservative entrenched blind idealists are generally always old people, thus seeing to it that the actual productive part of society is heard and not the f'kin "when i was young" choir.

---

Manegarm posted:

---

Idiotic.

---