Judge Orders Man To Delete Revenge Blog 590
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."
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Redundant)
Remedy matches violation (Score:3)
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
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
What he should have done... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
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 [leagle.com] 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: (Score:3)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 themsel
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 [history.org].
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 ord
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Welcome to MN (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Welcome to MN (Score:5, Funny)
I want to know who this man is. (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Like hell you do. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I want to know who this man is. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
I -do- think this order is un-constitutional. (Score:4, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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 constitutiona
Re:I -do- think this order is un-constitutional. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Unprecedented? Probably. Unreasonable? No. (Score:3)
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.
Cultural differences (Score:5, Insightful)
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:hipaa violation as well? (Score:5, Informative)
no he is not a health organization.
Re:hipaa violation as well? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps not, but you can stop acting on the impulse.
Re:hipaa violation as well? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, even rats have been shown to practice metacognition [cell.com]. 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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:hipaa violation as well? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 wron
Re: (Score:3)
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 evoluti
Re:hipaa violation as well? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 wome
Epic (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re:hipaa violation as well? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Why?
Re:hipaa violation as well? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
"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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re:hipaa violation as well? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
"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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why should hurting someone be illegal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:hipaa violation as well? (Score:4, Interesting)
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:thats how to lose custody (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 verbal
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Misandry is not an acceptable substitute for misogyny.
Re: (Score:3)
Being a man isn't so bad in and of itself.
Re:hipaa violation as well? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
He's obviously a Motie!
Re:hipaa violation as well? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re:hipaa violation as well? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Streisand Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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:I call bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yes... and no. (Score:5, Informative)
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.