Man Ordered To Apologize To Wife On Facebook

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."

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

At least someone is trying [wikipedia.org] to change things.

Re:Here is something..

[wbr1]

I posted the above not having read the entire order, just scanning it, but it appears that he was under an order not to cause mental anguish, harass or annoy his wife, and the wall posts were found to violate that specific order. Especially as some of his facebook friends were adding fuel to the fire. I don't agree but that is spelled out in the order.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

If only this weren't true.

When I was a kid, my mom got custody of myself and my sister, and Child support. She didn't use much of the money for us kids, most of it went to help ensure that she (and her current boyfriend at any given time) had plenty of smokes, pot, cocaine and didn't have to spend too much time sober. Most of the time, she couldn't keep utilities paid (often no phone, electric and/or gas), and there was rarely enough food.

Yet, somehow, she managed to keep custody. She wonders why her kids avoid her now that we are grown up.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech

[dkleinsc]

I should point out that this is definitely changing. For instance, my mother worked family law for about a decade in New Hampshire. The judges there seemed to have a basic rule of 50-50 division of the assets, joint custody of the kids, no child support or alimony. If one parent wanted to avoid custody (more common than you might think), then they'd have to pay child support.

For instance, if she claimed abuse, they'd want to talk to a coworker or somebody else who saw her regularly to see if there was a pattern of unexplained injuries. If she claimed that he was molesting the kids, they'd have the kids talk to a shrink to see if she was right. If there was a question of drug addiction or alcoholism, they'd check on that. The kids had representation in court with the power to reject custody arrangements that put the kids in a bad situation, and older kids were asked what they wanted with an expectation that this request would be followed if it was reasonable.

In other words, it was far more sane and equitable than you're making it out to be. Now, that was New Hampshire, I wouldn't be surprised if things were different in Mississippi, but don't hate on the people that are actually trying to do things the right way.

Re:Here is something..

[broseidon]

Wow.. that protective order is chock full of lawyer and woman trickery... He has to post that paragraph of BS on his facebook wall EVERY DAY for 30 days?! That right there is the signature of a SERIOUSLY vindictive woman. I'm not even sure vindictive is a strong enough word.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech

[VoidCrow]

You idiot.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This is standard procedure internationally and is based on one flawed experiment conducted without the concent of the participants:-

The idea for these arrests came from something called the Minneapolis Police Experiment (MPE) of 1981-82. In the experiment police offices were given pads with one of three words written on them; counsel, send or arrest. Counsel meant the officer was to try to mediate the couple's spat. Send was to send one of the spouses out of the house for eight hours as a cooling off period. Arrest was arrest one of the two spouses. The officer was to do as the top paper on the pad said to do. The experiment was set up by the Police Foundation and Lawrence W. Sherman was the lead researcher. The results show counseling resulted in a future assault in 24% cases, send was 19%, and the arrest option resulted in a future assault in only 10% of the cases. Perhaps a cheap way of cutting down future domestic violence.

In 1984 The U. S. Attorney General's Task Force of Domestic Violence recommended arrest as the primary weapon in domestic violence assault. Lawrence W. Sherman recommend not using the arrests because the MPE was just one study and it could be wrong. They ignored him. And by 1992, 93% of the police departments in the nation had adopted some form of mandatory arrest in domestic violence cases.

But by 1992 five more addition studies similar to the MPE became available. Lawrence W. Sherman reviewed all five studies. Then once again he wrote that the police should not use arrest. In two of the five studies, they found the same result as they did in the MPE, that an arrest cut down the odds of a future assault. But in the other three studies an arrest actually increase the odds of a future assault. So arresting someone in a domestic violence situation to cut down on future assaults did not work any better than just flipping a coin. I do not know if Lawrence W. Sherman is still alive. But fortunately he wrote a book call Policing Domestic Violence that was published in 1992.

So we have 800,000 American police officers arresting one in every six adults in the country and throwing 25% of the men, women and children out on the streets in an effort to enforce a policy that they knew did not work back in1992. And I had always assumed that you needed a man to really screw something up. Oh well, there goes another glass ceiling.

Why would they push an arrest policy that does not work? There are two schools of thought on the reason why. The first comes from Lawrence W. Sherman. He calls it the Law of Just Desserts. Revenge for slights and offenses, real or imagined. I am sure there are some that would argue that women are not vengeful. But what is that old saying? Hell hath no fury...

See http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2686327&cid=39126951 [slashdot.org] for full details.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech

[Tharsman]

Some one else replied to your post with a perfect answer to that, I requote it replying to you so you can see it (since ACs stay a bit hidden here)

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.

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech

[element-o.p.]

My brother married a woman shortly after graduating from boot camp. Fast forward two or three years, they are separated and filing for divorce when she tells him she's pregnant. She's been two states away for a month or two, so he gets the DNA paternity test done. Doctor says there's about a 70% chance it's not his kid. Judge says, "Find out whose kid it is, and I'll let you off the hook for child support." Good luck with that -- she's not gonna admit she's been sleeping around, so my brother was S.O.L. I think he's only got another ten or so years left on child support for that kid. Oh, did I mention that since he had adopted the two kids she had from a previous marriage, he was paying child support for them, too?

Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sick of the "anecdotes" bullshit. Look, if you don't believe the system is slanted to favor women then you a) don't have a penis and/or b) haven't been through a divorce. You're getting some first hand accounts...you may think the commenters are pulling your leg (hence using the word "anecdote") but I've been in similar situations with similar results and have been railroaded by the system for simply being a man. Its unfair, its bullshit. How would you examine records to see if a man or woman was treated fairly? In most divorces the "negotiations" between parties is not recorded nor transcribed. You have a lot of growing up to do.