Scary - Let's make another Federal case out of it

You probably heard the widely reported story by now of the man who is being threatened with jail for posting comments about his ex-wife on Facebook? As in our blogger's case here, the man's comments were not sent to the subject. He was merely exercising his First Amendment right and posting his thoughts and opinions about someone on the Internet.

But now a judge is penalizing in the man, as in our blogger's case, for speaking his mind. (Loss of 4th Amendment for the former. Loss of 2nd Amendment for the latter.)

Really, the solution here is to repeal all State "harassment" laws. They violate the First Amendment right to free speech. That's partially what our blogger's federal civil right lawsuit, Michael's Law, attempts to do.

Here are excerpts from the story:

CINCINNATI (AP) — A man [Mark Bryon] who was threatened with jail time for posting comments about his estranged wife on his personal Facebook page unless he posted daily apologies for a month says the court ruling violates his freedom of speech.

. . . the Cincinnati man and free speech and media experts say it should concern other users of the social networking site.

With hundreds of millions of people using Facebook for communication, Byron said that "if they can do this to me, they can do it to others." [AMEN! They have!]

The idea "that anybody could tell you what to say to your friends on Facebook should be scary to people," said Cincinnati attorney Jill Meyer, who specializes in free speech and media issues.

The ruling is highly unusual and "troubling because it's a court telling someone to say something to — in some regards — his chosen group of friends," said Meyer. She noted that the comments were not directed to Byron's wife, Elizabeth Byron, who was blocked from accessing the page. [That is, it's a Fifth Amendment violation. Forcing a 'confession' if you will, out of someone by threatening them with jail.]

According to the ruling, Byron posted comments on his page in November, saying in part, "If you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband's life and take your son's father away from him completely — all you need to do is say you're scared of your husband or domestic partner and they'll take him away." [Remind you of anyone Melody Anne Bodine / Melody Thomas-Morgan?"]

Byron's comments expressed frustration, but they were not threats and he didn't make them to his wife, said Cincinnati attorney Jack Greiner, who also specializes in free speech and media issues.

Greiner said he doesn't think the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, "allows a court to find that someone has harassed or caused a person to suffer mental abuse merely by expressing one's opinion about a court proceeding in a non-threatening way." [BINGO!]

Greiner said that a court compelling speech through a court-written apology raises as many free speech concerns as actions prohibiting free speech.

The ruling says several of Mark Byron's comments were "clearly intended to be mentally abusive, harassing and annoying" to his wife and "generate a negative and venomous response toward her from his Facebook friends." [So what? Even if they were, it's a right we have. This is Thought-Police stuff. And what, you don't think his ex-wife is telling her friends mentally abusive, harassing and annoying things about her husband?]

His comments were "nothing other than free speech communication where he was venting truthful information," Ford said.

We hope they make a federal case out of it. This harassment by women has got to stop.

Free Speech. Use it or lose it.

High-schooler "Harasses" Gov. Brownback

Our blogger is reluctant to share this link because he doesn't condone the language used in the story. But free speech is free speech. Did you hear about the high-schooler Emma Sullivan who tweeted some disparaging remarks about Gov. Brownback?

So Miss Sullivan was called to the principal's office and told to apologize.

What? Did Gov. Brownback seek an Injunction against Harassment? And who does the principal think he is? Judge Kenton Jones?

See, this is the mindset of those on the Left. They'll tell you that you have a First Amendment right to free speech. But what they really mean is that THEY have the right to free speech. They can even cuss in your face. But if you say anything they don't like, they'll tell you it's wrong. (Or run and get an Injunction Against Harassment against you.) Remember the DemocRATS telling the Republicans about devise speech and then immediately turning around saying "Let’s take these sons of bitches out"?

Indeed, that's what cheating Judge Mary Hamm did with our blogger. If you read Melody Thomas-Morgan's petition for an Injunction against our blogger, she quotes, out of context, that Judge Hamm said our blogger was "dangerous."

Here's the full context, quoting from the court transcript. In fact, what the cheating judge said was that the First Amendment is dangerous.

See, our blogger had sent letters to the late Mrs. Bodine's pastor and future son-in-law, warning them, in part, about the late Mrs. Bodine. Gasp! Not legally "acts directed at a person"—nor ever entered into evidence—but who cares about the law when you're a cheating judge anyway? Judge Mary Hamm said writing such letters was "dangerous."

We agree. The First (and Second) Amendment is(are) "dangerous." To tyrants.

They're so "dangerous" that the Founding Fathers thought it wise to protect these rights. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court and even the Ninth Circuit still uphold our right to free speech, even if offensive to some.

From our bloggers federal lawsuit against Judge Kenton Jones,

In March 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate." (Quoting Justice Roberts in Snyder v. Phelps, et al. 562 U. S. ____ (2011)) The case cited involved religious free speech. (The infamous Westboro Baptist church.)

27. Similarly, in mid-July 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed a criminal conviction of a man who blogged about 50 caliber bullets and a presidential candidate. Ostensibly real, serious "death threats." But as Chief Judge Kozinski wrote, "Taking the two message board postings in the context of all of the relevant facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Bagdasarian had the subjective intent to threaten a presidential candidate . . . given any reasonable construction of the words in his postings, those statements do not constitute a “true threat,” and they are therefore protected speech under the First Amendment." United States v. Bagdasarian, 2011 WL 2803583 (9th Cir. July 19, 2011)

28. Taking the blog That Woman Jezebel in the context of all of the relevant facts and circumstances, given any reasonable construction of the words in the postings, the statements in the blog do not constitute a “true threat,” and they are therefore protected speech.

29. It is not necessary for the court to make this determination, for ironically, while crafting this complaint, I received a Cease & Desist letter from Thomas-Morgan's attorney. In the letter (Exhibit 3), Thomas-Morgan, through her attorney, acknowledges the blog is First Amendment protected speech, stating ". . . you certainly have the right to blog about your various fixations with Ms. Thomas-Morgan . . . "

30. And earlier, in her petition, she consistently puts the word "death" in quotes, making it clear that even she understands the word is not to be taken literally and knows there is no true threat.

31. Considering the popularity of blogging and micro-blogging (i.e., Twitter) in American society, it is in the public interest for this court to rule that blogging is protected speech and cannot be considered harassment.

So high-schooler Emma Sullivan was within her rights to tweet her comments about her Governor. The only good thing from the story is that Gov. Brownback's office apologized for overreacting.

We don't expect the late Melody Bodine will ever apologize. She's dead. Likewise, we don't hold any hope for Miss Melody Thomas-Morgan.

Hurray for the First Amendment + Bad Phoenix Cops

I'm late posting this (in Internet time, anyway), but do you remember the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month upholding the First Amendment and our right (among other things) to free speech? Freedom to exercise religion too, as the instant case was about both, Fred Phelps' group's right to exercise their religion by exercising their free speech. (As here.)

Free speech, even if considered "hateful" by some, is a cherished right in our county. (Unless your name is judge Mary Hamm. Then you believe free speech is "dangerous" and you cheat, engaging in ex parte communication to silence people with bogus Injunctions based on what you "imagine.") The Westboro Baptist case about free speech was so obvious, it's sad it had to all the way to the Supreme Court to be sustained with a 7 to 1 vote.

Even a legal group associated with Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Liberty Council agrees, saying

Sanctions such as the civil damages pose a significant threat to First Amendment freedoms by chilling the very kind of controversial speech our Founding Fathers sought to protect. Liberty Counsel does not endorse the message contained in the protesters’ signs and other communications and even expressly condemns the offensive tactics of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church and the content of their rhetoric. However, Liberty Counsel stands with the Founders in supporting the right of protesters and other citizens to present messages of their choosing, even offensive messages, without the chilling effect of tort or other liability or governmental censure.

As another example of protected free speech, see the blog badphoenixcops. While I applaud the spirit of badphoenixcops, their language, photos and style are very coarse. And while it's true that unless you repent, you'll pay in hell, it's not my place to give you hell. So my blogs aren't as abusive as theirs.

Anyway, these guys have targeted now former Phoenix police chief Jack Harris (among others) in a relentless negative publicity campaign. (So the First Amendment right for redress of grievances is invoked too.) To the point that they have achieved "critical mass," where police officers from inside the Phoenix PD anonymously sent photos, tapes, memos, tips, etc. Someone from within the Phoenix PD even left a nice present at their door.

As a result of their blog (in part), Jack Harris finally left office.

So hurray for free speech. The funny (ironic) thing about free speech is that those who would silence our free speech (generally those on the Left) are the same who say anything they want about us who are right, as in Wisconsin Union protests and Chris Matthews on Hardball.