I mention this because I am about to go on trial for one of my postings here. No, I did not threaten anyone with tomatoes or anything else. I merely quoted the court psychologist on how he lied to the court in order to deprive me of joint legal custody of my kids, and how my ex-wife asked him to lie. Claiming that this info is confidential is just as obviously unconstitutional as the above order.Respondent is prohibited from posting any information/comments/threats/or any other data on any internet site, regarding the petitioner and any member of her immediate or extended family....This order is a blatant First Amendment violation, it seems to me. Even if the injunction restricted only speech that allegedly fell into a First Amendment exception (such as libel or threats or obscenity), such an injunction would almost never be constitutional unless it was issued following a final decision on the merits that the speech indeed falls into a First Amendment exception
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Judge cannot silence blogger
UCLA law professor (and 1A expert) comments on a recent protective order against someone who threatened to throw tomatoes at a parade:
Labels: free speech, judges
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
We're with you, man.
Post a Comment