Robbers Target Man, 70, In Mount Washington Home

An incomplete report. It says that he violated a previous court order but, it did not specified what the order was. or at least it wasn't clear. It also doesn't go into all the details of the case. Was it defamation? We the reader need to know more details to make a better judgement. The ruling could be justified depending on the details or it could be a gross violations of his right but without the details we are only left with taking sides blindly.

this stupid site keeps resetting every few seconds and posts are going away..

Another bad article that does not tell the whole story. Why did the judge rule as he did.

Mass communication law can conflict with the First Amendment. If I publish a newspaper, I can print news and commentary about anything of public interest or anything made public, such as a robbery at a bank or someone arrested for mass murder. I can also publish scathing commentary about public figures (famous people)--politicians or actors. But I _can't_ use my publishing power to publish an insulting or defamatory rant about a _private citizen_ who is not of any demonstrated public interest--simply because I have a personal vendetta against them privately. As a _publisher_, that would result in a law suit, that I'd easily lose. A newspaper publisher or columnist, for example, cannot use his publishing power to print an ugly rant about an ex-girlfriend, who is _not_ a public figure, in a way that makes her identifiable. That's not legal to violate a private citizen's privacy in that way; they're not a public figure (to which a different set of laws would apply--and a person can become a public figure without their consent; but this guy's ex-wife is definitely was not a public figure at the time he publish whatever it was he expressed). Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And so the fact that most people are completely ignorant of the *fact* that when they put something in writing and disseminate it on the Internet, they're actually subject to the same laws that apply to publishers--and no longer operating under the laws applied to private citizens expressing private ideas to their friends in person. If people don't understand the difference between publishing material and making private statements to a friend in a bar (as this guy described)--they may be in for an ugly welcome to the wonderful world of communication law. If you choose to become a publisher, and start disseminating in print media, according to the law, you can't identify and thrash private citizens you don't like, in the pages of your published material (even if you're only publishing to 50 friends on Facebook). And if you do, you'll be forced to retract it or face legal consequences. It's exactly what would be done to a newspaper publisher who did what he did. He just wasn't aware that's how the law views him the moment he hits "post" and beings _publishing_ his rants about a _private citizen_, who was identifiable. He is acting, _according to the law_, in the role of a _publisher_.

I agree he was wrong to air his dirty laundry, but there is still the 1st ammendment, of which it seems we no longer have. Our government is over stepping their bounds. Why have the constitution if the government interprets it their own way and oversteps their bounds?

Keep trying to comment, but the stupid video refreshes the entire page every time the video changes. Lovely.

Here's what he should do: apologize for the 30 days, and then on day 31, post "I didn't mean any of those apologies. Go ^&*(^& yourself!" The judge never said he couldn't retract the apology afterwards :)

101 reason not to have facebook, Need I say more, that's why I will not

Why is she reading what he has to say? is kind of staking him, close the gate and don't mind him lady.There is no point on apologizing he is not sorry it has no value.

Wow if this happened over a husband wife dispute I guess I better go get rid of all my posts about incompetent Government or face life in prison at GITMO

Strange how most people are so hung up on their rights and refuse to look at their responsibilities... One can't enjoy one without the other.

Why do people use their children as weapons in divorces?

post the apology, then post what you think about the judge !

This is a violation of his first amendment. He has every right to voice his frustration about his upcoming divorce and his frustration about seeing his son. I think the ex wife is just getting back at him for whatever reason. This is just a sneak peek as to how she is going to be in the future. As long as he didn't threaten her with physical violence, he had every right

Let me explain what is happening people and I will make it very simple. You are bowing down! So... they keep taking.

The way I see it, the only thing he is guilty of is immaturity. I don't think that is a crime yet.

Its not about whether he is a good dad or not, its not about whether he lied, its not about your opinions of their family problems. Its about a court forcing a man to post a prewritten apology on social media, and also restricting his use of social media. Thats what the story is about. You guys are completely missing the point, trying to argue about whether or not he should have to apologise. If you dont see how this is a violation of free speech, you dont deserve to have free speech. People in other countries are dying and going to prison for fighitnng for free speech, only in the US would people just roll over and give it away to the courts

Judges need to be banned from facebook. Great, now I'm looking at 60 days for this comment....

i'd go to jail.

What kind of comments does he wants to share on facebook?