Court Tells Man, Stop Blogging About Your Divorce

A Vermont divorce has turned into a free speech debate, reports The New York Times:

The husband, William Krasnansky, posted what he calls a fictionalized account of the marriage on his blog late last year. His wife, Maria Garrido, complained to the judge overseeing their divorce, who ordered Mr. Krasnansky to take down "any and all Internet postings" about his wife and their marriage pending a hearing next month.

Mr Krasansky claims that this amounts to censorship before publication, a rare violation of the First Amendment. The case is stirring up a major discussion about just what level of online disclosure is permissible under the law.

We believe he should have the right to say whatever he wants and his ex-wife should have the right to sue him for defamation if he says anything on there that is clearly damaging and clearly about her. The judge was out of order in demanding he take down the blog without a hearing.

But have you seen the blog? Omigod. First of all, it's called "LookAtMyPugs's Jurnull." That title should be illegal.

Here's a sample of the "fictional account" contained on the blog:

"What is love?", I hear you ask ... If ever there was a Question For The Ages, that surely is one ... And, since you did ask, Dear Reader, I'll tell you ... Love is that state of Grace in which the happiness of another person is essential to one's own. And love, Dear Reader, is realized and made manifest through acts. And yet there are those who, tragically, are incapable of happiness.

Then it becomes a swirling mass of legal claims, lost money, belittling remarks and photos of two (adorable!) pug dogs. We've witnessed some acrimonious divorces in our time, but this is one bitter divorced guy:

In summation, it can be fairly stated that I did everything both necessary and possible to effect both the pursuit and the furtherance of Ms. Incompetent's client's goals and "life-long dream," that I did so with same ardor as if I had been in pursuit of my own goals and my own "life-long dream," and that I whole-heartedly, selflessly and without reservation supported Ms. Incompetent's client in her pursuit of her goals and of her "life-long dream," regardless that she had already once filed for divorce and regardless that so doing, as noted previously, required I make egregious sacrifices, including but not limited to leaving the city where I had made my home for a quarter of century, this being, at the time, over half my life and, in so doing, that I leave a land where it literally never snows and where the climate is mild year-round for one where the climate may be fairly characterized as semi-arctic for four to five months out of twelve.

Yowza. We don't know why the ex-wife is complaining. This blog seems like a really valuable thing for her. If she ever wonders why they're not married anymore, she can just click the link for a refresher course.
Read it all at AOL.

Comments

[Jeanne M Hannah]

Privacy rights should not be overshadowed by another's right to free speech. But Krasnansky's blog was certainly over the top.

I was initially concerned about the two juxtaposed issues of free speech and domestic violence in the Garrido / Krasnansky issue. Should, in fact, the judge issue an order that Mr. K take down the portions of his blog having to do with his wife and marriage?

I blogged the case on January 11, 2008. I was concerned because I saw the judge's ex parte order as a prior restraint - a No No to lawyers favoring protection of First Amendment rights. But I also saw the issue as one involving domestic abuse.

And then things changed when Mr. K chose to telephone me. Here's what happened next and more commentary on how the Internet can be used inappropriately as a form of harassment. You may be interested in how a Michigan court recently handled a similar case involving privacy rights and free speech. http://tinyurl.com/c46jgq Jeanne M Hannah http://jeannehannah.com