Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Court Orders Woman Not To Post Details About Family Court Proceeding Involving
Her Brother:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_26-2009_08_01.shtml#1248736577
The [1]Rhode Island ACLU, which is representing the woman, reports:
In a case raising important issues of freedom of speech, the Rhode
Island ACLU has intervened in Family Court on behalf of a
Barrington woman who has been barred by the Court from posting on
the Internet any details about a pending Family Court custody
proceeding in which her brother is involved. In a motion filed with
the Court, RI ACLU volunteer attorney H. Jefferson Melish calls the
ban a violation of Michelle Langlois� First Amendment rights. The
motion also argues that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to
issue the order because the proceeding was filed in Kent County,
even though neither party lives in that county.
Ms. Langlois� brother is involved in a child custody case with his
ex-wife. After Ms. Langlois posted information about the case on
her Facebook page, the ex-wife filed a �domestic abuse� petition
against her, claiming that Ms. Langlois� postings constituted
�harassment.� The ex-wife�s petition sought a court order barring
Ms. Langlois from posting any information about the case on the
Internet. In late June, Family Court Judge Michael Forte issued
such an order. When Langlois contacted the ACLU about the matter,
the ACLU agreed to provide her representation to challenge the
constitutionality of the Internet restriction.
RI ACLU executive director Steven Brown said today: �The court
order issued in this case is a significant intrusion on the First
Amendment. Every person has the right to comment on public court
proceedings, and the court order that prevents Ms. Langlois from
doing so on the Internet is precisely the sort of prior restraint
on speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect against.
Ms. Langlois should no more be barred from speaking out about this
case than should a reporter seeking to post information about it on
a newspaper web site. We are hopeful that this troubling order will
be dismissed.� Michelle Langlois added: �I do not believe the truth
was coming out in Family Court. I was simply using the internet to
publicize my brother�s plight.�
I've seen the order, which indeed says that Michelle Langlois "is
restrained and enjoyed from posting details about the children and the
pending Family Court proceedings on the Internet." The order strikes
me as pretty clearly unconstitutional; I hope the Rhode Island ACLU
prevails on this. An order that bars certain constitutionally
unprotected publications might be constitutional (for instance,
[2]information that a party has gotten using coercive discovery, or
some other category of communication that may be constitutionally
restricted). But I see no justification for categorically prohibiting
the defendant from posting (1) any comments about a government
proceeding, to which she is not a party -- including, for instance,
criticism of the judge's behavior -- and (2) any information about her
young relatives.
References
1. http://www.riaclu.org/News/Releases/20090722.htm
2. http://supreme.justia.com/us/467/20/case.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
