Court rules woman can be barred from ranting about kids, ex-husband on Facebook

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

(Photo: MGN Online)

FLEMINGTON, N.J. — A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a court order barring a mother from mentioning her children and ex-husband on Facebook is not unconstitutional.

The order, originally handed down in 2011, was a condition of the mother’s probation stemming from her attempt that year to kidnap her two children away from their father and into Canada, the Courier News reported. The posts, described as “rants,” repeatedly referenced the Book of Revelation, Adolph Hitler, Satan and serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.

The woman’s ex-husband and county prosecutors argued the woman’s Facebook postings were frightening to her family. 

The mother argued that the order violated her free speech rights, but the appellate panel disagreed, saying last week the order was specific and didn’t prevent her from making posts about other issues. 

The woman’s name was omitted from court documents in order to protect the identity of her children, the newspaper reported.

Read more at the Courier News.



  • Anonymous

    Um block and report? No one forces the family to read what she says. As long as there are no direct threats then no censoring. If threats are made then prosecute for the threats. So simple yet so beyond the tyrannical mindset.

  • Andrew Thomas Russo

    At first I found this somewhat alarming, as many others of you have also. However, these restrictions were part of a parole agreement. The rights of convicted felons are often revoked or altered and felons do not enjoy the same freedoms as those of us who have not been convicted of serious crimes. She agreed to this as a condition of early release from prison. I don’t see the problem. Some of you should have read the entire article.

  • pinbalwyz

    Prior Restraint in this instance serves no real purpose, neither rehabilitation nor safety. Those in jail or community custody DO have some rights remaining. Freedom of speech is among them–an inalienable right. She was not charged with or convicted of ‘threatening’ anyone. Moreover, her family is not required to read her rants. This is yet another variation of the ‘thought police’ and mind kontrol.

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.