When liberal laws go too far ....

[Amentep]

4 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Are those assurance even legal? Basically he would want assurance that someone will not tell on him that he broke the court order, which is something people are compelled by law to do. At least in some countries. 

If he had the assurance, he wouldn't be breaking the court order.

Essentially the court says that he can express his dissatisfaction with things provided he doesn't do it to the media or on a public forum (social media) and that anyone he tells assures him they will also not tell the media or a public forum.

  

3 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

He would have to ask everyone to sign an NDA.

Aside, seems like despicable human being.

Yup. Person A assures the dad that he won't tell the media or social media what he says.  Dad vents.  Person A goes to the media and says "Dad says this".  Dad is arrested and charged with contempt of court.  He says "Person A assured me".  Person A says "I did not".  Without a document, its their word against one another.

2 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Fair enough, yes they become worthless if his trusted family goes to the media with what he says. Sorry to ask this but what is the overall point ? Are you saying he should or shouldnt have been jailed and can you clarify why ?

Because the court said "“This order should not restrict C.D.’s right to express his opinion in his private communications with family, close friends and close advisors," and yet, it practically does since he has no way to meet the criteria established by the court without the potential of it going south for him OTHER than not speaking OR getting family, close friends and close advisors to sign legal documents (also, its a false statement anyhow since he's barred from expressing his opinion to his child which would, by definition, be part of his family so the whole statement is a "look we're not infringing on any rights here, honest!" kind of statement).

Do I think he should have been jailed? No.  You can't legislate people to be nice or smart or empathetic.

[BruceVC]

19 minutes ago, Amentep said:

If he had the assurance, he wouldn't be breaking the court order.

Essentially the court says that he can express his dissatisfaction with things provided he doesn't do it to the media or on a public forum (social media) and that anyone he tells assures him they will also not tell the media or a public forum.

  

Yup. Person A assures the dad that he won't tell the media or social media what he says.  Dad vents.  Person A goes to the media and says "Dad says this".  Dad is arrested and charged with contempt of court.  He says "Person A assured me".  Person A says "I did not".  Without a document, its their word against one another.

Because the court said "“This order should not restrict C.D.’s right to express his opinion in his private communications with family, close friends and close advisors," and yet, it practically does since he has no way to meet the criteria established by the court without the potential of it going south for him OTHER than not speaking OR getting family, close friends and close advisors to sign legal documents (also, its a false statement anyhow since he's barred from expressing his opinion to his child which would, by definition, be part of his family so the whole statement is a "look we're not infringing on any rights here, honest!" kind of statement).

Do I think he should have been jailed? No.  You can't legislate people to be nice or smart or empathetic.

You make some very good points that sound convincing, I dont know  enough about the law to comment further

Maybe @gromnir can comment, so what will be the question we need to understand ? Is it  " was it fair and not government overreach that occurred when he was jailed "? I am not sure how to frame it 

Edited May 28, 2021 by BruceVC

[Skarpen]

2 hours ago, Amentep said:

If he had the assurance, he wouldn't be breaking the court order.

How so?
 CD shall be restrained from: i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties;

A third party is anyone, not just media or public forum.

[Hurlshort]

It sounds like the father gave an interview to the Federalist, so it wasn't like he accidentally disobeyed the court order.

Also interesting to note that it was the father that started the entire legal process in this case.

[Amentep]

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

How so?
 CD shall be restrained from: i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties;

A third party is anyone, not just media or public forum.

I was just using the quote I quoted, this just illustrates how limiting the ruling is.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

3 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

It sounds like the father gave an interview to the Federalist, so it wasn't like he accidentally disobeyed the court order.

Also interesting to note that it was the father that started the entire legal process in this case.

So the dad set himself up? lmao

[BruceVC]

On 5/28/2021 at 2:09 PM, Amentep said:

If he had the assurance, he wouldn't be breaking the court order.

Essentially the court says that he can express his dissatisfaction with things provided he doesn't do it to the media or on a public forum (social media) and that anyone he tells assures him they will also not tell the media or a public forum.

  

Yup. Person A assures the dad that he won't tell the media or social media what he says.  Dad vents.  Person A goes to the media and says "Dad says this".  Dad is arrested and charged with contempt of court.  He says "Person A assured me".  Person A says "I did not".  Without a document, its their word against one another.

Because the court said "“This order should not restrict C.D.’s right to express his opinion in his private communications with family, close friends and close advisors," and yet, it practically does since he has no way to meet the criteria established by the court without the potential of it going south for him OTHER than not speaking OR getting family, close friends and close advisors to sign legal documents (also, its a false statement anyhow since he's barred from expressing his opinion to his child which would, by definition, be part of his family so the whole statement is a "look we're not infringing on any rights here, honest!" kind of statement).

Do I think he should have been jailed? No.  You can't legislate people to be nice or smart or empathetic.

Thanks for taking the time to make this unexpected point about this whole case. I am not sure if what you saying is definitely correct but it makes sense. I appreciate the insight, I am not going to comment on this topic anymore because I think the farther is not someone who I should be trying to understand as IMO he has failed in a basic tacit rule of parenthood.....you must support and love your children.