4 ms·

I'm not going to elaborate other than to say my speech was restrained due to someone else's actions, but family court is definitely an area where common practic

I'm not going to elaborate other than to say my speech was restrained due to someone else's actions, but family court is definitely an area where common practice has strayed very, very far from anything resembling constitutionality. One such example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/30/first-amendment-challenge-to-broad-gag-order-on-family-court-litigants/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

xeromal 5y ago
You can't bring up an anecdote as a counterpoint then refuse to explain the anecdote. It's a bit unfair. Edit: someone posted the rules that says we should accept people's comments in good faith. I'll try to do that. Leaving this comment for posterity.
- borski 5y ago
  Sure they can, if: a) it might get them in legal hot water, or b) it is personal and they don’t want to get into it. You’re not owed anything by anyone here, and they did bring up an example about family court and link to an article about it. :)
  - xeromal 5y ago
    Seems like a lame way to bring up an example to me.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      I disagree, but fair enough. Doesn't mean any of us are entitled to elaboration, though.
    - throwaway09223 5y ago
      Imagine how it feels from the perspective of the person constrained by an illegal court order.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- chris_wot 5y ago
  They absolutely do not have to explain themselves further. They owe you (and us) nothing.
  - xeromal 5y ago
    I just mean from a debat/argument standpoint. How can someone say "No, that's incorrect, but I refuse to elaborate". Why even talk? lol
    - Espressosaurus 5y ago
      They gave an example with an article. That much is enough to say "this is a thing that happens" without divulging sensitive information.
    - borski 5y ago
      Because this isn’t a formal debate, and generally we trust in others’ firsthand experiences, especially when they link to a related article, even if it isn’t precisely the story that happened to them. The GP is, in this case, an original source and as per the HN guidelines [1] we assume good faith. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - xeromal 5y ago
        Thanks for linking the rules. I'll accept that.
      - KennyBlanken 5y ago
        The sentence you conveniently left out leaves out the context of "assume good faith": > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. That does not, in any way, say "assume anecdotes are trustworthy." Nowhere in the rules does it say or even imply this. It is also laughable to suggest the HN community assumes good faith; the comments section has a substantial amount of comments from software engineers thinking they're qualified to rip apart the work of people who are professionals in their fields, usually with high levels of derision. Regardless of what HN rules say, anecdotes are literally the worst way of supporting an argument, subject to no end of observer biases.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  When someone says “I’m legally prohibited from saying certain things,” you can’t reasonably expect then to detail those things. This is why censorship is so dangerous … especially in a society that presumes freedom of speech. There was a fascinating article (can’t find it) about the recipient of a NSL complaining to their congressman about being censored. Their congressman told them such censorship was impossible under the current law so they shouldn’t worry about it. They wanted to say “yes it’s possible, it’s happened to me.” But that would have been illegal. So it was impossible to convince their congressman to look into it, and therefore impossible to get the law changed.
  - salawat 5y ago
    They should have followed through and popped open the can on their Congressperson then, rendering it now a political issue. If you want to see the Judiciary rein it in, get a Congressperson involved. The Executive is fudged for, the Legislative can rewrite the entire corpus with due process.
bladegash 5y ago
Yep, ex parte family law orders should be available for extreme situations, but they are widely abused, only need to meet a legal standard of preponderance of evidence, do not require underlying criminal conduct, and can deprive a person of constitutional rights for months or more. They were technically temporary orders pending a full hearing, but those hearings can be delayed for a variety of reasons. In one order based on allegations, a person can lose access to their property, children, and more, all without being able to defense themselves or even participate in the hearing. It’s messed up.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  - ozfive 5y ago
    C'mon now ... This is inappropriate at the very least.
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  In my case, it was not issued ex-parte. In fact, it was not even requested relief. My impression is that these sorts of prior restraints are so normalized that they're applied as a matter of course.
  - bladegash 5y ago
    Wow, sorry to hear that. Can definitely introduce significant mistrust in the system and for good reason. Hope things have worked out better in the long term for you though!
thoraway88 5y ago

xeromal 5y ago

You can't bring up an anecdote as a counterpoint then refuse to explain the anecdote. It's a bit unfair. Edit: someone posted the rules that says we should accept people's comments in good faith. I'll try to do that. Leaving this comment for posterity.

borski 5y ago
Sure they can, if: a) it might get them in legal hot water, or b) it is personal and they don’t want to get into it. You’re not owed anything by anyone here, and they did bring up an example about family court and link to an article about it. :)
- xeromal 5y ago
  Seems like a lame way to bring up an example to me.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    I disagree, but fair enough. Doesn't mean any of us are entitled to elaboration, though.
  - throwaway09223 5y ago
    Imagine how it feels from the perspective of the person constrained by an illegal court order.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
chris_wot 5y ago
They absolutely do not have to explain themselves further. They owe you (and us) nothing.
- xeromal 5y ago
  I just mean from a debat/argument standpoint. How can someone say "No, that's incorrect, but I refuse to elaborate". Why even talk? lol
  - Espressosaurus 5y ago
    They gave an example with an article. That much is enough to say "this is a thing that happens" without divulging sensitive information.
  - borski 5y ago
    Because this isn’t a formal debate, and generally we trust in others’ firsthand experiences, especially when they link to a related article, even if it isn’t precisely the story that happened to them. The GP is, in this case, an original source and as per the HN guidelines [1] we assume good faith. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - xeromal 5y ago
      Thanks for linking the rules. I'll accept that.
    - KennyBlanken 5y ago
      The sentence you conveniently left out leaves out the context of "assume good faith": > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. That does not, in any way, say "assume anecdotes are trustworthy." Nowhere in the rules does it say or even imply this. It is also laughable to suggest the HN community assumes good faith; the comments section has a substantial amount of comments from software engineers thinking they're qualified to rip apart the work of people who are professionals in their fields, usually with high levels of derision. Regardless of what HN rules say, anecdotes are literally the worst way of supporting an argument, subject to no end of observer biases.
pyuser583 5y ago
When someone says “I’m legally prohibited from saying certain things,” you can’t reasonably expect then to detail those things. This is why censorship is so dangerous … especially in a society that presumes freedom of speech. There was a fascinating article (can’t find it) about the recipient of a NSL complaining to their congressman about being censored. Their congressman told them such censorship was impossible under the current law so they shouldn’t worry about it. They wanted to say “yes it’s possible, it’s happened to me.” But that would have been illegal. So it was impossible to convince their congressman to look into it, and therefore impossible to get the law changed.
- salawat 5y ago
  They should have followed through and popped open the can on their Congressperson then, rendering it now a political issue. If you want to see the Judiciary rein it in, get a Congressperson involved. The Executive is fudged for, the Legislative can rewrite the entire corpus with due process.

bladegash 5y ago

Yep, ex parte family law orders should be available for extreme situations, but they are widely abused, only need to meet a legal standard of preponderance of evidence, do not require underlying criminal conduct, and can deprive a person of constitutional rights for months or more. They were technically temporary orders pending a full hearing, but those hearings can be delayed for a variety of reasons. In one order based on allegations, a person can lose access to their property, children, and more, all without being able to defense themselves or even participate in the hearing. It’s messed up.

datavirtue 5y ago
- ozfive 5y ago
  C'mon now ... This is inappropriate at the very least.
throwaway09223 5y ago
In my case, it was not issued ex-parte. In fact, it was not even requested relief. My impression is that these sorts of prior restraints are so normalized that they're applied as a matter of course.
- bladegash 5y ago
  Wow, sorry to hear that. Can definitely introduce significant mistrust in the system and for good reason. Hope things have worked out better in the long term for you though!

thoraway88 5y ago