Embarrassed by public scrutiny, family court Judge Lori B. Jackson attempts to gag AVfM

ErasmusMRA · 2012-10-02T02:27:10+00:00

One has to wonder about the relationship between the guardian ad litem and the courts. One also has to wonder what prompted the guardian ad litem to file the motion.

Who is paying the guardian ad litem fees (now, and before)?

I urge AVfM to contact EFF if a gag order is in fact issued.

dumbguyscene28 · 2012-10-02T02:35:04+00:00

I think there are some interesting free speech issues here. I applaud AVfM for taking this on and seemingly be willing to put their money where their mouth is. If they intend to take actions such at these, I would consider how looking as much like a media outlet as possible would help them in their defenses. IANAL, but I would also examine how wikileaks organized itself and has defended itself in court.

Eryemil · 2012-10-02T04:01:55+00:00

Excellent work guys. Kudos to the people AVFM responsible for this. I hope this serves as an example to all the morons that accuse Paul Elam et al. of being tyrannical monsters.

SSJAmes · 2012-10-02T02:52:08+00:00

When I was a young, naive child, my mom always used to say "If women ran the world there would be no wars." and for some reason I believed that.

Now? Not so much. In fact I think there would be even more wars because feminists like this take everything they don't agree with personally. Then they would just send the stupid men to war (because they like violence so much any way).

I'm actually surprised more women aren't in world leader positions, considering the way some of them feel the need to control everything.

SCCROW · 2012-10-02T08:03:55+00:00

in 2012 we're still giving custody to the abuser?

SilencingNarrative · 2012-10-02T11:03:35+00:00

Well done Paul, avfm, typhonblue, gww, nurdy, and everyone else spending time and money on this. You are just what the MRM needs.

SCCROW · 2012-10-02T17:25:41+00:00

Can I call her "Miss Jackson" if I am nasty?

Lasthcompany · 2012-10-02T17:17:26+00:00

[permanently deleted]

SSJAmes · 2012-10-02T02:58:00+00:00

Feminists are as bad as the Islamists. They will use any means necessary to prevent their corruption from being exposed.

avoiceformen · 2012-10-02T16:40:07+00:00

How can I help?

TheYoungie42 · 2012-10-02T12:59:55+00:00

While I'm more than willing to add my voice to this chorus of others in condemning this judge for a lot of what's gone on here, I must respectfully dissent on the question of making public the specifics of the abuse.

The documentation of the abuse should, and must, be an integral part of any custody hearing. But it should NOT be made public.

Let's think for a minute about the long-term effect it would have on the children. 20 years from now, do you think that they would want people to be able to access records of exactly how they were abused? That is, usually, the purpose of this sort of ruling. It is why the names of child rapists are suppressed (not, as many seem to think, to protect these fuckers from vigilante justice). It is because it is possible (in many cases), from the name of an attacker, to determine the identity of the victim.

Let's give these victims the chance to overcome the abuse, and lead lives as full as possible.

2012-10-02T03:54:02+00:00

Wow, this is a really complicated and interesting issue. I'll be interested to see how far free speech gets upheld when reporting in court cases. Even moreso because it crosses state boundaries.

It's really different here in Australia - especially where minors are involved because they generally cannot be named. Our media does have an awful lot of gag orders given (and broken, too, reporters often go to jail for it on principle).

I find the typical gag order excuse of protecting the judiciary and public from presumptions of guilt, to be quite funny when it's okay to plaster names and faces all over the TV and newspapers for a few months as long as you liberally sprinkle the word "allegedly" everywhere :-/

kazagistar · 2012-10-02T04:58:19+00:00

Dunno, I feel like I would like for rapists and their accusers to have their identities to be kept private until they are convicted. To then want something different in this case seems hypocritical. If injustice is done, you can pulbish after and appeal, right?

Manzboobz · 2012-10-02T14:28:36+00:00

Apparently the MR movement is more important that a child's privacy.

Title	Embarrassed by public scrutiny, family court Judge Lori B. Jackson attempts to gag AVfM
Author	johntheother
Upvotes	187
Comments	101
Date	October 2, 2012 2:01 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10slok/embarrassed_by_public_scrutiny_family_court_judge/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/embarrassed-by-public-scrutiny-family-court-judge.1012267 https://theredarchive.com/post/1012267

Comments