Comments on: Failed Marriages, Round Two: If At First You Don’t Succeed…

By: ilise

ilise — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:36:42 +0000

I guess the question here is whether or not therre is jurisdiction in cyberspace and whose space is it anyways.

that is the only point that is of interest to me in this case.
Evenif all the law in the world supports the notion that a soon-to-be-ex can post anything he wants from his wife’s diary, whether he claims he fictionalized it or not and whether she left it on prupose or by accident it does seem his behavior is in terribly bad taste and a tad cruel. As for the voyeurs who read his rantings, I can’t account for their taste either.

What I want to know is, whether protected speech or not, whether prior restraint or not,

HOW DO WE KNOW THERE ARE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ON THE WEB?
What additional fundamental constitutional claims exist in cyberspace, if any?

By: Michael Risch

Michael Risch — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:25:46 +0000

I didn’t realize that the journal was left behind, though I think it may not matter from a stolen property point of view. The journal is clearly not his and he knew it, so opening it up, reading it, and posting is an action – just as selling or breaking an inherited heirloom would be, whether or not she left it behind he knew it was not his to do with as he pleased. Perhaps it is “joint property” under family law principles but that seems wrong here.

I wasn’t saying a “trade secret” like liability would apply, but I have to think there is an “invasion of privacy” sort of tort associated with the publication of information that you know was intended to be private and that was not shared with you.

By: Derek Bambauer

Derek Bambauer — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:49:17 +0000

Thanks Michael – can you say more? I’d have to take any physical property to scan it or read it. On the facts from husband’s blog, the wife left the journal behind when she left the marital home. Are you thinking that some sort of trade-secret-like claim of improper means could apply here?

By: Michael Risch

Michael Risch — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:45:48 +0000

If the husband took the physical property in order to post the excerpts, I think there is conduct there. Whether that’s enough to enjoin posting of excerpts from the “stolen” physical property, I don’t know.

By: Derek Bambauer

Derek Bambauer — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:52:57 +0000

Update: There’s a hearing on Tuesday, 5 February, at 9:30AM in the case. The court’s on-line calendar says that it’s for motion practice; I can only assume it’s related to Mr. Krasnansky’s attempt to get Judge Devine to rescind or modify his order. See:

http://www.state.vt.us/courts/court_cal/wnf_cal.htm

By: Tim Armstrong

Tim Armstrong — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:38:59 +0000

Bravo Derek, and bravo Dean Wu, for resisting this laughably hamfisted attempt at censorship. My personal opinion is that, if there is indeed a lack of “general common sense” on display here, it’s not yours.