Freedom Of Speech VS Facebook

I was trying to keep an open mind when I started reading about Mark Byron.  The reason I had reservations was that the word "threatened" came up early in the story.  I read this from end to end and no threats came forth.  Instead, it seems Byron vented his frustration with his divorce, and has now been ordered to post an apology on Facebook or face 60 days of jail time.  He's to post it every day for a month, and the woman who says she has been so offended isn't even one of his Facebook friends, so she will never be able to see it!

The idea "that anybody could tell you what to say to your friends on Facebook should be scary to people," said Cincinnati attorney Jill Meyer, who specializes in free speech and media issues.

The ruling is highly unusual and "troubling because it's a court telling someone to say something to - in some regards - his chosen group of friends," said Meyer. She noted that the comments were not directed to Byron's wife, Elizabeth Byron, who was blocked from accessing the page.

According to the ruling, Byron posted comments on his page in November, saying in part, "If you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband's life and take your son's father away from him completely - all you need to do is say you're scared of your husband or domestic partner and they'll take him away."

Greiner said he doesn't think the First Amendment "allows a court to find that someone has harassed or caused a person to suffer mental abuse merely by expressing one's opinion about a court proceeding in a non-threatening way."

Greiner said that a court compelling speech through a court-written apology raises as many free speech concerns as actions prohibiting free speech.

I've seen worse Facebook divorces. I find it troubling that a man is forced to repeat a statement he feels to be false as punishment for making statements he felt to be true. It doesn't seem that there is any kind of successful slander or libel route from his ex-wife, so the evidence would seem to be imply that Byron is within the boundaries of the law, if not those of good taste.