"The way to evil, is to have good people do nothing." It happened yes, but the people that did it still need to be held accountable. We can still tell our politicians that this sort of thing has to stop or they won't be staying in office.

Quote - >> Psychologist tell us that 25 percent of the US population are "Authoritarian Followers".

And another sizable percentage like myself are hardcore cynics when it comes to anyone manipulating the media, whether the government or an aggrieved individual. The truth in this no doubt lies somewhere in the middle -- all we're getting is one side of it.

This is just interesting that you say this...since this whole thing started from the State wanting to make sure that the media only got one side of things......their side.

That is just what the GAL stated "the best interests of the children" in order to get her motion through. However, if you read the article an Indiana law professor himself did stated that it was unconstitutional and if you read the law I quoted this is a problem on a Federal level. I may not be a lawyer but take a look at this, article 1, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution states:

No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever; but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible. Accordingly, Section 9 expressly extends protection to speaking, writing or printing “on any subject whatever.”  case law in Indiana  “affirms the rights of expression in language more comprehensive than the First Amendment.”

So if Indiana allows that a teenager screaming vulgarities about the school policy about piercing is deemed to be protected under Indiana then a man complaining about how agents of the state in their capacity as state workers wronged him and his family should also be protected. This protection should not be based upon whether he is suspected of any foul action, nor should it be based on "the best interests of the children" as gaged by the State. He is still their father and still innocent in the terms of the law, so he should be allowed free speech.

Prior Restraints

A prior restraint is an official restriction of speech prior to publication. Prior restraints are viewed by the U.S. Supreme Court as "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights."1 Since 1931, the Court repeatedly has found that such attempts to censor the media are presumed unconstitutional.2

In the 1976 landmark case Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the Court addressed the constitutionality of an order prohibiting the media from publishing or broadcasting certain information about Erwin Charles Simants, who was accused of murdering the Henry Kellie family in a small town in Nebraska. This case pitted the First Amendment rights of a free press against the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.

To ensure that Simants received a fair trial, the Nebraska Supreme Court modified the district court's order to prohibit reporting of confessions or admissions made by Simants or facts "strongly implicative" of Simants.

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the prior restraint order. The Court emphasized that the use of prior restraint is an "immediate and irreversible sanction" that greatly restricts the First Amendment rights of the press. "If it can be said that a threat of criminal or civil sanctions after publication chills' speech, prior restraintfreezes' it at least for the time," Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the Court.

To determine whether the prior restraint order was justified, the Court applied a form of the "clear and present danger" test, examining whether "the gravity of the `evil,' discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger." In applying this test, the Court articulated a three-part analytical framework, which imposed a heavy burden on the party seeking to restrain the press. First, the Court examined "the nature and extent of the pretrial news coverage." Second, the Court considered whether other less restrictive measures would have alleviated the effects of pretrial publicity. Finally, the Court considered the effectiveness of a restraining order in preventing the threatened danger.

The Court found that the trial judge reasonably concluded that the "intense and pervasive pretrial publicity" in the Simants case "might reasonably impair the defendant's right to a fair trial." However, the trial judge did not consider whether other measures short of a prior restraint order would protect the defendant's rights. The trial judge should have considered changing the location of the trial, postponing the trial, intensifying screening of prospective jurors, providing emphatic and clear instructions to jurors about judging the case only on the evidence presented in the courtroom or sequestering the jury.

The Court also found that the effectiveness of the trial judge's prior restraint order to protect Simants' right to a fair trial was questionable.

This is from the first amendment handbook
http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c05p01.html

To the guy who was frustrated by the judge... well, folks, sadly, a judge can tell a paper not to print something. That happens a lot in cases like this. And it's very, very constitutional.

Actually it's not, that was my point. It's called prior restraint and the only times, and I mean the only times that it's actually allowed to be used is for matter of "National Security" or when somebody's right to a fair trial would be impinged on and even then it's a matter of the very last resort and most often struck down even in those cases.

This judge and the gaurdian ad litem didn't bother to talk with the father to ask that he not talk about things, they went behind his back, did not bother to tell his lawyer what was going on, and issued a restraining order that not only kept him from talking but cut the stories of six other people.

Think about it, how would you feel about your rights were being treated if your responses never saw the light of day because a judge, without giving you a chance to contest or even know until after the fact, told Rosity...."here's a restraining order, don't publish anything this person says until I have a chance to look at it and say it's o.k.." Now do you think it's Constitutional?

Yes,it was OT I made sure I labeled as such. What gets me though is that it doesn't matter whether or not the father is a scumbag or not. His rights were violated, and that's what I was trying to get across, he could be Charles Manson and still deserve to speak freely.

I meant to say, like them both. Poser 7 is really zips along on my comp compared to P6.

O.k. Here's mine:) Different years, same subject matter!

I have her and would be glad to help test. My email is kirstenmaloney@comcast.net.

Cass, it was a bad joke...gross as in a unit of measure as opposed to gross as in disgusting. :)

ah...thanks, let me try that...

looks great!