"But hurtful speech directed against a private person is not going to get very much first amendment protection."

A "your speech was hurtful to me" standard for gutting another's First Amendment rights is as absurd as it is dangerous. Do I get to decide which published statements about me are "hurtful"? Can I seek a court order against you once I have deemed your opinions, written here in opposition to mine, are "Hurtful" to me?

Nowhere in TFA was it asserted that Libelous statements or direct threats of bodily harm had ever been published on the blog. There are no "Privacy" laws that make it a crime for one person to publish factual information about another (with the rather curious exception of "Loathsome Diseases" under Libel law). You have no legal right to absolute privacy.

It does not matter what the venue or media used is. WWW Blog or soapbox in the park, divulging information about another person that is non-libelous and lacks threats of bodily harm is simply not against the law and is well away from the First Amendment's slippery slope of censorship. Claims that the published speech constituted an "endangerment threat" are obviously overblown, threadbare and translate directly to hic et nunc liability for the pre-crime actions of unknown third parties in the future.

Yes, this guy is very likely a vindictive asshole, but that's never been against the law, has it?

Unpopular, despicable and even odious speech is protected constitutionally and this fellow is entitled to write whatever he cares to and publish it in whatever manner he sees fit, be it internet blog, book or clay tablets.

Now where the Judge -does- has specific powers to help this woman out is in limiting this fellows -contact actions- that are specifically targeted at this woman and her friends, family and co-workers. He does not publish the blog -at- anyone. He publishes it for everyone. Emails, notes and letters sent to specific individuals is not publishing, it is direct communication which he can be ordered to cease without violating his fundamental constitutional right to free speech.

.

.

Ah, yes. Very familiar with that range.

The "Ex-Wife" frequencies.

.

.

When are we going to start burning all the Astrologists as Witches?

This lawsuit would seem to be ample provocation.

.

.

Who am I and where is my car?

.

"Here in America we have the corrupt neo-cons/tea*, the corrupt DAs and the corrupt police that support these kinds of actions"

I can't tell you distressing and frankly offensive I found this sentence to be.

As politically conservative as they come, and a proud Taxed Enough Already activist, I deeply believe in the bedrock value of the "Rule of Law" and insist that the U.S Constitution be recognized and upheld as the highest law of the land at all levels of government.

Police Officers who cannot embrace or be trusted with the truth (like a video of their own actions) should find themselves permanently unemployable in any law enforcement capacity as they clearly have forgotten that in their roles as Police Officers, they are servants and protectors of the People, not overlords.

...and it is a f-a-c-i-n-a-t-i-n-g read.

Probably one of the most interesting items in the book was about the first "weaponeer", a fellow who was present at the Trinity, Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonations charged with assembling, testing and arming the devices.

Truly, a special place in history for that guy.

...and I cherish the First Amendment above all the others.... ...but just this once....I'm gonna be spending all my time looking in another direction.

And -Damn you to Hell- Fred Phelps, and your inbred collection of Olympic class haters, for pushing me to this hypocrisy.

Eh...It's a living.

'Cause they might be yummy!