signedbewildered said:
I'm not certain which one of these people I dislike more. It really rubbed me the wrong way when she was given every opportunity at HER forum to make some sort of apology to Hauck and his family for pasting his name on book about rape and she didn't even hint it.
Now it didn't take her long to chime in on social media after yesterday's victory gloating about how she is such a world saver and making additional accusations against him that were never before printed. She's a hero says one fan.
No hero of mine. A hero sinks back into anonymity after they "save the day." She is doing anything but. I refuse to feel any deep sympathy for her.
This is my one and only post in this thread:
I take no position at all. It would seem, however, that if the aim of the order is to diffuse a contentious situation, the court might admonish the moving party that further social media posting regarding the responding party may not be the best means to achieve that aim. I'm not talking about a bilateral protective order, because that was not before the court (to my knowledge). I'm just saying that in my limited experience in this area, a judge usually says to try to "stay away" from the subject of the protective order, rather than potentially inciting further conflict on social media. I haven't and won't read the transcript, so maybe the court did say that, IDK. Two cents.